login
Trump (Page 33)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-04-05 2:57 PM in reply to: tuwood |
 1731     Denver, Colorado |  Subject: RE: TrumpOriginally posted by tuwood Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by tuwood But how can you justify legal vs illegal wire transfers? What if there is a "legal" family, who has been in US for generations and is sending money to their family in Mexico? What if I am sending money to Mexico (for whatever reason)? And even if they do something with those transfers, illegal people will find their ways, because they can always ask their legal friends to wire the money on their behalf. Therefore, I don't see that working. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by ejshowers Trump published a memo outlining how he would get Mexico to pay for the wall. 1: Make it illegal for any alien who can't demonstrate legal residence in the US to wire money to Mexico. He claims that $24 Billion is wired from the US to Mexico "mostly by illegal immigrants". He claims that as soon as we stop the flow of these wire transfers, Mexico will beg to pay an unspecified sum of money (the space on the memo is actually blank) to allow the wire transfers to resume. 2:Enforce existing trade regulations and impose tariffs. 3: Cancelling visas and increasing fees for new visas. If the real cost is "many many times more than $25B", this isn't going to get him anywhere close, but It's something, I guess. I don't suppose it matters, since the people who support him don't seem to care that everything he says is nonsense-- they're going to vote for him anyway. Because, you know, " outsider". Originally posted by jford2309 No one knows for sure, but estimates range from 15 to 25 billion based on actuals. That is for fencing mind you, not a "wall". A wall would be many, many times more expensive. Maintenance/Operating cost estimates range from .5 to a few billion per year. And, unless cameras and personnel exits to actually enforce a wall, they are easily defeated with either a shovel, a rope or ladder. Costs for that infrastructure would be maybe 10 times that, so 10ish billion per year? How much would a wall cost anyways? I hadn't seen anything on this specific memo, but I always assumed he would add a tariff of some sort to "make them pay". I don't envision Mexico writing a check to the US to fund the wall, but I can certainly see their citizens indirectly paying for it. I'm not sure I agree with making wire transfers illegal and I'm also not sure it would stand up in court, but I could see a tax on said wires abroad. Enforcing the law would be like anything else. Sure, anyone can send a wire but if they were challenged they would have to prove they were legal in order to not be charged/prosecuted. It's not done at the point of the wire, it's done after the fact. That being said, I completely agree with you that it likely wouldn't work very well. I think a straight international wire tax or something along those lines would be much better. I also read somewhere (I think Washington Post - I can search for it) that those $25 billions were for all international transfers, from around the world, not just US. US probably takes the most of it, but not 100%. |
| 2016-04-05 2:57 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821  Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by tuwood But how can you justify legal vs illegal wire transfers? What if there is a "legal" family, who has been in US for generations and is sending money to their family in Mexico? What if I am sending money to Mexico (for whatever reason)? And even if they do something with those transfers, illegal people will find their ways, because they can always ask their legal friends to wire the money on their behalf. Therefore, I don't see that working. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by ejshowers Trump published a memo outlining how he would get Mexico to pay for the wall. 1: Make it illegal for any alien who can't demonstrate legal residence in the US to wire money to Mexico. He claims that $24 Billion is wired from the US to Mexico "mostly by illegal immigrants". He claims that as soon as we stop the flow of these wire transfers, Mexico will beg to pay an unspecified sum of money (the space on the memo is actually blank) to allow the wire transfers to resume. 2:Enforce existing trade regulations and impose tariffs. 3: Cancelling visas and increasing fees for new visas. If the real cost is "many many times more than $25B", this isn't going to get him anywhere close, but It's something, I guess. I don't suppose it matters, since the people who support him don't seem to care that everything he says is nonsense-- they're going to vote for him anyway. Because, you know, " outsider". Originally posted by jford2309 No one knows for sure, but estimates range from 15 to 25 billion based on actuals. That is for fencing mind you, not a "wall". A wall would be many, many times more expensive. Maintenance/Operating cost estimates range from .5 to a few billion per year. And, unless cameras and personnel exits to actually enforce a wall, they are easily defeated with either a shovel, a rope or ladder. Costs for that infrastructure would be maybe 10 times that, so 10ish billion per year? How much would a