Sarah Palin will work to defeat Ryan in primary for Trump stance

Slashing foreign aid to Mexico is self defeating because it would simply create more impoverished Mexicans who would then come across the border looking for work here in the USA. That is the law of unintended consequences that occurs when idiots like Tr(oll)mp come up with these stupid ideas without any grasp of what that funding is used for. And it gets even worse. About 25% of that funding is allocated for the Mexican military and their fight against the drug lords. Those troops will no longer get paid so they will join the drug gangs instead. Now the problem is far worse than it was before.

Given Mexico the orange middle finger is going to hurt the USA more than it will hurt Mexico IMO.

 

Ironic given that is an accurate description of Bible Barbie.

 

So you are willing to massively raise taxes on those barely even making minimum wage but you don't want to raise taxes on the 1% who put billions into offshore bank accounts?

 

Conceivable in your mind perhaps. But that's not based in reality. Trump voters in the primaries will more than double in the General Election, as Hillary Clinton is exposed for being the corporate phony that she is. All Trump has to do is keep doing what he's doing: Point out the hypocrisy and weakness of a Hillary Clinton, and make outreaches to those who would actually be okay with a President Trump.

 

In general I don't disagree but Republicans have no fear of losing the control of the House for one simple reason. Gerrymandering of Congressional districts is attempted by both Democrats and Republicans but we know that the Republicans are much better at it. The House of Representatives is supposed to represent the people but we know, based upon the vote, that it doesn't. There's no correlation between the vote, based upon party, and representation in the House of Representatives. It's not even close.

One of the problems I see is that the Republican Party really doesn't have a "view" anymore or at least not one based upon virtue. It has an "agenda" but the agenda is arguably nefarious as opposed to being virtuous.

For example the Republican Party offers nothing to reduce poverty in the United States but today many Republican politicians advocate reducing the welfare assistance necessary to mitigate the effects of the poverty. In short it seeks to make poverty worse for those that are poor. Instead of being concerned about the plight of the 40% of Americans that are living in relative poverty the Republicans are more interested in increasing the luxury of the top 10% or, worse still, the top 1% that are wealthy. Republicans have abandoned the first rule of fiscal conservatism which is to "pay the bills" in favor of tax cuts that increase deficit spending. Instead of seeking to increase enfranchisement of the American voters the Republicans, at the state level, are creating nefarious voting laws that disenfranchise the American voters.

It's really sad because the Republican Party used to stand for something good. I don't see that today.

 

I believe you need a reality check.

If twice as many people vote for Trump in the general election compared to those that voted for him in the primaries he won't win in any state. Remember that the primaries are generally limited to party members and not to the general voter population and that primary turnouts are significantly lower that the general election turnout.

There are other indicators as well.

From a recent poll after the Arizona primary:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...l-gop-voters-unite-trump-221144#ixzz43kj3ycBd

At that time a slim majority of Republicans and Republican leaning voters supported Trump's nomination, and arguably more with fall in line and vote for Trump as suggested but that's not the problem for Republicans. The problem is the "one third" that were saying "anyone but Trump" in the poll. These have become the "Never Trump" Republicans that won't vote for Trump. They've come out saying they will do one of two things. Some have stated they won't vote for any presidential candidate but instead will vote for lower offices like the Senate and House but another polls, from what I understand, establishes that 20% of Republicans, or Republican leaning voters, are going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Effectively this 20% neutralizes 20% of Republicans voting for Trump reducing his support to less than 60% of all Republicans and Republican leaning voters.

But wait, that's not all. According to the Pew Research Center support for the Republican Party, from February when Donald Trump began his rise to become the Republican nominee, to the end of April has dramatically dropped from 29% to 25% so even the number of Republican and Republican leaning voters is in decline.

The final nail in Trump's coffin is the "lesser of two evils" choice. While Hillary Clinton has a negative approval rating, with about 52% of those polled disapproving of her, Donald Trump has a worse approval rating, with over 62% disapproving and that percentage has been increasing.

Every piece of evidence indicates Donald Trump is going to lose like no other major presidential candidate in history. As the GOP leadership fears, and many political experts express, Donald Trump could be the first major presidential candidate to lose in all 50 states and receive zero Electoral College votes.

I don't like Hillary Clinton, I won't vote for Hillary Clinton, but I can't imagine any way for her to not become president because the Republicans are going to nominate the worst possible person imaginable in Donald Trump to be their presidential candidate. If Republicans wanted Hillary Clinton to become president they couldn't have done more to ensure that would happen.

