Bernie in Birmingham.

[GH2001]

Because Cruz has been there, he is considered part of the establishment by many. I was speaking in terms of perception. I have said many times that I have not decided, yet you sandy vagina types want to refer to anyone still giving Trump a chance as "knobslobbers". Funny.

I am starting to put you in the same category as chizad when it come to Trump. You are so blinded, you don't actually listen. I expect it from him. I thought better of you. Sorry.

It's the defending him to the death that bewilders me. The refusing to see his obvious flaws. And how he's pulled the wool over your eyes. You're so blinded by his fiery rhetoric that you ignore his flawed policy positions. There is a reason he doesn't talk about them. I think you really need to look up the definition of who the establishment is. Cruz is hardly establishment. It's why he was the only one (along with rand Paul) filibustering unconstitutional legislation the last 4 years. We're talking ideology vs identity. Trump has invented this identity. And it's fooling a lot of people. He has no record or history of actually being like this ideologically.

I'll just leave this here (written by those establishment shills at red state):

http://www.redstate.com/diary/jdrucker/2016/01/19/greatest-con-ever-donald-trump-convincing-conservatives-hes-rino/

The Greatest Con Ever: Donald Trump Convincing Conservatives He’s Not a #RINO
Posted by JD Rucker on January 19, 2016 at 4:58 am
The Greatest Con Ever: Donald Trump Convincing Conservatives He’s Not a RINO

Republican In Name Only. Donald Trump is the paragon, the epitome of the phrase. He's conservative on immigration. On every other topic, he's moderate at best and often more liberal than even Hillary Clinton. He pulls his calls for tariffs straight out of Bernie Sanders' playbook. Why, then, are so many Republicans and likely a good number of conservatives supporting him?

The answer is simple: he's an incredible salesman. We're not talking about Don Draper in Mad Men. We're talking about the hard sale. It's the long con. We're talking about a man who has assumed a new identity in the guise of a Republican in order to achieve his greatest ambition: sitting in the Oval Office.

I'm not going to bore everyone with details of his extremely liberal past. Either you're already aware of it or you're a Trump apologist who does one of three things:

Ignore the facts because Trump is going to make America great again.

Suspend disbelief by falling for the idea that a hardcore Democrat for several decades saw the error in his ways just in time to get onto an easily manipulated ticket (more on that in a moment).

Cover your ears, avert your eyes, and post memes on Facebook about Donald Trump's awesomeness, incredibleness, supermegacoolness, or whatever it is you have in those single-panel cartoons with small writing, all caps, bad font, and grammatical errors.

Let's assume that if you've read this far, you're either against Trump or you're an intelligent, open-minded Republican who supports Trump but who has started wondering if there's really something to all of this talk about him being a RINO.

To fix this before it's too late, we have to recognize why we're here in the first place.

Let's face it. The Republican Establishment that gave us Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the long string of weak RINOs are the people who have controlled the party since Ronald Reagan left the White House. What many don't realize is that they've only had one major loss in the last four decades and that happened to be Reagan. They vowed after that loss to never let it happen again and unfortunately they've succeeded.

Their success has bred their failure. Enough is enough and thanks to sites like this one, Republicans are waking up to some new concepts that go against the Establishment. For example, today one does not have to be a far-right extremist to believe that the Tea Party has some great points. One does not have to be an isolationist to realize that the Libertarians have some good ideas. One does not have to buy into the idea that it takes a moderate to make things happen in Washington DC. In fact, we're now seeing the truth that moderate Republicans controlling the House and Senate have been impotent against President Obama.

The Republican Establishment got their wish: control of Congress and most governorships. Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for conservatives), they no longer have an excuse about why it's not working. They think they do. They believe if they can get Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or even John Kasich into the White House, they'll be able to prove that they haven't been wrong for the last 40 years. They'll be able to demonstrate that Ronald Reagan was a fluke. They'll have solid control over the Republican Party.