wall cost anyways? I hadn't seen anything on this specific memo, but I always assumed he would add a tariff of some sort to "make them pay". I don't envision Mexico writing a check to the US to fund the wall, but I can certainly see their citizens indirectly paying for it. I'm not sure I agree with making wire transfers illegal and I'm also not sure it would stand up in court, but I could see a tax on said wires abroad. Enforcing the law would be like anything else. Sure, anyone can send a wire but if they were challenged they would have to prove they were legal in order to not be charged/prosecuted. It's not done at the point of the wire, it's done after the fact. That being said, I completely agree with you that it likely wouldn't work very well. I think a straight international wire tax or something along those lines would be much better. Challenged by whom? And on what basis? If I'm a Mexican who is legally living in the US (or an alien of any nationality, for that matter), and my illegal co-worker asks me to send $1000 to his mom in Guadalajara on his behalf, how, other than by violating my right to privacy or by conducting some really expensive investigation, can you prove that I'm not just sending $1000 of my own money to my buddy's family out of the goodness of my heart? So, then, I guess the idea is that we need to begin scrutinizing every offshore wire transfer at the point of purchase? This means: if any person goes to make an offshore wire transfer, they have to first show proof of US citizenship. If they are not a citizen, they will then need to show proof of legal residence in the US? That's not cumbersome at all... Keep in mind that the agents on the front line of this enforcement effort are Western Union employees, people that work in check cashing places, and postal workers. Those guys make the TSA look like Special Forces. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-04-05 3:10 PM |
| 2016-04-05 3:00 PM in reply to: marysia83 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by tuwood But how can you justify legal vs illegal wire transfers? What if there is a "legal" family, who has been in US for generations and is sending money to their family in Mexico? What if I am sending money to Mexico (for whatever reason)? And even if they do something with those transfers, illegal people will find their ways, because they can always ask their legal friends to wire the money on their behalf. Therefore, I don't see that working. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by ejshowers Trump published a memo outlining how he would get Mexico to pay for the wall. 1: Make it illegal for any alien who can't demonstrate legal residence in the US to wire money to Mexico. He claims that $24 Billion is wired from the US to Mexico "mostly by illegal immigrants". He claims that as soon as we stop the flow of these wire transfers, Mexico will beg to pay an unspecified sum of money (the space on the memo is actually blank) to allow the wire transfers to resume. 2:Enforce existing trade regulations and impose tariffs. 3: Cancelling visas and increasing fees for new visas. If the real cost is "many many times more than $25B", this isn't going to get him anywhere close, but It's something, I guess. I don't suppose it matters, since the people who support him don't seem to care that everything he says is nonsense-- they're going to vote for him anyway. Because, you know, " outsider". Originally posted by jford2309 No one knows for sure, but estimates range from 15 to 25 billion based on actuals. That is for fencing mind you, not a "wall". A wall would be many, many times more expensive. Maintenance/Operating cost estimates range from .5 to a few billion per year. And, unless cameras and personnel exits to actually enforce a wall, they are easily defeated with either a shovel, a rope or ladder. Costs for that infrastructure would be maybe 10 times that, so 10ish billion per year? How much would a wall cost anyways? I hadn't seen anything on this specific memo, but I always assumed he would add a tariff of some sort to "make them pay". I don't envision Mexico writing a check to the US to fund the wall, but I can certainly see their citizens indirectly paying for it. I'm not sure I agree with making wire transfers illegal and I'm also not sure it would stand up in court, but I could see a tax on said wires abroad. Enforcing the law would be like anything else. Sure, anyone can send a wire but if they were challenged they would have to prove they were legal in order to not be charged/prosecuted. It's not done at the point of the wire, it's done after the fact. That being said, I completely agree with you that it likely wouldn't work very well. I think a straight international wire tax or something along those lines would be much better. I also read somewhere (I think Washington Post - I can search for it) that those $25 billions were for all international transfers, from around the world, not just US. That can't possibly be right. If what you're saying is true, it would mean that Donald Trump, the Paragon of Truth and Forthrightness made a statement using statistics that were inaccurate or made-up altogether. And, if that's the case, well... I just wouldn't know what to believe in anymore... |