 

Well stated and thanks for taking the time to write all that out, but there is simply no reasoning with True Believers™, I fear.

 

And those disaffected about Trump are going to go to Hillary? They're better off actually casting Sanders votes. But it's on the flipside too: Voters disaffected with Hillary would vote for Trump(see: West Virginia.) It really isn't anywhere as dire as you(and the pundits) think. But then the pundits have been 0-for-everything. I think it requires them to look outside the box. Oh wait, that requires perspective. Something people don't have.

 

Yea, the left-wing, Palin obsessed rubes just can't ignore her, so she keeps extending her 15 minutes of fame.

 

If they're making so little how can they afford to send $25 billion dollars out of the country every year? "1% who put billions into offshore bank accounts". If the money was made in the U.S. then that would be a problem, most of that money is made in other countries and only the host country has the right to tax it. What makes you feel entitled to any of it?

 

wow are your insanely immense bias about what republicans think lol... going so far as to say they have no views, or at least any based on "virtue"... do you realize how much bias you are spewing right now, its just unbelievable... I get it, you ideologically disagree with them immensely it would seem, but that doesn't negate the fact they have views, and many of them are based on virtues that we could argue liberals lack when they snuff out life before it has a chance... see how easy thatw as to turn around your "virtue" demeaning and belittling, and thats just one issue right out of the gates we turned around already... we could do this for dozens of issues...

the very fact you just said republicans have no ideas to reduce poverty clearly shows you're not willing to listen... see the difference between democrats and republicans, is simply emotion... democrats rule and pass laws that immediately address emotion today, and complete fail to address solutions long-term... republicans throw aside emotion and are looking for the long-term solutions... now the problem america has is neither of those two methods mesh well together, and they often conflict and counter each other, which means we're left with the system we have today, where we placate emotion and that interrupts the long-term solutions from working out... so we could quite easily damn republicans for not "caring" enough, and we could quite easily damn democrats for "caring" too much that they screw up the problems from getting solved...

see how easy that was for me to not just hold my opinion in a negative way to a single party, and I was able to express and demonstrate the simple logic that both are exacerbating the problems by trying to get an ideological win, instead of both putting aside their pride and working towards the solution...

lets take my current favorite issue, and see how each side would address it, and how that impacts poverty... ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION...

democrats want to welcome with open arms all the illegals, allowing them to use all public services, most which they already are using, as well as "coming out of the shadows" so they can compete for jobs with all americans... currently most of them work for below minimum wage, so once they are legalized, they would be able to suddenly compete for all sorts of jobs paying far more than what they were getting... this means black americans who already have twice the unemployment rate of white americans, would be impacted the greatest out of any category in america... this means in inner cities where black male unemployment hovers around 50% that you would in fact see that number rocket up to possibly 75% as big cities are where most of the illegals congregate since they are far safer than rural areas heavy with republicans...

so democrats literally will cause black americans to sink deeper into poverty once all those illegals are able to take the inner city jobs away from them in direct competition... are you telling me, democrats are looking out for those in poverty with this "view" of theirs based on some "virtue" that helps end poverty? I just demonstrated and can do into an immense amount of detail if needed on how this will destroy black americans... and like I said before, this is nothing more than democrats responding to a situation with emotion rather than logic that solves the problem, it actually amplifies and grows the problem... they make things WORSE for many already in poverty, all to help people who have ILLEGALLY come or stayed in this country... meaning democrats put foreign born people BEFORE americans they represent...

now lets take the republican stance to see how that affects poverty shall we... republicans want to build a wall to stop more from flowing over, they then want to find some way to validate people working are actually americans, and to deport anyone who is not an american... this means all those jobs the illegals are currently doing will become open for unemployment, which means americans will have the chance to get those jobs... now like everyone points out, americans won't work for below minimum wage, and americans likely won't want to do the hard labor... this means employers with an extreme worker shortage, will be forced to raise wages to address the supply and demand needs... and with wages being raised for those positions, it means those in poverty will receive the most benefit as employers compete for them to remain open and serve their customers or sell their products to distributors... it means those in poverty will benefit the MOST under republicans attempts to kick illegals out... it means employers who take advantage of illegals and pay them substandard wages instead of hiring legal americans, will suffer the most, meaning republicans are actually doing something that hurts big business exploiting illegals at the cost of american citizens...

