Posted on 11/20/2015 12:40:57 PM PST by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, we know The Politico's where the Republican establishment goes to leak. The Politico, that's where the Republican Party establishment leaks their plans. That's where they leak their intentions. That's the mainstream. The Republican establishment has chosen The Politico as their jumping-off point to have people in the establishment know what they're doing, as opposed to leaking it to me, as opposed to leaking it to, take your pick of a conservative, they go to the Politico.
So here it is, the headline: "GOP Group Plans Most Aggressive Anti-Trump Campaign Yet." And there is a companion story here about how frustrated they are. There's a companion story that they can't find any donors. They're out of donors, they just can't find anybody to fund their anti-Trump activity, the establishment. The Republican establishment is just at their wits' end. They thought Trump would be gone by now and they can't find anybody willing to help them because nobody thinks it can be done now.
And amidst all that is the story from The Politico. It's by Alex Isenstadt, and what this is is a pro-Kasich super PAC is on a mission to take down Trump once and for all. And again they've leaked all this to The Politico. Here are the details. "John Kasich has attacked Donald Trump relentlessly in debates and now his super PAC is planning to invest $2.5 million in the most aggressive takedown of the poll leader yet -- on behalf of an increasingly anxious GOP establishment. The attack, according to a blueprint shared with Politico --" They haven't even leaked it. They shared it with them. "The attack will play out over the next two months on radio, TV, mail and online in New Hampshire. Strategists with the pro-Kasich group, called New Day for America, say the budget for the anti-Trump campaign is likely to grow.
"The offensive comes as some in the GOP are beginning to plot how to combat the real estate mogul and entertainer, who many are convinced would essentially deliver the White House to Democrats if he were the nominee. In launching the effort, the group hopes to position Kasich, who has lagged in the Republican contest and is searching for momentum, as a central Trump antagonist. 'We will be the tip of the spear against Trump,' said Matt David, a spokesman for the super PAC.
"Rather than go after Trump for his business dealings or his past support for liberal causes, as some of his opponents have tried to do, the super PAC will depict Trump as someone who would be a deeply ineffective commander-in-chief and ill-suited for the demands of the Oval Office.
Fred Davis, the group’s colorful Hollywood-based ad-maker who is best-known for producing the 'Demon Sheep' ad in the 2010 California Senate race, is working on a pair of anti-Trump TV ads. The commercials, David said, are designed to 'accelerate what we believe would be buyers’ remorse' that would arise from a Trump presidency." So they're readying ads out there at the Kasich PAC, super PAC that will be showing people regretting they voted for Trump at a mysterious time post-Trump inauguration.
"The group’s first volley came Thursday, when it released an ad that pictured the billionaire side by side with President Barack Obama. 'On the job training for president does not work,' says the ad, which invokes last week’s tragic Paris terrorist attacks. The group is currently spending about $600,000 to air the commercial, though David said more airtime is being purchased. For all the nervousness about Trump’s candidacy, however, few in the GOP have directed resources toward defeating him." By the way, that's bogus. I mean, in each of the first two debates we heard how this Republican faction or that was assigned to take Trump out. Maybe they mean this is the first serious expenditure of money. "Republican groups such as the Chamber of Commerce --" really? The Chamber of Commerce is a Republican group still? Who would have thought. Yeah. Here we go.
"Prominent Republican groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Karl Rove-founded ... American Crossroads, both establishment vehicles, have not spent any money against Trump.Yet with the Iowa caucuses just a little more than two months away, and with Trump still riding high, the calculus may be changing. This week, as top party operatives and donors gathered in Las Vegas for the Republican Governors Association meeting, many contributors privately expressed unease about Trump’s consistent lead in early state and national polling.
Trump responded to the news by lashing out at Kasich on Twitter." (laughing) Trump responded to the news.
Well, anyway, so there you have it, the GOP -- and I can't find the companion story here. I thought I printed it out. Here it is. It's a Breitbart story and the headline is pretty indicative here. It says the GOP admits it can't raise money to defeat Trump. "GOP Establishment Operative Can't Get Donors for Anti-Trump Super PAC."