| 2016-04-05 4:31 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| 1731 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by tuwood But how can you justify legal vs illegal wire transfers? What if there is a "legal" family, who has been in US for generations and is sending money to their family in Mexico? What if I am sending money to Mexico (for whatever reason)? And even if they do something with those transfers, illegal people will find their ways, because they can always ask their legal friends to wire the money on their behalf. Therefore, I don't see that working. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by ejshowers Trump published a memo outlining how he would get Mexico to pay for the wall. 1: Make it illegal for any alien who can't demonstrate legal residence in the US to wire money to Mexico. He claims that $24 Billion is wired from the US to Mexico "mostly by illegal immigrants". He claims that as soon as we stop the flow of these wire transfers, Mexico will beg to pay an unspecified sum of money (the space on the memo is actually blank) to allow the wire transfers to resume. 2:Enforce existing trade regulations and impose tariffs. 3: Cancelling visas and increasing fees for new visas. If the real cost is "many many times more than $25B", this isn't going to get him anywhere close, but It's something, I guess. I don't suppose it matters, since the people who support him don't seem to care that everything he says is nonsense-- they're going to vote for him anyway. Because, you know, " outsider". Originally posted by jford2309 No one knows for sure, but estimates range from 15 to 25 billion based on actuals. That is for fencing mind you, not a "wall". A wall would be many, many times more expensive. Maintenance/Operating cost estimates range from .5 to a few billion per year. And, unless cameras and personnel exits to actually enforce a wall, they are easily defeated with either a shovel, a rope or ladder. Costs for that infrastructure would be maybe 10 times that, so 10ish billion per year? How much would a wall cost anyways? I hadn't seen anything on this specific memo, but I always assumed he would add a tariff of some sort to "make them pay". I don't envision Mexico writing a check to the US to fund the wall, but I can certainly see their citizens indirectly paying for it. I'm not sure I agree with making wire transfers illegal and I'm also not sure it would stand up in court, but I could see a tax on said wires abroad. Enforcing the law would be like anything else. Sure, anyone can send a wire but if they were challenged they would have to prove they were legal in order to not be charged/prosecuted. It's not done at the point of the wire, it's done after the fact. That being said, I completely agree with you that it likely wouldn't work very well. I think a straight international wire tax or something along those lines would be much better. Challenged by whom? And on what basis? If I'm a Mexican who is legally living in the US (or an alien of any nationality, for that matter), and my illegal co-worker asks me to send $1000 to his mom in Guadalajara on his behalf, how, other than by violating my right to privacy or by conducting some really expensive investigation, can you prove that I'm not just sending $1000 of my own money to my buddy's family out of the goodness of my heart? So, then, I guess the idea is that we need to begin scrutinizing every offshore wire transfer at the point of purchase? This means: if any person goes to make an offshore wire transfer, they have to first show proof of US citizenship. If they are not a citizen, they will then need to show proof of legal residence in the US? That's not cumbersome at all... Keep in mind that the agents on the front line of this enforcement effort are Western Union employees, people that work in check cashing places, and postal workers. Those guys make the TSA look like Special Forces. This is exactly what I'm saying. My family and friends (both legal and non-legal) send funds to Europe all the time. If somebody really wants to, can really transfer all their funds to accounts in countries in the whole world and then transfer it to Mexico. Banks like Citi have locations in plenty of countries, so transferring money between accounts is not a biggie. There is no way Mexicans or whoever else will cry a single tear over wire transfer restrictions. US citizens, on the other hand, will be pissed that they have to show three forms of identification, vaccination chart, and lunchroom ticket to get their funds transferred overseas. |
| 2016-04-05 9:28 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Trump Big WI loss just made the road for Trump much tougher.... |
| 2016-04-05 10:49 PM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by ejshowersBig WI loss just made the road for Trump much tougher.... I don't think there's any doubt that he won't get the majority unless Cruz drops out at this point. Your guy Cruz is coming on strong in the final stretch. |
| 2016-04-07 8:16 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Trump If, hypothetically, Cruz ends up with the nomination, whether via contested convention or by (somehow) ending up with the majority of delegates, and, hypothetically, if Trump then decides to go independent, how many of Trump's supporters do you think will stick with the GOP and support Cruz? |