That won't happen, at least not the way they had planned. Thanks to their failures, the Republican electorate is ready for a conservative. For the first time since 1980, the conservative base is strong enough and has facts to back the idea that we need a true conservative in the White House.

Donald Trump saw this. He's been banking on it. He knew that the only way that he could appease his own ego and get into the White House was through the only path that suits his skills: emotion. You can sell emotion. You can sell anger. You can sell passion. President Obama sold emotion. He sold hope. This might not seem very similar to what Donald Trump is selling, but the difference between hope and anger is simply a degree of separation along the same parallels. The sales pitch for both are actually quite similar even if the delivery is different.

A case study on how Obama and Trump sold their emotional merchandise to the American people could go on for several pages. For this post, please stipulate for the sake of time that Barack Obama was the greatest emotional Presidential salesperson of the modern era and that Donald Trump could usurp him if he had more merchandise. Obama had tons of wares. Trump has two. That may be his Achilles Heel. Then again, it may be enough for him to win the nomination and ruin the country.

Every great salesman needs a good product. It doesn't have to be a great product; the Chrysler PT Cruiser was very popular and sold like crazy until people realized it was a just a fad vehicle on a Dodge Neon frame.

Trump knew that he had two choices: fight the Democrats for their nomination or grab the hot potato - immigration - and say what the Republican Establishment has been unwilling to say based upon their playbook of being kinder and gentler for the sake of Independents. This is the "easily manipulated ticket" that I referenced earlier.

I would contend that Donald Trump has been considering a run for a long time - over a decade. I would also contend that he's strategically brilliant enough to watch for the best opening. Historically, the best time to run is either against a weak incumbent (a la Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush) or as the opposition following a second term.

Not to paint too much of a conspiracy, but I believe he considered running against George W. Bush as a Democrat in 2004 but decided against it based upon support for the war. He also considered running as a Democrat in 2008, but didn't want to go up against his good buddy Hillary Clinton. Had John McCain won the election and had his first term not gone well, I would almost guarantee he would have run against him as a Democrat in 2012.

Barack Obama won in 2008 and Trump saw his opening. He knew he would run as a Republican. He also knew that his path was to go after immigration. It's the ultimate smokescreen. One can do all of the liberal things that Trump has done over the decades and erase them all by tackling immigration as a conservative on the issue. It was a masterfully conceived plan. The only question that remained was whether to run against Obama in 2012 or to wait until 2016. The rest is unfolding as we speak.

His other product was handed to him by the terrorists in Paris and San Bernardino. They filled Americans with enough outrage that all of the other issues such as his progressive tax plan, his proposals for trillion-dollar infrastructure fixes, or his Sandersesque positions on "free" trade don't register as a blip on his supporters' radar. His history has been obscured or excused because (and I quote from a Trump supporter's Facebook comment), "Trump will stop the Mexicans and the Muslims and that's all I need to know."


At this point, there is thankfully no path to the nomination for any of the Establishment's options. Ben Carson, for all of his good qualities, is just not Presidential material. That means that there are two choices: Trump or Ted Cruz.

For the Establishment, this poses a terrible scenario. I don't fear Trump's current supporters. As we've now learned, his net favorability is low enough for Republicans that there won't be much of a natural migration towards him when candidates drop out during the Primaries. My fear is the Establishment thinking that they'd rather have a liberal like Trump than a conservative like Cruz. As insane as it may sound, that's currently the most likely scenario. They would never admit it, of course, but they fear Ted Cruz more than they fear Hillary Clinton.

At this point, you may be thinking I'm crazy. Here's why I'm not: a Trump nomination, by the Establishment's estimation, is still a victory because it gives them credibility in the long run. Stop and think about it. If he gets the nomination and loses to the Democrats, they'll have all of the proof they need to point to their milquetoast candidates of the future as the best path to winning the White House. If he wins the nomination as well as the Presidency, they'll be able to either control him or not. If they control him, they win. If they don't control him and he loses after his first term, they'll again have ammunition for future elections.