Now, this is not New Hampshire, this is South Carolina, this is a whole different super PAC. This is not the Kasich super PAC. Apparently the Kasich super PAC have got no trouble here getting money. Or maybe they've already got the money. They're just allocating how they're gonna spend it. This story says this.
"On Tuesday, in an unwitting and probably grudging admission that Donald Trump’s power is not going to erode any time soon, Politico published an article acknowledging that efforts by Katon Dawson, the former chairman of the South Carolina GOP, to form a super PAC for the express purpose of derailing Trump have found no donors willing to commit. Dawson acknowledged, 'I specifically did not find the right donor to get me to go to that effort.' The GOP establishment, befuddled at Trump’s resilience, expressed confidence that Ben Caron’s discomfort in answering foreign policy questions --" Oh, did you hear what Carson said? They're all over him, too.
Yeah, he was talking about Syrian refugees and others at this moment in time, he said, "If you had a rabid dog in the neighborhood, what would you do?" And so they're now running around saying that Carson compared Syrian refugees to rabid dogs. And again everybody knows that's not what he meant. If he was comparing anybody to rabid dogs, he's talking about these terrorists that just wantonly kill like a rabid dog does. But these are the broad base generalizations and assumptions the media is only too happy to make about Republicans.
END TRANSCRIPT
Really, I would not worry about this with Trump...most, well most all of it is a way to upset the support of Trump, this certainly isn’t upsetting Trump...
It’s not uncommon for ‘opportuntist’ people to try and ‘scare’ voters away from someone else, they can try, the ‘grandma going to be pushed off the cliff’ or they can have certain articles written that look like they said something, when in fact they didn’t...this is just the way the game is played...
I’m not falling for any of it, Trump is a very strong willed person and he knows so very well how this game is played and those ‘infintiles’ that are trying to oust him, hah I just shake my head and laugh!!!
Stand up, Stand Tall, Head held high, Eyes forward....we are Trump supporters...
GO TRUMP ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE!!!
Thank you for your reply.
It is no secret that I don't trust Donald Trump. I regarded him as a spoiler in conservative politics as early as April 2011 (with a hat tip to TheRightGuy for the tag line). As you will note, Trump is doing EXACTLY as then predicted, because it was obvious even then that he was a shill for the Clintons, leading conservatives over the cliff telling them what they want to hear.
He even says so:
Personally, I think the distinction between Cruz and Trump insofar as the GOPe is concerned is that they HATE Trump but they FEAR Cruz, and for good reason. Ted Cruz will build a DOJ that will go after corporate corruption and enforce antitrust law (I can hear the screaming from K Street from here in California). Trump on the other hand, LOVES government favors for big business (such as Kelo). He is unlikely to do anything about the corruption and bureaucracy killing this economy, as he and his kind have made a big deal of taking advantage of it for decades. What the GOPe hates in Trump is that he will take care of his friends and doesn't give a crap about their K Street friends.
Anybody familiar with the history of wild swings in immigration law understands that the big problems in the last century began with Ted Kennedy's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The Slave Party goal has obviously been demographic: Democrats import third whirled voters to be future dependents and ignorant of the Constitution and its principles, thus staying in power to sell favors to the fabulously rich while sticking the upper middle class with the bill. Worse, court decisions made a mockery of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause to and for the same effect with a bogus interpretation of what it is to be "subject to the jurisdiction." Worse yet, the cost of taxation to support these dependents and their kids has forced the middle class to curtail the size of their own families, making the children of immigrants and welfare cases the majority in many public schools, dragging down children of better established families wherever aliens and immigrants predominate. In some schools in Silicon Valley for example, one can find over ten languages spoken in a single classroom. NOBODY can learn in an environment like that. Worse, the clash of cultures leads to yet more government to settle the resulting disputes. The never ending result is a cycle of more ignorance, lower earning ability, more crime, more imprisonment, more unionized police, more welfare case workers, more prison guards, remedial educators... more government unions beholden to Democrats. Yes, when Democrats say, "Diversity is OUR strength," they aren't talking about anybody but themselves.