I mean look at that stark contrast between a SINGLE issue and the results it will have for americans in poverty... you would think democrats should be against illegals since we're always told they want to help those in poverty... and you would think republicans would be the ones demanding all the illegals are legalized so employers can have cheap labor... thats the stereotype we're constantly spoon-fed on this website and millions of others... but look, we just found an example where its the complete and utter opposite... democrats are pushing an emotion that will end up destroying black americans in poverty, heck it'll destroy white americans in poverty also... but you see what I did there, I played off the emotion, I played off demonstrating the very people democrats scream racism, sexism, etc etc to, that democrats are hurting them the MOST...

so tell me again... just how do you think republicans aren't helping those in poverty, when I took a single issue and just obliterated your logic? if you want, I could bring up a dozen more, several of which I have written about in the past month on this website... I could go into greater detail on this immigration issue if you like, and we can run the mathematics and show just how much of an impact illegals have on those in poverty in america who could be working those jobs for higher wages, if the illegals weren't here to fill those shoes...

and you know what, one more immigration question NOBODY has answered to me yet... what happens when we legalize all the illegals, and they can now make minimum wage or better... but then employers who were paying them below the tables and less, will simply encourage more illegals to cross over to continue getting paid under the table and less than minimum wage? do you think employers will magically stop hiring illegals or trying to find them so they can pay them less? so all democrats do is add 10 million new people to the minimum wage workforce, depressing and keeping wages down, and a new flood of immigrants come in to take their old jobs, keeping wages down even longer and lower... nobody seems to address the reality of what would happen, and they only stick to the fantasy the problem would magically solve itself... it won't...

anyhow, let me know, we can go over a dozen more topics where you say republicans don't help those in poverty... and I can demonstrate how "solutions" from democrats to placate emotion are actually harming those in poverty even more... this should be fun... but first, why don't you attempt to tackle everything I said on this one issue, and prove everything I just said wrong... I would LOVE to see that, as nobody has in the dozens and dozens of threads of illegals I've brought these issues up with... they never prove how it won't get worse for black americans... there is little reason for blacks to vote for democrats this election cycle, legalization will DESTROY black america...

 

Tr(oll)mp, as the GOP candidate, will probably get up to 45% of the vote.

His challenge is to reach 50% plus 1 more than Hillary.

Alienating women and minorities is not a strategy that will achieve that target.

 

So it is only illegal immigrants who are sending "$25 billion dollars out of the country every year"?

Where did you come up with that figure from?

 

I never said illegal immigrants, you did.

 

Actually your inferred it in your original response in post #22.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=455753&page=3&p=1066170717#post1066170717

What else was the wall for if not to keep out illegal immigrants from Mexico?

Then you compounded it with your own link in the post that I am responding to;

FTR 6.7 million of the 11 million illegal immigrants here are from Mexico.

If you were not referring to illegal immigrants from Mexico then who were you referring to?

 

The inference is all in your vivid imagination. Please stop making things up.

 

Your posts contain irrefutable inferences.

I provided factual data that you could not refute.

So yes, that is your problem.

 

No, not all of those that oppose Donald Trump are going to vote for Hillary Clinton but Bill Maher stated that there is a poll that 20% of Republican leaning voters have stated they are going to vote for Hillary Clinton. We also know that 1/3rd of Republican leaning voters want "any candidate other than Trump" to be the Republican nominee. If we consider that 20% will vote for Hillary, negating 20% of Republicans that will vote for Trump, and the other 13% simply won't vote for any presidential candidate then that effectively reduces the Republican vote to less than 50% of Republican leaning voters. As also noted those "leaning Republican" have also declined from 29% to 25% since February so this further cuts down on the "Republican" influence in the general election.

One of the primary problems for Bernie Sanders is that much of his support came from "Independents" that couldn't vote in the Democratic primaries. Based upon the "approval ratings" Bernie Sanders is the only candidate of the top four (Trump, Cruz, Clinton, and Sanders) that had a positive approval rating with only 32% of polled voters stating they disapproved of him. Although Bernie Sanders won't win the Democratic nomination because his support predominately comes from Independents (representing about 40% of the voters) that couldn't vote in the Democratic primaries I don't believe there's any real question that he would win in a general election against any of the other two probable nominees based upon his positive approval rating while both Trump and Clinton have negative approval ratings.