| 2016-04-07 8:50 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn If, hypothetically, Cruz ends up with the nomination, whether via contested convention or by (somehow) ending up with the majority of delegates, and, hypothetically, if Trump then decides to go independent, how many of Trump's supporters do you think will stick with the GOP and support Cruz? That's a big question that I truly don't know the answer. I kind of think about myself in that situation because I'm a Trump supporter and would be faced with the dilemma if it were to happen. I don't dislike Cruz and think he would do well in the general election and I don't dislike Trump and equally feel he would do well in the general (just my opinion of course). So I could vote for either one of them. With Trump going third party I don't see any possible way for him to win if Cruz were to be the Republican nominee, so I would likely vote for Cruz the Republican nominee. |
| 2016-04-07 9:00 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump On a lighter note, this has to be the most exceptional impersonation of Trump and Bernie I've seen to date. Too funny https://www.facebook.com/100005529978082/videos/471615633032765/ |
| 2016-04-07 1:33 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| 1731 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn If, hypothetically, Cruz ends up with the nomination, whether via contested convention or by (somehow) ending up with the majority of delegates, and, hypothetically, if Trump then decides to go independent, how many of Trump's supporters do you think will stick with the GOP and support Cruz? Can you guys shed some lights for me here on the process? because I was under the impression that it would be too late to anyone to go as independent. Mostly because of some states' rules where there was a deadline for independent voter (and the deadline has passed). I may be wrong, therefore I'm asking  |
| 2016-04-07 2:01 PM in reply to: marysia83 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn If, hypothetically, Cruz ends up with the nomination, whether via contested convention or by (somehow) ending up with the majority of delegates, and, hypothetically, if Trump then decides to go independent, how many of Trump's supporters do you think will stick with the GOP and support Cruz? Can you guys shed some lights for me here on the process? because I was under the impression that it would be too late to anyone to go as independent. Mostly because of some states' rules where there was a deadline for independent voter (and the deadline has passed). I may be wrong, therefore I'm asking It's state by state, and would be quite complex for anyone to pull off at the last minute. I did a quick google and found this site: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates It describes all the dates for independents to file which are mostly mid year 2016. The dates that have passed were primarily in the context of the primaries for the Democratic and Republican parties. I think I read somewhere that 35 states allow write in ballots as well, so even if you don't officially get on the ballot you can instruct supporters to write you in. |
| 2016-04-07 2:17 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| 1731 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn If, hypothetically, Cruz ends up with the nomination, whether via contested convention or by (somehow) ending up with the majority of delegates, and, hypothetically, if Trump then decides to go independent, how many of Trump's supporters do you think will stick with the GOP and support Cruz? Can you guys shed some lights for me here on the process? because I was under the impression that it would be too late to anyone to go as independent. Mostly because of some states' rules where there was a deadline for independent voter (and the deadline has passed). I may be wrong, therefore I'm asking It's state by state, and would be quite complex for anyone to pull off at the last minute. I did a quick google and found this site: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates It describes all the dates for independents to file which are mostly mid year 2016. The dates that have passed were primarily in the context of the primaries for the Democratic and Republican parties. I think I read somewhere that 35 states allow write in ballots as well, so even if you don't officially get on the ballot you can instruct supporters to write you in. That makes sense, thank you! I can't believe how much I have learned about election in just the last few months.... After being here for almost 13 years. I still don't quite know election rules in my own country - because I did not care that much. One thing that is interested with this year's election: the number of people who become interested in the process, who started educate themselves (and others), who watch debates, who actually go to vote. |