No one who remembers the California of the early 1960s has failed to note the disaster that has become Los Angeles and what that invasion has meant to the State as a whole.
Hence, to fail to evaluate the various immigration proposals among Republican candidates in terms of their demographic and consequent political effects is insane. As conservatives, there are but three candidates with a solid evaluation of their proposals from NumbersUSA: Trump, Cruz, and Santorum. Santorum isn't going anywhere, so let's compare Cruz' and Trump's for the practical effects of their proposals.
As you admitted, Trump's proposal is to deport them all and allow only "the good ones" back in on an expedited basis. The more one reads what Trump has to say the more one realizes this will be a VERY expedited step over the border and back for the majority of current illegals, wall or no wall. Current illegal aliens will become LEGAL immigrants or "guest workers," which is not at all clear in his plan. Nevertheless, the practical effect is equivalent to amnesty, with the difference that it will take a little longer, and cost a little more for the minimally effective background checks, but with the benefit of screening out known violent criminals. In any event, it is very unlikely there will be any penalties commensurate for the costs these people have imposed upon us for having overstayed their visas or worse. Trump's supporters say that this will only apply to the law-abiding, but one has to ask: which laws? So let's for a moment consider the range of laws usually broken by illegal aliens with families.
Most have fraudulent Social Security numbers, under which they apply for an impressive array of goodies, from disability to SSI, every one of which involves the crime of making false statements to a public official. Many live in homes with numerous families in the dwelling, often exceeding the limits allowed by local laws. Many carry diseases and their homes routinely violate public health standards. They clog emergency rooms for routine care. They drive cars without insurance. They skip the country when they have accidents and stiff the victims. Their kids cost us far more than the actual and outrageous dollar value of public "education," particularly because anchor babies are usually eligible for affirmative action placement (seeing as they were so downtrodden) and that's presuming said "children" don't become drug dealing gang-bangers instead. Further, the availability of low-wage workers displaces native-born citizens even in management positions, particularly because so few Americans speak Spanish with which to direct the illegals. It has been so long that these people have predominated in those kinds of jobs that there is actually an institutional language barrier against the English speaking applicant.
So nobody needs to tell me the problems the demography of illegals have posed; they are legion. They have destroyed my once beloved, admired, and idyllic California and turned it into a degenerating cesspool of crime and corruption. It is a continuing and unfolding tragedy.
Trump proposes to deport all illegals, supposedly forcibly, but he has never offered HOW he's going to accomplish that in any credible sense (I want you to imagine the amount of force he would need to sort out the barrios of LA). He clearly uses the prospect of an expedited return as an inducement to self-deport, equivalent to the bill offered by Kay Bailey Hutchison in 2007 and rejected as equivalent to amnesty, which it was. So why is Trump's plan acceptable now? People are more desperate, noting that these illegals have been here so long as to have produced hordes of anchor babies who are starting to vote. Adding the rest with an amnesty would spell the end of the Republic. Yet anybody who thinks there won't be a restraining order in a heartbeat on Trump's mass deportations, well... they've apparently never seen SPLC or MALDEF lawyers in action. So what will he do then?
If Trump ignores the black-robed tyrants he will have offered the next Slave Party president a terrible precedent. Consider the recent 5th Circuit appellate decision in that context; our next Commander Xero would just ignore it and issue citizenship papers (along with voter registration forms). If on the other hand, he shrugs his shoulders and abides by the court, we will go back to the status quo ante we have now, with no benefit at all to electing this former Democrat. And please don't tell me "so was Reagan;" you know better.
So the net effect of Trump's plan, even if in the unlikely event it is actually implemented, is to blow off the systemic fraud in the name of supplying low-wage workers to his milieu of corporate employers. As I have said many times, given that Trump is in the business of building and operating casinos, hotels, and golf courses, the bulk of jobs he creates are for dishwashers, maids, groundskeepers, low-skill construction laborers... If anyone here thinks for one second he's going to commit financial suicide... So no, his plan is amnesty in all but name, and worse if the courts shut him down. Everything I've heard on this forum to the contrary is nothing more than wishful thinking unsupported by reality.