In the "lesser of two evils" contest Hillary Clinton, with a 52% disapproval rating, defeats Donald Trump, with a 62% disapproval rating. More people won't vote for Trump than won't vote for Clinton.

While the "pundits" can often be wrong the analysis of the probable "Electoral College" outcome is almost always accurate. In 2012 the "voter polls" indicated a close race between Obama and Romney but the Electoral College analysis always had Obama winning by never less than 75 Electoral College votes. In the end Obama won by 126 Electoral College votes and it was a landslide victory. The current Electoral College predictions, that have always been relatively accurate, reflect that Clinton will win by a landslide.

That's why the GOP leadership expresses the fear that Donald Trump will lose worse than Barry Goldwater did in 1964 when Goldwater only received 52 Electoral College votes while Johnson received 468. This wasn't the greatest blow-out in a presidential election (Jimmy Carter only received 49 Electoral College votes in 1980) but it was the greatest defeat of a Republican candidate that I'm aware of.

So yes, we need to look outside of the "pundit" box and address reality by putting all of the factors into perspective. On that I don't disagree. Personally I don't want either Trump or Clinton to be the next president but I can't find any factors that would result in anyone but Hillary Clinton winning the election. I'm not even a fan of Sanders but he would be a far better president than either Trump or Clinton but he's just not going to make the cut based upon everything we know.

 

Let is start here because I grew up in a "Republican" family during the 1950's and 1960's when the Republicans had a "virtuous" ideology.

Republicans believed in taxing the wealthy with a personal income tax of 92% on income above $400,000 in 1953 under the Eisenhower Administration. Today the top tax rate for wealthy investors, often earning hundreds of millions of dollars a year from investments, is set at a maximum of 20% under the Capital Gains Tax that Republicans support and even want to cut. Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for President, only paid about 14% on over $22 million in personal income in 2011 based upon the tax records he released. There's one hell of a difference between the traditional Republican belief in "taxing the wealthy" from the Eisenhower Administration and more recent Republican President administrations that cut the Capital Gains Taxes for the wealthy to only 15% under former President Bush.

We can also go back to the fiscal conservatism of the Republican Party where it once collected enough in tax revenues to fund the general expenditures authorized by Congress. Let's go back 60 years to 1956 under the Eisenhower Administration and look at the US budget. Congress authorized $447 billion in expenditures and had $471 billion in revenue. The federal government collected 0.9% more in revenue than it spent under Eisenhower in 1956.

Now let's just go back 10 years to 2006 under the Bush Administration. In 2006 the federal government had $2.655 trillion in authorized expenditures and only $2.407 trillion in revenues. The US government spent almost 10% more than it received in revenue.

In 1956 Republicans were "fiscal conservatives" where they funded the authorized expenditures of Congress but by 2006, a very good year under the Bush Administration, Republicans had abandoned fiscal conservatism so that they could provide huge tax cuts for the wealthy that the nation relied upon to provide a primary source of revenue under the historic Republican policies of the Eisenhower Administration.

Today's Republicans are NOT fiscal conservatives as they incessantly attempt to cut taxes that increase the deficits of the federal government.

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/58/1956
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_federal_budget

Historically Republicans supported civil rights in the 1950's and 1960's and, in fact, they were instrumental in creating the criteria in Section 4b of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 2012 the Supreme Court struck down those provisions, and rightfully so, because they were based upon the 1964 federal elections and the criteria was out of date. Disenfranchisement and gerrymandering of Congressional districts, that the Voting Rights Act addressed, is still widespread in the United States today but it's not based upon the 1964 federal elections. So where are the Republican proposals to replace Section 4b so that we can reduce the gerrymandering of Congressional districts and reduce the amount of disenfranchisement of American voters in compliance with the 15th and 19th Amendments to the US Constitution?

Basically the Republican Party, since the 1950's and 1960's, has not just stopped supporting civil rights but today is actually opposed to any legislation to protect the civil rights of the American people.

So yes, today I'm "biased" against the Republican Party but it's based upon well documented facts where the Republican Party has abandoned, and now even opposes, the values of civil rights and fiscal conservatism that it once held.

I'm not a Democrat but instead I'm a Libertarian so I'll address the issues expressed based upon the fact that I place great importance on the ideology of the significant founders of the United States and the US Constitution.