The same doesn't hold true for a Cruz nomination. First and foremost, he would most likely win against the Democrats. Second, he's demonstrated that the Republican Establishment is incapable of controlling him. Third, he would probably win a second term. In other words, he'd be Ronald Reagan all over again and the Establishment has worked so hard to erase that anomaly from their record.

Donald Trump is conservative on immigration. On every other issue, he's very clearly liberal. His views on affirmative action, the economy, Medicare, foreign policy, and infrastructure go against everything Republicans stand for. In other words, he's the ultimate Republican In Name Only.

[RottenBottom]

The republican establishment would rather have Trump than Cruz. Anybody who calls a Cruz supporter part of the "establishment" hasn't done their homework.

[Kaos]

The only difference in Hillary and Trump, is not the authoritarian big government policy, massive ego, thirst for power, war mongering, bullshit artistry, hucksterism, saying whatever will get them votes. It's that at least she doesn't sound like a blathering fucking idiot with every single thing that comes out of her mouth,

Actually, she does sound like a fucking idiot.  She's as disconnected from the reality of day-to-day life as Oprah or Barbara "people really don't live on less than $100,000 a year, do they?" Walters.  She's an established liar, a power-mad loon, a complete and total phony.  She's also an insecure redneck hillbilly at her core.  A guy I used to work with was a Navy Seal and he knew some of the detail that worked the White House.  He said Hill and Bill were like country come to town. They should have charged them a deposit on their white house rent due to the things they stole and damaged.

and at least she actually does have some experience in actually governing. That is not an endorsement of Hillary. It's to say that Hillary is awful and Trump is somehow even worse.

Her experience governing is an unmitigated disaster.  She was an ineffective Senator and a destructive/dangerous Secretary of State (a job for which she was utterly unqualified).  The whore bag has never held a real job, never earned her own money, never had to live or die on her own work/merit. She's a career politician and completely unsuited for anything else.  She's not intelligent, she's not savvy and she's not based in the same reality in which we all must exist. Therefore her ideas, her ideals and her policy decisions will be based on ignorance. 

Is this what we really want after eight years of the worst presidential leadership in the history of this nation?  Can we survive four or eight years of this hag? 

WHEN?!? People keep saying this and every day that passes, it is a dumber thing to say. What in the bleeding fuck could this guy possibly do that would lose CCTAU & Kaos's vote? I'm fairly positive he could read passages from Mein Kampf and they'd nod along.

Hillary and Bernie are taking entire chapters from Das Kapital and you're mooing along with the rest of the cattle.  What's the difference? 

We've tried the career politicans. We've tried the stuffed shirts.  We've tried the family trees.  Maybe we need something different.  Maybe we need to shake up the whole thing, break it down and build it better.

That's what you don't understand. I'm no Trumper. But given the other available options?  I'd take his "don't give a fuck" attitude over the politically correct soy milk spewing from the rest. I'd rather have somebody willing to DO something and make mistakes than somebody who can't decide what to say or think until all the opinion polls are in.  I'll also make this clear.  If I thought anybody else had a chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination I'd take a long hard look at that person.  But they don't.  It's going to be Trump. And he's running against Hildebeast.  Easy choice for me.

Bill?  I'd probably vote for him if that was an option.  But I'd never vote for the shrew he's married to. Not because she's a woman, but because she's uniquely un-qualified, interested in her own power moreso than the safety and improvement of this country and because she's (in my opinion) a dangerously raging lunatic. And I won't vote for a fucking avowed communist either.  That's ridiculous.   

[Kaos]

I thought I read that Kaos said this movie was too long and very redundant. 

Roadkill pictures in 3....2....