By contrast Cruz doesn't propose mass deportation, which has many people justifiably concerned that he plans an amnesty (as if such would be measurably worse). Yet the principal feature of what he proposes is to make life for illegals in America difficult, thus forcing them to leave on their own with NO promise of any kind of return, much less an expedited one with legal status. Cruz' first step will be to enforce existing laws, which virtually ALL of us agree are for the most part acceptable legislation that has never been enforced. Cruz SAYS he will 'find and deport criminal immigrants,' (whatever that means) and I agree, what constitutes "criminal" is as big a point of subjectivity (just as it is with Trump). Hence, there is no difference between the two candidates on that metric in terms of demographic consequences other than that under Trump illegal aliens will have been rewarded by becoming legal to work here, which I would hardly call an improvement.
Cruz' point of "criminalize visa overstays" is problematic in that regard in that it is already illegal to overstay a visa but not defined as a chargeable crime. The biggest difference is that Cruz does not propose means to "legalize" illegals as Trump clearly does.
One legitimately has to ask why Cruz never talks about mass deportations and avoids the question when asked in debates. Many here presume he therefore doesn't mean for illegals to leave. I think there is another explanation beyond that unsupported assertion: To state such flatly without ambiguity would be to give his RINO/crat enemies a weapon against him. So I see it as tactical. Let's face it, Cruz knows he will face the same media character assassination that Reagan did and worse: "warmonger, racist, elitist, uncaring, enemy of the poor..." it will go on, and on, and on. We all know it. So why give them a scenario in which they can fantasize armored columns of Federal SWAT teams entering various barrios and rounding them up into camps amid a hail of bullets, with resulting deaths of innocents. Film at 11:00. Why give them that now? Besides, it’s unnecessary, as you will see when I get to that later.
Now the strangest thing about both plans is that neither candidate proposes to use Congress' power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts to prevent MALDEF et al from derailing the legal deportation process. The correct solution is for Congress to take jurisdiction over all matters related to aliens away from the Federal courts and set up an administrative system with which to confirm citizenship or its lack prior to initiating the deportation process. The courts should have NOTHING to say about deportations; their jurisdiction pertains to American citizens.
Unlike Trump, Cruz has promised to curtail legal immigration until employment conditions have improved. Trump has made vague promises to favor Americans in his policies but has not explained what he means. Cruz has dropped his commitment to triple H-1B visas and has promised a moratorium on H-1B visas pursuant to an investigation at the end of which it would appear that he intends to actually penalize past abuses of the program and make future abuse a criminal act (see above re fear v. hate). He promises to end chain migration and will bias future refugee programs toward people who are actually persecuted. There will be no more of the racist "diversity visas." All are moving in the right direction. Trump proposes unconstitutional wage controls on H-1B visas and is not at all specific about how he proposes to promote hiring of American workers.
One feature I applaud in Cruz' plan is that he does not propose to make e-Verify mandatory nationally as Trump does. Mandatory e-Verify is clearly an unconstitutional search and a usurpation of the power to control EVERY employment agreement. It is ripe for the kind of abuses that make the current IRS scandals look like a tea party. Cruz DOES propose to make e-Verify mandatory for federal employment and or contracting, which is within his Constitutional authority as an employer. He gets the Constitutional distinction.
Another feature of Cruz' plan is that he proposes stripping the tax benefits of hiring illegals, something Trump does not. Yet as a big employer of low skilled labor Trump simply has to know better. It's a red flag that I believe indicates his real intentions.
Both candidates plan to enforce the public charge doctrine, the lack of which is a major cause of visa overstays. Both candidates support an impenetrable border with adequate staffing. There is no difference there.