| 2016-04-07 2:20 PM in reply to: marysia83 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by tuwood That makes sense, thank you! I can't believe how much I have learned about election in just the last few months.... After being here for almost 13 years. I still don't quite know election rules in my own country - because I did not care that much. One thing that is interested with this year's election: the number of people who become interested in the process, who started educate themselves (and others), who watch debates, who actually go to vote. Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn If, hypothetically, Cruz ends up with the nomination, whether via contested convention or by (somehow) ending up with the majority of delegates, and, hypothetically, if Trump then decides to go independent, how many of Trump's supporters do you think will stick with the GOP and support Cruz? Can you guys shed some lights for me here on the process? because I was under the impression that it would be too late to anyone to go as independent. Mostly because of some states' rules where there was a deadline for independent voter (and the deadline has passed). I may be wrong, therefore I'm asking It's state by state, and would be quite complex for anyone to pull off at the last minute. I did a quick google and found this site: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates It describes all the dates for independents to file which are mostly mid year 2016. The dates that have passed were primarily in the context of the primaries for the Democratic and Republican parties. I think I read somewhere that 35 states allow write in ballots as well, so even if you don't officially get on the ballot you can instruct supporters to write you in. I'm 42 and have always lived in the US and have learned a lot this year myself. It's the deepest I think either party has gone into the primaries that I can recall and many states like my own actually matter this time around. I live in Nebraska and our primary is in May so the choices were already made by the time it ever got to us in the past. |
| 2016-04-07 3:20 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn If, hypothetically, Cruz ends up with the nomination, whether via contested convention or by (somehow) ending up with the majority of delegates, and, hypothetically, if Trump then decides to go independent, how many of Trump's supporters do you think will stick with the GOP and support Cruz? Can you guys shed some lights for me here on the process? because I was under the impression that it would be too late to anyone to go as independent. Mostly because of some states' rules where there was a deadline for independent voter (and the deadline has passed). I may be wrong, therefore I'm asking It's state by state, and would be quite complex for anyone to pull off at the last minute. I did a quick google and found this site: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates It describes all the dates for independents to file which are mostly mid year 2016. The dates that have passed were primarily in the context of the primaries for the Democratic and Republican parties. I think I read somewhere that 35 states allow write in ballots as well, so even if you don't officially get on the ballot you can instruct supporters to write you in. I don't know if he has any interest in running as a Libertarian, but that would get him on the ballet of all 50 states. They have a couple primaries, they're all completely non-binding and a nominee is elected by unpledged delegates at their convention. If he wanted to go that route, they'd be foolish not to take him. If Trump could pull 5% of the popular vote in the general election, Libertarians would earn a piece of the presidential election campaign fund in 2020. If he could somehow manage to get 25% of the popular vote, then the Libertarian party would be declared a major party and get a full equal share of the pot. As much as I hate the thought of President Trump, I would absolutely vote for him on a Libertarian ticket. He wouldn't have a chance to win it all, but it could be a big step in the right direction towards breaking up the two party system. |
| 2016-04-07 4:42 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Trump Interesting article highlighting Trump's uphill battle as his vote share has barley budged since Iowa, but as the number of players has shrunk and voters have been more tactical, his 35 to 40% share will not necessarily cut it going forward, especially in the non-northeast sates. I have always said his very high unfavorable rating yields a fairly low ceiling. Recent data seems to support this. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-new-magic-number-is-40-p... |
| 2016-04-08 4:41 AM in reply to: Bob Loblaw |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn If, hypothetically, Cruz ends up with the nomination, whether via contested convention or by (somehow) ending up with the majority of delegates, and, hypothetically, if Trump then decides to go independent, how many of Trump's supporters do you think will stick with the GOP and support Cruz? Can you guys shed some lights for me here on the process? because I was under the impression that it would be too late to anyone to go as independent. Mostly because of some states' rules where there was a deadline for independent voter (and the deadline has passed). I may be wrong, therefore I'm asking It's state by state, and would be quite complex for anyone to pull off at the last minute. I did a quick google and found this site: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates