Cruz Drops Out of Race
Posted: Tue, 03 May 2016 21:38:06
Kasich decides to keep going... for some reason.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ ... index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/ ... index.html
Freedom Isn't Free - Buy a Gun.
https://vagunforum.net:443/phpbb/


kelu wrote:The best place for Cruz is as supreme court judge. It would one heck of a constitutionalist. I hope to see him there.

Trump's stance is "build a wall and have Mexico pay for it" and if that doesn't work, use executive orders against legal companies conducting legal transactions like Western Union the same way Obama's administration creates hassles for banks to do business with companies in the firearms industry. He will also look at trade tariffs and increase visa fees or outright cancel them to strong arm Mexico. That doesn't seem so conservative or free market like. His plan boils down to coercing a country that he himself admits is impoverished to somehow come up with $5-10 billion to pay for a wall (which a former border state governor just said will just result in taller ladders and longer tunnels) and/or using authoritarian tactics to manipulate business, trade, and labor. From Trump's website:Having served as Governor of a border state, Gary Johnson understands immigration. He understands that a robust flow of labor, regulated not by politics, but by the marketplace, is essential. He understands that a bigger fence will only produce taller ladders and deeper tunnels, and that the flow of illegal immigrants across the border is not a consequence of too little security, but rather a legal immigration system that simply doesn’t work. Militarizing the border, bigger fences, and other punitive measures espoused by too many politicians are all simplistic “solutions” to a problem caused by artificial quotas, bureaucratic incompetence and the shameful failure of Congress to actually put in place an immigration system that matches reality.
Governor Johnson has long advocated a simplified and secure system of work visas by which willing workers and willing employers can meet in a robust labor marketplace efficiently and economically. Aspiring immigrants would undergo a background check, pay taxes and provide proof of employment.
Making it simpler and efficient to enter the U.S. legally will provide the greatest security possible, allowing law enforcement to focus its time and resources on the criminals and bad actors who are, in reality, a relatively small portion of those who are today entering the country illegally.
COMPELLING MEXICO TO PAY FOR THE WALL
Introduction: The provision of the Patriot Act, Section 326 - the "know your customer" provision, compelling financial institutions to demand identity documents before opening accounts or conducting financial transactions is a fundamental element of the outline below. That section authorized the executive branch to issue detailed regulations on the subject, found at 31 CFR 130.120-121. It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year. There are several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall including the following:
On day 1 promulgate a "proposed rule" (regulation) amending 31 CFR 130.121 to redefine applicable financial institutions to include money transfer companies like Western Union, and redefine "account" to include wire transfers. Also include in the proposed rule a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States.
On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest. They receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States. The majority of that amount comes from illegal aliens. It serves as de facto welfare for poor families in Mexico. There is no significant social safety net provided by the state in Mexico.
On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.
Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules: There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to; the impact of any tariffs on the price imports will be more than offset by the economic and income gains of increased production in the United States, in addition to revenue from any tariffs themselves. Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation. By definition, if you have a large trade deficit with a nation, it means they are selling far more to you than the reverse - thus they, not you, stand to lose from enforcing trade rules through tariffs (as has been done to save many U.S. industries in the past).
Cancelling visas: Immigration is a privilege, not a right. Mexico is totally dependent on the United States as a release valve for its own poverty - our approvals of hundreds of thousands of visas to their nationals every year is one of our greatest leverage points. We also have leverage through business and tourist visas for important people in the Mexican economy. Keep in mind, the United States has already taken in 4X more migrants than any other country on planet earth, producing lower wages and higher unemployment for our own citizens and recent migrants.
Visa fees: Even a small increase in visa fees would pay for the wall. This includes fees on border crossing cards, of which more than 1 million are issued a year. The border-crossing card is also one of the greatest sources of illegal immigration into the United States, via overstays. Mexico is also the single largest recipient of U.S. green cards, which confer a path to U.S. citizenship. Again, we have the leverage so Mexico will back down.
Conclusion: Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make America Great Again.
Let's get a little reminder on what you said on primary day:FiremanBob wrote:Gary Johnson is such an unrealistic ideologue that he would be a disaster for the US. Sure, it might seem nice to allow the free market in labor to solve all problems. But you can't get to that until you also 100% demolish the welfare state. And even then, allowing millions of people who have neither understanding nor respect for the unique American culture that makes us so successful would undermine that culture. Finally, without a secure border we cannot protect our society from violent terrorists who hate America and want to kill us in our own home.
A vote for Johnson = a vote for Clinton.
Now I know you root for the candidate you really want on primary day, but how can you reconcile your primary day statements about Trump to Republicans who don't like him to convince them to still vote for him in the general election?FiremanBob wrote:Please think before you vote today. A vote for Trump is a vote for Clinton.If you are guided by the Constitution, Trump is against you. He knows nothing of the Constitution and respects it even less. He is a fraud, a scam artist who is pulling the biggest scam in America since 2008. Don't be a sucker.Friends don't let friends vote for Trump.


http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-cars ... tus-2016-5I think he would be terrific on the Supreme Court, or I think he would be a terrific attorney general. Or he could be both," Carson said when asked if Cruz would make for a good Supreme Court pick. "He could be attorney general first, you know, go ahead and prosecute Hillary, and then go on the Supreme Court."
The point isn't to go ad hominem, but to see where "conservatives" will draw the line and actually start walking the principles they espouse. Seeing how far the GOP has been twisted from its core conservative beliefs and if they'll finally say "nope, I can't get behind that." Out of all of the GOP candidates that were in this cycle's primary, who (if any) of them would you not have pulled the lever for in the general election because they do not line up with your principles? Instead, come general election time the plan is to throw principles out the window and just vote party line because the party whips have you more scared of what it'll be like with the other party in charge.FiremanBob wrote:SB: I'd appreciate it if you would stick to the issues. Going ad hominem on me is a Leftist reflex that should be beneath you. Perhaps you could strengthen your case for Johnson instead.