[CCTAU]

It's the defending him to the death that bewilders me. The refusing to see his obvious flaws. And how he's pulled the wool over your eyes. You're so blinded by his fiery rhetoric that you ignore his flawed policy positions. There is a reason he doesn't talk about them. I think you really need to look up the definition of who the establishment is. Cruz is hardly establishment. It's why he was the only one (along with rand Paul) filibustering unconstitutional legislation the last 4 years. We're talking ideology vs identity. Trump has invented this identity. And it's fooling a lot of people. He has no record or history of actually being like this ideologically.

So now waiting to see how things shake out is "defending to the death"? Just admit it, your vajayjay is sandy when it comes to Trump.

And I said the PERCEPTION is that Cruz is part of the establishment SINCE he does hold office.
So YES, If you support Cruz while poo-pooing Trump, you will be perceived as supporting the establishment. People as so pissed at the current way things are done, they don't even listen to guys like Cruz, even when they should. I'm not saying Cruz is NOT the best candidate. And I am not saying he IS.

I LIKE CRUZ. (Does that douche it out for you a bit?)

But I don't DISLIKE Trump.

I AM waiting to see where things end up.

Like someone else said, somebody will screw up here shortly. But until then I am not crying over a little mud.

But there is no call for the hatred of Trump that you are espousing.

[Snaggletiger]

Once again, I used the power of the Googled Chromes to do a little research.  We've gotten too caught up here recently in seeing who can establish a particular candidate as a blathering idiot incapable of stringing together 3 complete and coherent sentences.  I found a site for something called Council on Foreign Relations.  Disclaimer:  I have no clue who they are or if they lean left, sway to the right or swish in the middle.  I just found that there was no opinion given to muddy the waters. Just a quick take on each candidates position concerning many of the top issues.  I looked at Cruz and Trump, since they seem to be the front runners right now. 

Immigration:

Cruz:  Complete 700 miles of fencing along the border.  Triple the number of border patrols.  Cut off Federal support for "Sanctuary Cities"

Trump: Construct a wall along the entire border.  Triple border patrols and incorporate air surveillance.  Round up 11 million illegals and send them back.  Legally require businesses to hire U.S. Citizens first before any others.


Defense:

Cruz:  Increase military spending. No long term occupations.  (Love this quote) "It's not our military's job to produce democratic utopias around the world.

Trump:  Increase military spending.  "Maximum firepower".  "Only go to war to win."


Trade:

Cruz:  In favor of free trade. Opening up foreign markets helps everyone, especially farmers.

Trump:  In favor of free trade. Penalize U.S. companies that shift manufacturing outside the country.  Renegotiate NAFTA or break it all together. 


Certainly, there's much more on those and many other issues.  Just some general bullet points.  I'm not promoting Trump here by any means.  You know where I stand on his candidacy. I just find it funny how many times I've read on here that there's no substance, no plan for what he says he wants to accomplish.  But if you look around for some true, objectives takes on the candidate's positions, you see that he's just as, if not more specific about how he would go about things than the others.

I'm the type that I don't want somebody's opinions, I want the facts and let me form my own. BTW, the more I see of where Cruz stands, the more I think he's who I'll get behind. I'd like to see him be a bit more Trump-esque on some of the issues and not stop short of saying what needs to be said.  Example:  Both he and Trump want to fence/wall-off the border and increase the patrols.  Cruz just says it would be a mistake to grant amnesty to the illegals.  Trump says round them up and get them out of here.  But you can't say that and not piss somebody off. 

Anywayz, I'd like to see more talk on where candidates stand than who you think they are.  Hey, a little research told me Ben Carson says do away with home mortgage interest deductions.  WHAAAT?  Wait, instead...a straight across the board, flat tax of 14.9%.  No exceptions. I don't know if the numbers would work but that's at least worth a look.   

[GH2001]

So now waiting to see how things shake out is "defending to the death"? Just admit it, your vajayjay is sandy when it comes to Trump.

