Magox

I'm not a Ted Cruz guy but the way he handled this argument I think speaks to his rhetorical abilities.

That's what it seemed like to me, which of course isn't true. More like about 50-100 million .

200 million people may like what idea?

No, you are for the candidate that practices cronyism and has tried to use it at the expense of others. In regards to Rubio, sure I like him. But, I am for any candidate who I believe has a mastery of the policy positions, moderate temperament who I believe is electable. You have abandoned your principles and have become a serial apologist for the Carnival barking king, Trump.

But you support the king of cronyism. I don't get it, are you a socialist?

Bombshell report from Reuters. This story will be discussed quite a bit.

Hillary is dropping off badly in the polls. Even in states that are traditionally Democratic. This one Michigan. Only one GOP candidate annihilates her.

3rd. There already exists a thread on this. Good old 14th

I'm in the live draft lobby. Don't really see much there

Magic Mushroom's. Presente

Jeb is not gonna win it. It will be between Rubio, Cruz or Kasich. Jeb would have to make one hell of a turn around for that to happen, and frankly I just don't see it in him.

I wasn't trying to imply that you supported him. Just that I figured you would be repulsed at anyone who would support eminent domain. Considering your libertarian leanings.

For Trump, It's all about Trump and not the people. "I had to do it for myself.”

I'm sure Rob's house and TTYT can appreciate this:

Yes, he rips the last nominee for being too "mean-spirited", then he quadruples down on it. That's what you called being a hypocrite. He certainly evolves often and quickly on a number of positions.

And your point?

Let's play, guess who said this not too long ago or

So what you are saying is that white's hate Trump. Got it!

You can't have an honest debate with people who post vapid without context FB-like meme charts.

Quinnipiac looks at Florida, Ohio and PA to see who does best in the one to one matchups vs. Hillary. There is only one candidate that they polled that would beat her in all three states.

So now it's confirmed or certainly implied, that some of the liberals that frequent PPP want to model themselves after countries that either have structurally extremely high unemployment with a grim history and prospects of growth and employment or countries that have the populations of the size of Indiana, which are disproportionately financed through natural resources relative to the U.S. Never mind the fact that they have virtually no responsibility to the world to assist them in need via humanitarian or military missions, which therefore they have tiny expenditures in military spending because of their pacifist nature. Let's not forget that these same countries either had no desire to defeat the Nazi's or Russians or simply didn't have the military might to even produce a speed bump vs. their aggressors. To somehow to try to credibly make any sort of argument that those economies offer more opportunities than the U.S falls flat in the face of reality. Only bozo partisans would attempt to do such a thing.

I'm not too familiar with this setup, where is that I need to go once the draft begins? In regards to the account. Live draft Lobby?

By looking at those charts, just makes me want to pack up my bags and move to Greece, France, Spain, Italy and Portugal. Those places must be a magnet for immigration and opportunities.

