Republican Nomination Thread

Just because you're paranoid the gummint is out to get you doesn't mean the gummint isn't out to get you.

 

I disagree. no brokered convention. Trump will be the nominee

 

I agree with Nagle's general point about Cruz, and would add that if anything the GOP establishment hates him more than Trump. But in a brokered convention, I suppose that is at least possible. I doubt it, though.

On your second point, being a lawyer working and living in the NYC area, I see enough of the excessive wealth and income inequality that exists at the same time I deal with very few people who are educated and conservative on social issues. But I think there is still some block of such people out there, in other parts of the country. Could a candidate deemed acceptable to the GOP establishment get enough of those voters to vote GOP to counter the loss of Trump supporters if he does not get the nomination?

The equation the GOP establishment has to deal with is in answering that question.

I am tempted to say it is likely that time is already working against any GOP establishment candidate. Despite a certain level of Obama fatigue in independent voter segments, Hillary is leading national polls, and that is despite Sanders's voters still believing the fantasy that he has a real shot to be elected.

Maybe those people are already too turned off by the insanity in the GOP race. But... there's probably still time for them. I just think it's an uphill battle due to Trump, and to a lesser extent Cruz.

 

You are driving down the road. A police car is following you. The lights and siren go on. Do you have a right to continue driving unimpeded because there's been no trial, no judgment, not even an indictment?

No.

You do not understand due process.

 

I don't think so. But I know Hillary's people would prefer you are right.

 

you are against the government expanding their powers but only in certain cases. if its at the border you want the government to expand their influence? perhaps wall us in?

 

it expands their authorities over our country's borders and our own abilities to leave and come back.
It also isn't going to be cheap. Honestly its not even practical but in the hypothetical world where a Cruz Presidency tries to do something like that with a flat tax (his proposal) and a amendment to force a balanced budget (another of his proposals) how could it be even mathematically possible without both significantly raising taxes (with a greater burden on middle/lower class) and significantly cutting other spending? I'd say significantly raising taxes is another case of the government grabbing greater power. Oh- and the greatest way to go from a mild recession to a full fledged depression is to raise taxes on the middle class hurting the biggest consumers.

So I'd also say its quite ironic that Cruz claims immigration is a big economic concern when his "'solutions" to the issue are economically worse

 

Building a wall would have absolutely no restraint on American citizens leaving and entering this countryDo you honestly think a wall is going to keep us trapped in this country like animals?

You can't really believe that, right?

 

its not going to be possible to adhere to a strict rule.... or law as he proposes..... to balance the budget without raising taxes. especially with a flat tax. you'd have to do it significantly no matter how much spending they slash.

also if slashing spending is what you want Cruz is not your man. He rallies against Obamacare and then he votes for it. He votes to increase defense spending even getting called out by Rand Paul. He says he wouldn't have bailed out the banks while being married to a Goldman Sachs partner. In essence he is completely full of dog shit saying what people want to hear to try and get elected. he's been full of shit his whole life

 

I can't go through airport security without feeling trapped like an animal, never mind a damn giant wall, so yeah kinda.. besides it would trap us economically more than anything. Its not even practical or possible anyway so this debate is pretty silly to begin with

 

While there is no explicit recognition of a constitutional right to drive automobiles (for what I think are obvious reasons), it is widely recognized that there is constitutional protection for the right to travel, or for freedom of movement, under the Privileges and Immunities clause as well as the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

But just like for ALL parts of the Constitution, rights protected are not absolute. And do not require the government to first indict, try and convict citizens (what about foreigners?) before any reasonable imposition on such rights can be made.

As for a day in court, I agree that the W admin should have created some procedural means of challenging inclusion on the no fly list. And perhaps some bipartisan compromise should now take place to do that along with passage of a statute saying no one on the list should be able to buy a toothpick let alone a gun. But, what with the current absolutist GOP position on so called gun rights, I don't think that is going to happen.

You do not understand due process.

 

Not to digress here but there is a Trojan horse in Cruz's proposal that I am surprised more of his GOP opponents have not taken him on for. Which is that he also in effect is proposing a VAT type tax, which has the potential to greatly raise taxes, at least on consumers which is the vast majority of us.

If his VAT tax is large enough, he very well might be able to cut taxes on billionaires, build a gigantic wall, have a flat income tax, and balance the budget. But of course in doing so he would cause a massive recession.

 

not to continue to rail on the guy but yes, stopping spending money on wars would be a great way to slash spending. Meanwhile Ted Cruz is advocating that Barack Obama is too weak in the middle east and we need to draw a line and adhere to it - - not exactly an isolationist viewpoint.