And I said the PERCEPTION is that Cruz is part of the establishment SINCE he does hold office.
So YES, If you support Cruz while poo-pooing Trump, you will be perceived as supporting the establishment. People as so pissed at the current way things are done, they don't even listen to guys like Cruz, even when they should. I'm not saying Cruz is NOT the best candidate. And I am not saying he IS.

I LIKE CRUZ. (Does that douche it out for you a bit?)

But I don't DISLIKE Trump.

I AM waiting to see where things end up.

Like someone else said, somebody will screw up here shortly. But until then I am not crying over a little mud.

But there is no call for the hatred of Trump that you are espousing.

You know that's not what establishment means right?

We're trying to tell you the guy is a snake. A wolf in sheeps clothing. Judge by past actions and habits. Not by current rhetoric. The guy has you all fooled.

[GH2001]

Once again, I used the power of the Googled Chromes to do a little research.  We've gotten too caught up here recently in seeing who can establish a particular candidate as a blathering idiot incapable of stringing together 3 complete and coherent sentences.  I found a site for something called Council on Foreign Relations.  Disclaimer:  I have no clue who they are or if they lean left, sway to the right or swish in the middle.  I just found that there was no opinion given to muddy the waters. Just a quick take on each candidates position concerning many of the top issues.  I looked at Cruz and Trump, since they seem to be the front runners right now. 

Immigration:

Cruz:  Complete 700 miles of fencing along the border.  Triple the number of border patrols.  Cut off Federal support for "Sanctuary Cities"

Trump: Construct a wall along the entire border.  Triple border patrols and incorporate air surveillance.  Round up 11 million illegals and send them back.  Legally require businesses to hire U.S. Citizens first before any others.


Defense:

Cruz:  Increase military spending. No long term occupations.  (Love this quote) "It's not our military's job to produce democratic utopias around the world.

Trump:  Increase military spending.  "Maximum firepower".  "Only go to war to win."


Trade:

Cruz:  In favor of free trade. Opening up foreign markets helps everyone, especially farmers.

Trump:  In favor of free trade. Penalize U.S. companies that shift manufacturing outside the country.  Renegotiate NAFTA or break it all together. 


Certainly, there's much more on those and many other issues.  Just some general bullet points.  I'm not promoting Trump here by any means.  You know where I stand on his candidacy. I just find it funny how many times I've read on here that there's no substance, no plan for what he says he wants to accomplish.  But if you look around for some true, objectives takes on the candidate's positions, you see that he's just as, if not more specific about how he would go about things than the others.

I'm the type that I don't want somebody's opinions, I want the facts and let me form my own. BTW, the more I see of where Cruz stands, the more I think he's who I'll get behind. I'd like to see him be a bit more Trump-esque on some of the issues and not stop short of saying what needs to be said.  Example:  Both he and Trump want to fence/wall-off the border and increase the patrols.  Cruz just says it would be a mistake to grant amnesty to the illegals.  Trump says round them up and get them out of here.  But you can't say that and not piss somebody off. 

Anywayz, I'd like to see more talk on where candidates stand than who you think they are.  Hey, a little research told me Ben Carson says do away with home mortgage interest deductions.  WHAAAT?  Wait, instead...a straight across the board, flat tax of 14.9%.  No exceptions. I don't know if the numbers would work but that's at least worth a look.   

Except trump is just talk. What has he ever done to back any of this talk up? Ted has the votes to back it up. Funny how trump just became conservative and concerned 9 months ago. Not a peep during the Aca debacle.

[Snaggletiger]

Except trump is just talk. What has he ever done to back any of this talk up? Ted has the votes to back it up. Funny how trump just became conservative and concerned 9 months ago. Not a peep during the Aca debacle.

About as much as Obama had done when he got in office.  To be fair, if you're going to seek the office, you kind of have to decide where you stand on the issues and decide what you would about them once and for all.  I saw one site that listed his quotes chronologically on numerous different issues and yes, he's changed his tune quite a few times over the years.  But then, so have I. 