As I linked above, I think Cruz' legal take on 14th Amendment birthright citizenship is wrong in that he does not understand the 19th Century meaning of the term "subject to the jurisdiction" correctly, although it looks as if he's moderating that position to 'birthright citizenship is a questionable distortion of what was meant to be a temporal application to former slaves only' (as opposed to 'as regards to the children of foreigners, the Constitution prohibits birthright citizenship'). However, his is both a very common misunderstanding and is likely to be the holding by the current SCOTUS-bogus. I am hoping that Cruz may come to change that position, as his promise to 'do what I can statutorially' may fail and his backup position of 'if that doesn't go through I will support a Constitutional amendment' is likely to be without effect. I do think his predispositions and current plan are headed in the right direction and that as he does the legal research, being an originalist, his position will come around to mine, namely that the 14th Amendment PROHIBITED children of aliens from becoming citizens by birth; they would have to go through the usual naturalization process for immigrants. We'll see. I don't see Trump actually wrestling with the content of the issue but instead punting to his hired experts, whoever they may be.
Both candidates will triple ICE enforcement, which I do not propose to do (I will get to my proposed means to increase detainment pursuant to deportation without more LEOs). In my opinion, we don't need what is supposed to be a temporary situation building another massive government union expecting full retirement benefits (think of what the prison guards union has done in California). Both candidates will increase the number of administrative judges to handle the temporary workload.
Both candidates will take multiple measures to eliminate sanctuary cities.
The net effects of Trump's program is to cleanse the illegal population of violent criminals and legalize the rest (whatever that means) to welcome much of the current horde back in as long as they only broke some of our laws; i.e., those HE regards as less important, which he has not elaborated. The net effects of Cruz' program are to drive out illegals with no "operation touchback" while curtailing the influx of future Democrats and dependents (but I repeat myself).
Guess which plan leads to more Democrats? Trump's, because his program readmits current illegals without regard to the labor market and on an expedited basis as "legal" to be followed by a "big beautiful door" in whatever wall he intends to build. Cruz will only readmit immigrants if the labor market warrants and they go through the usual process. Whatever form of "legal," whether immigrant or temporary guest worker, Trump has not made clear. Cruz emphasizes employing existing laws to slowly chase them out, permanently, while simultaneously regulating LEGAL immigration according to the real underlying unemployment rate.
To me, the critical issue with Cruz re deportations is families with violent young males, drug dealers, MS-13 types, etc. That Cruz does not say he will conduct sweeps of some sort should be concerning to some, but allow me to say that there may well be a better way to get the bulk of them out of the country without the need to assemble an army to invade large parts of LA or its equivalent. I don't think any of us wants the death of whatever innocents (particularly small children) that may be among them. Hang on, I'll get to that.
I have been critical more than once about Trump being a HUGE employer of groundskeepers, maids, busboys, and construction laborers, and have actually had FReepers in all seriousness accuse me of being some kind of an elitist, as if I think such work is beneath Americans. This is an incredibly offensive charge to me. I was merely stating a fact of Trump's obvious motives for what I think he will do. Contrary to that bogus and unsupported assertion, I have said more than once I want Americans doing those jobs, although I do realize the herculean task of moving that many of the aging unemployed to the places where those jobs are. As to any condescension about doing that kind of work, I have personally done far more odious work than any of those jobs (and if any of you think that crawling on your belly cleaning the bilge of a rolling boat full of fumes and seawater with your chest pinned between the floorboards above and the ribs below doesn't count as "odious"... or having to sleep in a room full of toluene fumes... or scraping toxic boat bottom paint until your eyes wouldn't open for thirty minutes the next day... or drilling out bolts with a corded drill and no ground-fault protection... etc. isn't more unpleasant and dangerous than changing sheets or washing dishes, well.. then whoever thinks that can go to hell).
Yet illegals are not only preferred for low-skill jobs, they get high-skill high-hazard jobs too because the employers avoid the workman's comp insurance costs and push those off onto taxpayers. A classic is tree trimming. Guess what? In fact, yesterday I was forty feet up an oak tree overhanging a public road. I was hanging on the underside of a leaning tree with a rotten stump. No, there was nobody to stop traffic below me to keep them from running over the body. Yes, the tree was 18" in diameter where I parted it 15' up to turn it into a gin pole for getting out the logs. Anybody who would accuse me of being too elitist to get my hands can cram it sideways for leveling such an unsupported accusation against a FReeper of fifteen years for the mere benefit of political posturing (I don't mean you D1). But I digress.