It describes all the dates for independents to file which are mostly mid year 2016. The dates that have passed were primarily in the context of the primaries for the Democratic and Republican parties. I think I read somewhere that 35 states allow write in ballots as well, so even if you don't officially get on the ballot you can instruct supporters to write you in. I don't know if he has any interest in running as a Libertarian, but that would get him on the ballet of all 50 states. They have a couple primaries, they're all completely non-binding and a nominee is elected by unpledged delegates at their convention. If he wanted to go that route, they'd be foolish not to take him. If Trump could pull 5% of the popular vote in the general election, Libertarians would earn a piece of the presidential election campaign fund in 2020. If he could somehow manage to get 25% of the popular vote, then the Libertarian party would be declared a major party and get a full equal share of the pot. As much as I hate the thought of President Trump, I would absolutely vote for him on a Libertarian ticket. He wouldn't have a chance to win it all, but it could be a big step in the right direction towards breaking up the two party system. Not that it matters much, since I think the definition of a Libertarian has gotten pretty muddy lately, and because, as you described, it would just be a tactical move to bring legitimacy to the party, but, ideologically, does Trump qualify as Libertarian? |
| 2016-04-08 6:02 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Not that it matters much, since I think the definition of a Libertarian has gotten pretty muddy lately, and because, as you described, it would just be a tactical move to bring legitimacy to the party, but, ideologically, does Trump qualify as Libertarian? Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn If, hypothetically, Cruz ends up with the nomination, whether via contested convention or by (somehow) ending up with the majority of delegates, and, hypothetically, if Trump then decides to go independent, how many of Trump's supporters do you think will stick with the GOP and support Cruz? Can you guys shed some lights for me here on the process? because I was under the impression that it would be too late to anyone to go as independent. Mostly because of some states' rules where there was a deadline for independent voter (and the deadline has passed). I may be wrong, therefore I'm asking It's state by state, and would be quite complex for anyone to pull off at the last minute. I did a quick google and found this site: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates It describes all the dates for independents to file which are mostly mid year 2016. The dates that have passed were primarily in the context of the primaries for the Democratic and Republican parties. I think I read somewhere that 35 states allow write in ballots as well, so even if you don't officially get on the ballot you can instruct supporters to write you in. I don't know if he has any interest in running as a Libertarian, but that would get him on the ballet of all 50 states. They have a couple primaries, they're all completely non-binding and a nominee is elected by unpledged delegates at their convention. If he wanted to go that route, they'd be foolish not to take him. If Trump could pull 5% of the popular vote in the general election, Libertarians would earn a piece of the presidential election campaign fund in 2020. If he could somehow manage to get 25% of the popular vote, then the Libertarian party would be declared a major party and get a full equal share of the pot. As much as I hate the thought of President Trump, I would absolutely vote for him on a Libertarian ticket. He wouldn't have a chance to win it all, but it could be a big step in the right direction towards breaking up the two party system. No. |
| 2016-04-08 12:04 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Master 2946 Centennial, CO | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn If, hypothetically, Cruz ends up with the nomination, whether via contested convention or by (somehow) ending up with the majority of delegates, and, hypothetically, if Trump then decides to go independent, how many of Trump's supporters do you think will stick with the GOP and support Cruz? So, I've been Rep for a very long time. At this point, I favor Trump, but could stomach Cruz. But to answer your question, if the convention, even contested appears to be reasonable and fair, then I think the party will be fine. But if they cheat either Trump and/or Cruz out of the nomination, then I think you will have a fractured party and they will lose. I don't think Trump will go 3rd party unless the establishment really screws him. (yes I know they can change the rules, but let's be honest being allowed to change the rules and settting them so he can't win are two different things). If he did go 3rd party, it is not to win, it is to cause the Reps to lose. My biggest fear is they are going to come in and give the nomination to someone who didn't even run in the primaries. If they do that, I will no longer vote Republican, and I will not be a Dem, so I will be a person without a party. It's a sad situation. |