Again, I'm in no way endorsing the guy.  I just think we're getting too caught up in the persona of the candidate rather than the substance.  I'm just saying if we look at the things he's actually proposing, whether you agree or disagree with them, there's far more substance and specifics than anyone cares to admit.  No, he hasn't held office.  But that doesn't mean he can't form an opinion and decide, "If I'm elected, this is what I would do."  The problem for me with Trump, as I've said many times, I just think he's pissed too many people off to get anyone to work with him to get any of his plans accomplished.   

[RottenBottom]

About as much as Obama had done when he got in office.  To be fair, if you're going to seek the office, you kind of have to decide where you stand on the issues and decide what you would about them once and for all.  I saw one site that listed his quotes chronologically on numerous different issues and yes, he's changed his tune quite a few times over the years.  But then, so have I. 

Again, I'm in no way endorsing the guy.  I just think we're getting too caught up in the persona of the candidate rather than the substance.  I'm just saying if we look at the things he's actually proposing, whether you agree or disagree with them, there's far more substance and specifics than anyone cares to admit.  No, he hasn't held office.  But that doesn't mean he can't form an opinion and decide, "If I'm elected, this is what I would do."  The problem for me with Trump, as I've said many times, I just think he's pissed too many people off to get anyone to work with him to get any of his plans accomplished.

Where was Trump when the gang of eight tried to push through amnesty?  He didn't say one word, and if he cared as much as he says he does, I expect he would have said something.

Meanwhile in the senate, Cruz fought to kill the gang of eight amnesty bill.  I can go on about Cruz actually fighting for his beliefs, but Trump has done nothing.

[Snaggletiger]

Where was Trump when the gang of eight tried to push through amnesty?  He didn't say one word, and if he cared as much as he says he does, I expect he would have said something.

Meanwhile in the senate, Cruz fought to kill the gang of eight amnesty bill.  I can go on about Cruz actually fighting for his beliefs, but Trump has done nothing.

Where was Trump? 2013?  I think he was probably filming The Apprentice.  He wasn't in politics and had no reason make any statement one way or another about it.  So, you're going to hold that against him?

[GH2001]

Where was Trump? 2013?  I think he was probably filming The Apprentice.  He wasn't in politics and had no reason make any statement one way or another about it.  So, you're going to hold that against him?

He acts like he's so concerned about all this stuff suddenly. Overnight. These problems have been building for years and he hasn't once expressed any concern. In fact he held views that jive with the issues. He's held very liberal positions over the years. Rotten bottom is right. Some have actually fought for these things. And others just talk.

Anyone can say the "what". I've yet to see him explain "how". He has no clue on how political maneuvering in Dc works. Reagan understood it.

[The Prowler]

FEEL THE BERN!!!!!

[Snaggletiger]

He acts like he's so concerned about all this stuff suddenly. Overnight. These problems have been building for years and he hasn't once expressed any concern. In fact he held views that jive with the issues. He's held very liberal positions over the years. Rotten bottom is right. Some have actually fought for these things. And others just talk.

Anyone can say the "what". I've yet to see him explain "how". He has no clue on how political maneuvering in Dc works. Reagan understood it.

Simply pointed out that RB called out Trump for not saying something at a time when Trump wasn't even in politics. He was an actor/businessman/entrepreneur.  Why would he even address what the "Gang of Eight" were doing and why would anyone care if he did?  Sorry, but he's been an open book about who he is/was from the start of this.

You said he has no idea on how to handle political maneuvering.  Isn't that pretty much what has endeared him to millions of Americans?  They're sick and fucking tired of political maneuvering.  He couldn't care less. Is that ultimately the right formula?  No!!!  I've said so multiple times.  It won't work in the end.  But people need to take note of what's going on and how he's changed the perception of the political process. 

As for the "how".  I think he's laid that out far better than 90% of the politicians in this race. Agree or disagree. 