So now we get to what I do think should be done, but first I would like to explain the primary problem with Trump's supporters: They want a savior. They expect HIM to fix it. Except that WE made this problem. How? We keep expecting "the government" to protect us, effectively forgetting that this was to be SELF-GOVERNMENT, a "government of the people," namely us. Pray tell, haven't we learned the fallacy of that expectation? When we expect "the government" to do it, the more we give it because it fails, the more power it gains OVER us. Isn't that what we are seeing?
Among the functions of government is law enforcement. For the first 100 years of this country's history, there were NO police. Guess who did that work? Guess who brought criminals to trial? Guess who sat in judgment.
Accordingly, what I propose NOBODY proposes, in that it adheres to the Constitutional principle that ALL law enforcement was to be the responsibility, no, the DUTY of the people, as embodied by the national unorganized militia and this goes directly to what the Second Amendment is really about, in that whatever army we were to have was to be comprised of the Feds coordinating the State militias under the President as CIC, with the State militias to be comprised of the entire adult male population.
'Oh, but we can't do THAT' (say the real elitists and dependents), 'How would we handle that fancy equipment?'
Said militia was to be capable of functioning as a "regular" army (as professional soldiers in the British army were called at the time), in that we should get regular practice (what "well regulated" means in the Second Amendment). In other words, to hell with a tripled unionized Border Patrol.
'Oh but who has the time?!?!?!' How much time are we spending earning the money to pay the taxes to support said "professionals"? Hence, as far as I am concerned, the people we have now performing police work should be instead training and validating the performance of public volunteers in those functions, much like we used to do with civil defense (which is what this is).
Hence, what we need for dispatching illegals should be so effective that there would be no need for it to be permanent. With the whole militia in force, Congress should do what I have been advocating for over five years: simply issue a bounty for the arrest and detainment of illegal aliens, with heavy penalties for false arrest and harassment of citizens and legal aliens.
This IS within the scope of Article I Section 8. A bounty on an alien criminal is equivalent to a Constitutional letter of Marque against an enemy of the United States per Clause 11, a Constitutionally enumerated power. While such a letter of Marque would name said enemy, it was up to the people as a militia to figure out who that was individually... Barbary Pirates didn't wear uniforms. Sayyyy, that does sound familiar...
Both of the following quotes are from Wikipedia:
A "letter of marque and reprisal" would include permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders.
So, here's the "deportation" element of my plan which is built upon the principle of 'allow the people to get them out of the country':
Step 2: For every alien in the US who entered legally and obtained a visa, put the following data online: their photo, country of origin, last known address, stated purpose of entry, place of entry, entry date, and visa, green card, etc. expiration date... Aliens have no expectation of Fourth Amendment protections.
Step 2: Put a bounty on illegals with a letter of marque and reprisal. You'll find that in Article I, Section 8. Institute any necessary additional laws that criminalize harassing a legal alien or citizen with heavy penalties for false arrest.
Step 4: Put instructional materials on the web to teach the people how to make a legal arrest: standards of evidence, procedural requirements, humane treatment, how to stay safe... the whole bit.
Step 5: Effect online testing for certification as a Deputy Marshall toward supporting citizens in effecting Steps 2-3.
Besides its legal advantages of gathering intelligence (that HUMINT the military keeps begging for), a militia system does not comprise a unionized Federal workforce looking toward retirement. It is by its nature incidental or temporary. As the demand for detaining illegals drops, those people can go back to what they were doing with minimal transition and no unemployment compensation.
Perhaps more importantly, taking civilian law enforcement off life support would get millions of citizens to confront the stupidity of many of the laws police must enforce. That outrage would get them supporting candidates who would make real changes. Further, it would END the sense of helplessness so many people feel about the threat of overwhelm of which illegals remind them. Finally, it would instill a sense of community and respect for one's fellow citizen-warrior willing to take personal risks as a protector and friend. Nobody's going to get rich doing this; it's about compensating them for the risks they'll be taking.
As to whether it would work, I would say extirpating hundreds of millions of passenger pigeons is a fairly good indication of the efficacy of bounties. :-) Note: the system works just as effectively for detecting and incarcerating or deporting Muslim terrorists as it does for illegal aliens. Put the people back into the business of law enforcement!