| 2016-04-08 12:12 PM in reply to: velocomp |
| 1731 Denver, Colorado | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by velocomp My biggest fear is they are going to come in and give the nomination to someone who didn't even run in the primaries. If they do that, I will no longer vote Republican, and I will not be a Dem, so I will be a person without a party. It's a sad situation. I was wondering why you would go/feel that way? Just curious. What if it's a person who has (in my opinion) plenty of trust within Republicans, like Paul Ryan? |
| 2016-04-08 1:24 PM in reply to: marysia83 |
Master 2946 Centennial, CO | Subject: RE: Trump The reason I feel that was it that this is the party deciding, not the people. Even someone like Ryan should understand that the party is ignoring the will of the people. I like Paul Ryan, but if he was going to represent me he should have gone through the primaries. It would be like playing a full season of football and then the AFC Commisioner deciding that the teams that finished the best were not good enough so they put in a team of their own. We, the people have invested time, thought and energy into the process. To now say my opinion doesn't matter is wrong. Don't get me wrong, I am sickened by the 5 remaining candidates(Old Establishment, Religious Right, Loudmouth Outsider, Criminal, Socialist), but they were the ones who stepped forward. It's kind of sad. I want to believe they will do the right thing, but if they don't then I will no longer associate with them. Pretty simple.
|
| 2016-04-08 2:00 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 2263 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood On a lighter note, this has to be the most exceptional impersonation of Trump and Bernie I've seen to date. Too funny https://www.facebook.com/100005529978082/videos/471615633032765/ I've watched that whole "debate". It's hilarious. |
| 2016-04-12 1:07 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Bob Loblaw Not that it matters much, since I think the definition of a Libertarian has gotten pretty muddy lately, and because, as you described, it would just be a tactical move to bring legitimacy to the party, but, ideologically, does Trump qualify as Libertarian? Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by marysia83 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn If, hypothetically, Cruz ends up with the nomination, whether via contested convention or by (somehow) ending up with the majority of delegates, and, hypothetically, if Trump then decides to go independent, how many of Trump's supporters do you think will stick with the GOP and support Cruz? Can you guys shed some lights for me here on the process? because I was under the impression that it would be too late to anyone to go as independent. Mostly because of some states' rules where there was a deadline for independent voter (and the deadline has passed). I may be wrong, therefore I'm asking It's state by state, and would be quite complex for anyone to pull off at the last minute. I did a quick google and found this site: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates It describes all the dates for independents to file which are mostly mid year 2016. The dates that have passed were primarily in the context of the primaries for the Democratic and Republican parties. I think I read somewhere that 35 states allow write in ballots as well, so even if you don't officially get on the ballot you can instruct supporters to write you in. I don't know if he has any interest in running as a Libertarian, but that would get him on the ballet of all 50 states. They have a couple primaries, they're all completely non-binding and a nominee is elected by unpledged delegates at their convention. If he wanted to go that route, they'd be foolish not to take him. If Trump could pull 5% of the popular vote in the general election, Libertarians would earn a piece of the presidential election campaign fund in 2020. If he could somehow manage to get 25% of the popular vote, then the Libertarian party would be declared a major party and get a full equal share of the pot. As much as I hate the thought of President Trump, I would absolutely vote for him on a Libertarian ticket. He wouldn't have a chance to win it all, but it could be a big step in the right direction towards breaking up the two party system. No. Yeah, he's definitely not Libertarian. Then again, he's not really a Repulican or Democrat either. But he clearly doesn't mind flip-flopping on pretty much any issue, so he can just evolve his stance to match up with the Libertarian platform. As long as he doesn't waiver on building a wall, his supporters will follow. If he ends up getting screwed by the GOP and wants revenge, running on the Libertarian ticket is a much better opportunity for him than trying to run as a pure independant. And if the party thinks he could get 20-30 million votes, then they'll be able to cash in in 2020. I would never vote for Trump on the GOP ticket because I think he'll be a truly horrible president, but I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him on the Libertarian ticket where I know he has no chance to win but a big chance to get the party future funding. On a side note, here's a candidate that JMK and Tony can finally agree on.