[RottenBottom]

Where was Trump? 2013?  I think he was probably filming The Apprentice.  He wasn't in politics and had no reason make any statement one way or another about it.  So, you're going to hold that against him?

Yes I hold it against him. Along with all of his other flip-flop views. I also believe in a 2015 interview that Trump came out and said he supported amnesty.

This is my first election to vote in, and I've done my homework on these guys. I can't support someone with a mixed past and someone who has offered no plausible attainable ideas.

[Snaggletiger]

Yes I hold it against him. Along with all of his other flip-flop views. I also believe in a 2015 interview that Trump came out and said he supported amnesty.

This is my first election to vote in, and I've done my homework on these guys. I can't support someone with a mixed past and someone who has offered no plausible attainable ideas.

This from CNN.  This is your first election to vote in.  Trump has definitely changed his stance on many issues.  Do you think you'll feel the same about these same issues 20 years from now as you do right now?  Let me go ahead and tell you. No...you won't. Not even 5 years from now.


(CNN)—Donald Trump said on Thursday that Marco Rubio favors "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants because the Florida senator and his parents are Hispanic.

"That's why he wants amnesty," Trump told Erin Burnett during an interview on "Erin Burnett OutFront."

The billionaire repeatedly pointed to Rubio's efforts in support of a 2013 bipartisan immigration reform bill, which passed the Senate but stalled in the House, as evidence against his Republican primary rival.

"He was always in favor of amnesty, he was always in favor of letting people pour into the country," Trump said, "then what happened is, when people found that out, he sank like a rock in the water."

Trump also suggested that no more than 10% of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country pay taxes.

"Illegal immigration, each year, costs us between $200 billion and $300 billion," the real estate mogul told Burnett. "I don't know if anybody gives you those numbers. Probably not."

Trump insisted that people living in the U.S. without documentation are avoiding taxation at all levels.

"Do you really believe they pay taxes?" Trump asked Burnett in a clip of the interview that first aired on "The Lead with Jake Tapper."

Burnett pushed back on Trump's claim, noting that undocumented immigrants' incomes are often taxed by state and local governments.

"But there's very little, percentage-wise," Trump said. "There's very little, probably 5 percent, 10 percent."

Between 50% and 75% of undocumented immigrants pay some taxes, according to information in a 2007 report from the Congressional Budget Office.

"The IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants file individual income tax returns each year," the CBO said, while also citing statewide reports, including one out of California, that showed "75% had taxes withheld from their paychecks, filed tax returns, or both."

 

[CCTAU]

Where was Trump when the gang of eight tried to push through amnesty?  He didn't say one word, and if he cared as much as he says he does, I expect he would have said something.

Meanwhile in the senate, Cruz fought to kill the gang of eight amnesty bill.  I can go on about Cruz actually fighting for his beliefs, but Trump has done nothing.

Trump created an empire worth billions during that time. So "nothing" is not exactly correct.

He has not been in politics and owes no special interest groups. Some folks like that.

[Kaos]

He acts like he's so concerned about all this stuff suddenly. Overnight. These problems have been building for years and he hasn't once expressed any concern. In fact he held views that jive with the issues. He's held very liberal positions over the years. Rotten bottom is right. Some have actually fought for these things. And others just talk.

Anyone can say the "what". I've yet to see him explain "how". He has no clue on how political maneuvering in Dc works. Reagan understood it.

What did you do about it in 2013?  What did Gene Chizik do about it in 2013?

I typically find your arguments rational and somewhat cogent.  On this you're coming across as unhinged and tantrumish.

Trump was not a political entity in 2013.  What was he supposed to do?  Issue policy doctrines? Write essays? Hold press conferences?  What did Obama ever "do" about anything? 

As far as "not knowing how political maneuvering in DC works?  That just makes me lean more toward him.  Fuck "DC political maneuvering."  Put a bull in the china shop for a change.