Note: There was not a single unconstitutional violation of any citizen's privacy or UNALIENABLE right to free association (aka "work"). There were no traps for sole proprietors (such as contractors) who couldn't handle the paperwork or the electronics of e-Verify.
For those who cannot take that risk and cannot afford the cost of compliance under IRCA, there are already companies marketing legal employees. Under this system, those companies would need insurance to deal with the cost of a mistake. The market would quickly find the equilibrium between the risk of error, the price of premiums, and the cost of validation. With people posing as illegals to collect a bounty, they'd be wise to do so.
It beats e-Verify, which is effectively asking the Federal government for permission to enter a private contract for work. Mandatory e-Verify is an outrage against Constitutional liberties and a gross usurpation of police powers not enumerated in Article I Section 8. Any conservative advocating it needs to go to Constitutional boot camp 101. It is a power that in the wrong hands could make the abuses of the IRS look like child's play.
There have been suggestions that a bounty system is likely to be abused and lead to harassment of legal Hispanics and employees under a legal visa. These vicious idiots either can't read what I wrote or willfully ignored what I wrote, because I have NEVER mentioned the bounty system idea without simultaneously suggesting heavy penalties for false arrest or harassment. Further, I have offered an orderly way for the national militia to function under Federal or State supervision. So I will repeat that here.
As to the rest of "my plan" in areas such as the public charge doctrine, taxation advantages of hiring illegals, or medical care, I'm with Cruz' plan as opposed to Trump's because the former shows a far better understanding of both existing law and how the government is structured. As I have said many times here, afar as I am concerned, Trump is a poseur with no intention of actually doing what he promises.
CO
He did, and you lost.
McClintock could have won, had conservatives voted with integrity. Here we are again.
You had the same problem in that election you have in this one.
Democrats, Independents, and moderate Republicans, outnumber Conservatives.
You are still unaware of that.
You are still unaware of that.
Poppycock. It was true when Reagan won in California. It was true in California according to the Gallup poll I cited in that post back in 2002. When given a choice, independents can go for the conservative, especially when the liberal is a proven treasonous criminal.
You just give up before the test. What that got you is a State that has since gone down the tubes.
Cruz is a lose. I love Teddy but he’s too conservative for the average GOP voter who is either middle of the road or slightly right of center. The same criteria holds true for the average independent voter. Ted is not going to win the GOP nomination and he would be hard pressed to win a general election.
Trump has the broad appeal across party lines that is needed to get into the Whitehouse. He has good plans for immigration and also his tax plan IMO (as a former small business owner) is superior to Cruz’s.
As far as your belief that Trump has no intention of doing anything he says after he takes office well you don’t know that any other candidate including Ted will either. You have to assume that these people have the conviction of their ideas.
Unless you want Hillary Clinton in the Whitehouse you need to be getting on the Trump bandwagon.
They said the same thing about Reagan.
Trump has the broad appeal across party lines that is needed to get into the Whitehouse.
BS. He has the negatives to keep him out.
As far as your belief that Trump has no intention of doing anything he says after he takes office well you don’t know that any other candidate including Ted will either. You have to assume that these people have the conviction of their ideas.
Ted has for the most part done what he promised. Trump makes a profit on renegging on his.
Unless you want Hillary Clinton in the Whitehouse you need to be getting on the Trump bandwagon.
They said the same about GWB. Look what that got us.
CO, I wasn’t going to take a chance on a Brown separatist becoming governor. It was bad enough having a White one that celebrated on the capital steps when Whites dipped below 50% in the state.
Given the polling data, that chance was very low.
It was bad enough having a White one that celebrated on the capital steps when Whites dipped below 50% in the state.
What you are getting as a result is worse. You still don't get it, running around shouting the RINO war cry: "He can win!" that has brought nothing but debt and destruction. Despite evidence to the contrary you discount it for lack of both your faith in your fellow man and your faith in yourself to sell him or her a more compelling message of hope.