I'm on my iPad, below is an article from Politico. Donald Trump has singlehandedly changed the standard for what it takes to be considered conservative on immigration, as one GOP presidential contender after another joins his call to end birthright citizenship. Seemingly settled more than a century ago with the passage of the 14th Amendment and an 1898 Supreme Court ruling, the policy that automatically grants citizenship to basically anyone born on U.S. soil is suddenly driving a rift through the 2016 GOP presidential field — and triggering heartburn among conservative figures concerned about a backlash from Latinos in the general election. Though some of Trump’s more mainstream Republican opponents, such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, have quickly distanced themselves from the business mogul’s stance, several other prominent candidates, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, have embraced it. And that’s distressingly bad news to conservatives who say the spectacle is setting up the party for a repeat of Mitt Romney’s dismal showing among Latino voters in 2012. The division within the GOP over whether to provide immigrants here illegally with a pathway to citizenship has given way to a new litmus test on the right. “It’s a terrible idea. It’s a politically insane idea. It can’t be done. It’s impossible to achieve,” said Peter Wehner, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former official in the George W. Bush White House. “So what’s the point? It’s symbolism and it’s exactly the wrong kind of symbolism. If Republicans want to make this their symbol … they’ll pay a high price for it.” “We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally,” Cruz told radio host Michael Medved. Libre Initiative Executive Director Daniel Garza, whose nonpartisan group is focused on promoting conservative principles among Latinos, says his organization “vehemently” opposes revoking birthright citizenship and called the issue a divisive one. “The call to rescind birthright citizenship goes well beyond the call for ‘self-deportation,’” Garza said. “You are talking about a massive institutional revision. That is not gonna happen. But just driving that narrative is just going to split people.” Data already show the GOP will have to make up considerable ground from Romney’s performance among Latinos in 2012, when the former Massachusetts governor lost the Latino vote to President Barack Obama by a whopping 44-point margin, according to exit polls. The polling firm Latino Decisions projected in July that the Republican nominee will need to secure 47 percent of the Latino vote in November 2016 to win the popular vote — a 20-point boost from Romney’s showing in the last cycle. And some Republicans believe a prolonged focus on birthright citizenship will severely damage that cause. Alfonso Aguilar, a former official in the George W. Bush administration, said the birthright citizenship issue is flooding through Spanish-language media and added of Latinos: “This is what they’re hearing every day. They find it insulting.” ---snip--- In particular, he pointed to Walker, a leading GOP hopeful who has already endorsed more conservative views on immigration than other mainstream Republicans, as a candidate who is “done” because of his support for ending birthright citizenship. “He was already aligning himself with those who say legal immigration suppresses wages, and that was already toxic,” said Aguilar, who now runs the American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership, which advocates for conservative causes among Latinos. “But with this, I can guarantee you: He’s not going anywhere. He’s gonna be destroyed with Latinos.” The political retribution against the GOP in the general election will be much more acute if Republicans nominate someone who’s embraced ending birthright citizenship, Wehner said. But if the nominee is someone who’s rejected the policy — like Bush or Rubio — that would lessen the damage, he added. Democrats have pounded Republican candidates over birthright citizenship. In a memo sent to reporters Wednesday, the Democratic National Committee highlighted the depth of support for ending birthright citizenship among the GOP presidential contenders. “Attacking and criminalizing children — let alone citizen children born to immigrant parents — is the lowest form of political buffoonery … even for the GOP,” read the memo from Pablo Manriquez, the DNC’s Hispanic media director. Past polls have found that Americans are divided over whether birthright citizenship should be revoked. An August 2010 poll from CBS News found that 49 percent of Americans said the birthright citizenship policy should stay, while 47 percent said it should be changed. About 4.1 million U.S. citizen children were born to undocumented immigrants, according to the Migration Policy Institute. In an interview, Russell Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, called the rise of the birthright citizenship debate “dark and demagogic.” “The American people often disagree on what the best approach should be to fixing the immigration system,” Moore said. “But we have veered off now into a rhetorical targeting of immigrants themselves. The use of language such as ‘anchor babies’ is disgusting.” Despite the criticism, Trump hasn’t relented from his views. The businessman and GOP front-runner doubled down on his position Tuesday night during an interview with Fox News, insisting that children born to undocumented immigrants while on American grounds don’t have U.S. citizenship and arguing that his view would prevail in court. “I don’t think they have American citizenship, and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — some would disagree,” Trump told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “But many of them agree with me — you’re going to find they do not have American citizenship. We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell. We have to start a process, Bill, where we take back our country.” The persistent focus on birthright citizenship is infuriating to those like Garza, who’s worked to promote conservative causes among the broader Latino community. “You are talking about withholding equal opportunity from people because of what their parents did,” Garza said. “That is yeah … you know.” He then sighed. “Sometimes there are no words to express,” Garza added. “When you hear something like that, it’s gone beyond the pale.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-sets-new-immigration-litmus-test-121537.html#ixzz3jJSdiVvF

Because those actions would arguably be unlawful.