It is somewhat ironic that Republicans often cite the lack of explicit enumeration in the Constitution in condemning the legislative actions of Congress but somehow manage to ignore the fact that the US Constitution does not enumerate any authority to Congress to control immigration.

Of course we should all ask why the Constitution doesn't enumerate any authority to Congress to control immigration to the United States because there's a very obvious reason. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and most importantly James Madison that's recognized as the "Father of the Constitution" all opposed restrictions on immigration by any government. They all opposed such restrictions because immigration restrictions violate the "right of liberty" of the person. Perhaps this is best expressed by the following quotations from Thomas Jefferson that I hold in high regard.

Jefferson clearly establishes that the arbitrary borders established by government cannot be a barrier to the natural rights of man to "immigrate" from one national territory to another nation territory based upon their natural right of liberty. Those borders do not exist in nature and the Right of Liberty, as are all inalienable rights, is based upon natural law.

Of course we also know that our immigration laws were based upon racism by simply referring to the first immigration restriction ever imposed in the United States - The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. It was so clearly racist by expressly prohibiting the immigration of Chinese that it would never stand the rigors of Supreme Court review today. All of the subsequent immigration laws have always been based upon excluding non-WASP's from immigrating to the United States while WASP's have never been subjected to any effective immigration restrictions.

As a Libertarian I oppose all immigration restrictions against those that would come to the United States for peaceful purposes and adopt it as their homeland.

It is ironic to claim that Republicans are creating proposals to reduce poverty when a primary cause for poverty is under-compensation for employment. While I hate to mention a statement made by a Democrat there's one that must be cited in addressing poverty.

While I generally oppose many of the political actions under the FDR administration, one of which actually bankrupted my family in the 1930's, on this I must agree. If all enterprises were required to provide adequate compensation to their workers then there would be no "working poverty" in the United States. The arguments that "illegal immigrants" are taking jobs from blacks or whites or anyone else (they're not) or that the influence of immigrant labor would result in black Americans (or other Americans) living in poverty simply don't exist if we'd been following this political ideology from the founding of the United States. While some might politically disagree this proposition is actual based upon the "natural right of property" as expressed by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government were the person's "natural right of property" established by their physical labor is directly linked to their "support and comfort" in Chapter 5.

Your arguments fail if we address our natural rights, the expressed ideology of the significant founders of America, and the US Constitution.

 

This gets to the problem with the Electoral College as a whole(a truly unrepresentative system). Where vote points are allotted by size. To me, it disenfranchises the voters of Kansas for example when they're dismissed(with their lowly 6 electoral votes) as opposed to Pennsylvania's 29. This isn't democracy nor a Republic. It's a system you'd find in a modern day Monarchy.

If the Electoral College were balanced among the States, this wouldn't be a problem. But "battle ground states"(mostly defined by the Democrats), give the Democrats a decisive edge in elections, regardless who the Republicans nominate. That's why we've had a very recent successive string of the Bill Clinton Era, somewhat blocked by the Protectionist Bush Era, but then back to the Obama Era.

Should Hillary successfully win the Presidency, it would mean that out of the last 28 years, we've had a Democratic President for 21 of those years. It's of no coincidence, that the Democrats are now becoming the "Establishment". The new realignment has the Democratic Party cynically, abusively seeking control and dominance in our political system.

Thus, the progression was only natural for a GOP reformation as well. I simply regret that Donald Trump is the one that hijacked that reformation process.

 

I cant believe you guys haven't figured out Trump yet.

Ryan says the cant support Trump yet and Trump fires bakc with

#1 I'll get you kicked off as chair of the convention.

#2 I'll get you kicked out of your speakership.

#3 I'll get you kicked out of the house.

Now they have a sit down and in the end there will be a compromise position that is favorable to Trump because he started at such a scorched earth position. This is negotiation 101.

Now compare that with the Iran deal. Kerry starts at he position of

#1 We really want to normalize relations with you.

#2 We really want to end your sanctions.

End result Iran took us to the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cleaners. We ended up paying them to give up our leverage.

Jusus Christ maybe its time we started electing someone other than bad lawyers to run the country.

 

Most foolish post of the month. What you call "afraid of her" is actually straight up ridicule and mockery. Why you people bury your heads up her derriere about this is beyond me.

 

The rubes are her spotlight-shining mega phone holding admirers. Sad.

 

I won't disagree with that. I don't get why anyone would pay attention to her on either side.

 

EXACTLY. The only time I see her name or face is when she's spewing new nonsense.