Let's look at what was posted:

Immigration:

Cruz:  Complete 700 miles of fencing along the border.  Triple the number of border patrols.  Cut off Federal support for "Sanctuary Cities" Agree

Trump: Construct a wall along the entire border.  Triple border patrols and incorporate air surveillance.  Round up 11 million illegals and send them back.  Legally require businesses to hire U.S. Citizens first before any others. Agree MORE


Defense:

Cruz:  Increase military spending. No long term occupations.  (Love this quote) "It's not our military's job to produce democratic utopias around the world. Agree

Trump:  Increase military spending.  "Maximum firepower".  "Only go to war to win." Agree MORE


Trade:

Cruz:  In favor of free trade. Opening up foreign markets helps everyone, especially farmers.  Agree

Trump:  In favor of free trade. Penalize U.S. companies that shift manufacturing outside the country.  Renegotiate NAFTA or break it all together.  Agree MORE

None of those are "unattainable ideas"   All realistic. All rational.

[Buzz Killington]

Yes I hold it against him. Along with all of his other flip-flop views. I also believe in a 2015 interview that Trump came out and said he supported amnesty.

This is my first election to vote in, and I've done my homework on these guys. I can't support someone with a mixed past and someone who has offered no plausible attainable ideas.

Sooooooo...you're not voting at all then?  Good choice. 

[GH2001]

What did you do about it in 2013?  What did Gene Chizik do about it in 2013?

I typically find your arguments rational and somewhat cogent.  On this you're coming across as unhinged and tantrumish.

Trump was not a political entity in 2013.  What was he supposed to do?  Issue policy doctrines? Write essays? Hold press conferences?  What did Obama ever "do" about anything? 

As far as "not knowing how political maneuvering in DC works?  That just makes me lean more toward him.  Fuck "DC political maneuvering."  Put a bull in the china shop for a change.

Let's look at what was posted:

Immigration:

Cruz:  Complete 700 miles of fencing along the border.  Triple the number of border patrols.  Cut off Federal support for "Sanctuary Cities" Agree

Trump: Construct a wall along the entire border.  Triple border patrols and incorporate air surveillance.  Round up 11 million illegals and send them back.  Legally require businesses to hire U.S. Citizens first before any others. Agree MORE


Defense:

Cruz:  Increase military spending. No long term occupations.  (Love this quote) "It's not our military's job to produce democratic utopias around the world. Agree

Trump:  Increase military spending.  "Maximum firepower".  "Only go to war to win." Agree MORE


Trade:

Cruz:  In favor of free trade. Opening up foreign markets helps everyone, especially farmers.  Agree

Trump:  In favor of free trade. Penalize U.S. companies that shift manufacturing outside the country.  Renegotiate NAFTA or break it all together.  Agree MORE

None of those are "unattainable ideas"   All realistic. All rational.

Im not in a position of power to do anything about it like Trump or anyone else running. I did what I could which was support the people who really wanted to fix shit. I've voiced my opinion. Spoke up. Donated money to them.

Trump was donating money to liberal New York politicians during that time. He was so concerned about the issues that he was funding those who were causing the issues. He loved Obama in 2008. Supported Hillary in her senate campaign. Supported Cuomo. This is all very recent. He could have used that money and energy to support people who were fighting for these things in the senate like Lee, Rubio, Paul, Cruz but he didn't. He was doing reality shows and supporting the clintons instead. He's so authoritarian that it's not even funny.

What you guys think he is just isn't so. He is the right wings version of Obama. Lots of one liners, pandering, rhetoric and cutesy speeches. But what actions has he ever done in the past to back any of these things up? His past suggests he is just the opposite.

Trump is right on 3 things:

The wall

Getting our asses out of being entrenched in the Middle East.

Improving veterans affairs

And I hate agreeing with jeb but he's right. You aren't gonna yell your way to being a successful president. It takes a steady but strong hand. Some conviction. Some pragmatism. Some knowledge of how this game works and how to maneuver through it effectively. All things Reagan excelled at.