So you get in bed with a dissembling RINOCrat out of unrepentant FUD, having had the fallacy shown to you and having seen the results multiple times. That same "He can win!" pitch is exactly what gave us GWB, which is exactly what gave us Obama because Georgie Boy similarly lacked the moral courage and clarity with which to go after the left.
Worse, I really don't believe Trump is electable. His negatives are already too high and are only going to grow as he gets caught with more dishonest hyperbole. I think it's on purpose. He knows exactly what he's doing and will pull the RINO swan dive right on cue.
“They said the same thing about Reagan.”
Cruz is not Reagan. He’s a good guy but no Reagan. Cruz does not have the maturity, philosophical perspective or experience that Reagan had when he ran.
“He (Trump) has the negatives to keep him out.”
You are buying the hype on that one. Who is drawing between 4,000 to 30,000 people in every state across the country to his rallies to hear the same stump speech?
“Ted has for the most part done what he promised. Trump makes a profit on renegging on his.”
Ted Cruz has accomplished very little in the Senate aside from a couple of filibusters. He has had not one piece of legislation with his name on it pass and he has actually voted for TPA and the Corker Bill. Two foolish votes. Cruz has not been able to stop even one bad bill from passing.
Cruz has more Wall Street donor money than any other GOP candidate. His wife Heidi makes according to her 35 phone calls a day to people she knows trying raise money for Ted’s campaign. While she is to be commended for her efforts who do you think Heidi knows with enough money to bankroll Ted? Wall street bankers that she knows from being a Wallstreeter at Goldman Sachs. I want to believe Ted won’t have to bend a knee but rational thought predicts he will.
Look at the final results and get back to me.
Add Schwarzenegger’s and McClintock’s numbers and you’ll see that things were pretty dicey.
I was referring to when he ran for Governor of California in 1964. He was a lot greener back then. Reagan approved an absolutely crazy gun bill in California. He raised taxes. He nominated Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor to the SCOTUS. Get real.
You are buying the hype on that one.
I could just as easily say that about you, as Cruz has a lot more substance behind his proposals without the evidence of a hidden screw job.
He has had not one piece of legislation with his name on it pass and he has actually voted for TPA and the Corker Bill.
First, get your facts straight. He voted for cloture on TPA. He is opposed to the Obama TPA which will not pass before Xero is gone. His vote on the Corker bill is one reason I have not endorsed Cruz. You do know that, don't you? I've said it about a hundred times on this forum, including to you.
What I do is oppose BS. Trump is pure BS.
Cruz has more Wall Street donor money than any other GOP candidate.
Prove it.
His wife Heidi makes according to her 35 phone calls a day to people she knows trying raise money for Ted’s campaign.
Gosh, the HORROR! So you go for a crook who wants to exercise eminent domain on behalf of private developers? Really?
Sheesh.
I want to believe Ted won’t have to bend a knee but rational thought predicts he will.
Of which you have no evidence.
You'll make a dandy self-unfulfilling prophet. You admitted regretting your support for Arnold.
Add Schwarzenegger's and McClintock's numbers and you'll see that things were pretty dicey.
Dicey enough to win. There were a lot of Democrats that hated Arnold for what he turned out to be, a shill for crooks, who might otherwise have voted for McClintock. That's why Tom was winning elections by healthy margins in a district that voted for Al Gore. Think real hard on that one. People know an honest politician when they see one.
“I want to believe Ted won’t have to bend a knee but rational thought predicts he will.
Of which you have no evidence.”
Anymore than you have any evidence that Trump will renege on his promises.
As far as Wall street donors:
From Yahoo Financial: “Ted Cruz may win the Wall Street hypocrisy award.
Among the presidential candidates saying they’ll get tough on big banks and let troubled lenders fail, Sen. Cruz has accepted the largest percentage of money from Wall Street donors—essentially bashing the very people funding his campaign.”
Why, they're on their Party's side, of course. The DemoPublican UniParty. The Party of the Cheap Labor Express, the US Chamber of Commerce, and Amnesty.
Four bankruptcies and a divorce is plenty for me, but I'm sure there are many more.
Actually two divorces. But the bankruptcies were sound business decisions. Probably the marriages too.
Tell that to his creditors; they're still broken promises.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.