(Clump.jpg) Attachments ---------------- Clump.jpg (40KB - 5 downloads) |
| 2016-04-12 1:45 PM in reply to: 0 |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Trump The Libertarian Party Convention is in the end of May and the presumptive nominee is Gary Johnson ("Feel the Johnson!"). Trump's head isn't schedules to explode until the middle of July with the GOP Convention. IMHO, there is no way Trump is going to be on the Libertarian Party ticket. Edited by Hook'em 2016-04-12 1:48 PM |
| 2016-04-12 1:56 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Trump I've been saying for months that having a strong organization, well into the primary season, is key and I pointed to the Cruz organizational team as having an upper hand on all of the GOP contenders. Trump is now getting schooled by Cruz in the important details of the process. Heck, two of Trump's kids didn't even bother to register to vote and therefore can't vote in the NY primary. If Trump doesn't get enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, I think delegates will flock to Cruz and he will end up with the nomination. The Cruz machine is not only working to capture Trump's defecting delegates, but also to keep those delegates from supporting anyone put up by the GOP establishment. |
| 2016-04-12 2:28 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by Hook'em I've been saying for months that having a strong organization, well into the primary season, is key and I pointed to the Cruz organizational team as having an upper hand on all of the GOP contenders. Trump is now getting schooled by Cruz in the important details of the process. Heck, two of Trump's kids didn't even bother to register to vote and therefore can't vote in the NY primary. If Trump doesn't get enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, I think delegates will flock to Cruz and he will end up with the nomination. The Cruz machine is not only working to capture Trump's defecting delegates, but also to keep those delegates from supporting anyone put up by the GOP establishment. I'm genuinely curious how the delegates work at the convention (I truly don't know). I do know that for the most part they are obliged to vote however the state went on the first ballot, but if there isn't a majority then I believe they have the freedom to vote for whomever they want. In Nebraska I considered being a delegate for Trump this year and had I done it (and gotten through the gauntlet) I would most certainly be loyal to him top to bottom and feel obliged to go the way our state went because my vote would be worth tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of people. I had gotten various calls and mailers about being a "Trump Delegate" or being a "Cruz Delegate", so there seems to be a difference. The good news is I truly don't see how Trump/Cruz delegates at ~90% of the delegates can possibly switch and go for Rubio or Kasich on a second ballot. It seems like it's either going to be Trump or Cruz, which I could live with either. I certainly prefer Trump. So hypothetically if 60% of the delegates are Trump delegates and 40% of the delegates are Cruz Delegates, I don't know if they're screened ahead of time (like they seem to be in Nebraska) to make sure they're Trump/cruz supporters or if they're just generic fat cat republicans that are legally bound to vote for Trump/Cruz in first ballot only. In other words, do they get stacked by the GOP to then insert a Bush/Rubio on the second ballot? |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK