is it really possible that Donald trump could be president?????

[Bishopsbuddy]

I have zero understanding of American politics and wondered could some one give me an idiots explanation pls. Could trump really win???

Get your own house in order before you start throwing stones. How many women and non Christians are welcomed to reside in the Vatican?

Classic "Look over there" argument, and, again, not accurate. Whatever the historic evils of the Catholic church, it has a reasonably solid tradition of helping the vulnerable, irrespective of their religion.

'If illegal immigrants were legalised wouldn't it help the economy?'

They are already working and the economy is not doing very well. In the longeterm America has lots of growth potential for population and economy, but in the short term in the here and now, workers are suffering. That is why Bernie and Trump are doing so well.

'thr Pope should know better'

I guarantee that he will be back again as we near Florida. Things are desperate for the globalists, their entire ideology is collapsing because finally a courageous person is defying and insulting them and the American people are rejecting the entire establishment.

You can see from bernie and Trump's success that what Pat Buchanan said is true

“The single clearest message in the presidential campaign of 2015-2016 is that the American people would like to cleanse our capital city of its ruling class.”

The American people can't be cowed, they can't be beaten. they are not politically correct and have not been brainwashed. They will reject the "losers" who have led to America's decline.

In particular this Pope. Who, as far as I can tell, it's trying to get his house in order.

The same could be said about the US meddling with any other country, or it's President. But, apparently, one candidate would tell every other country how it would be.

Do illegal immigrants pay taxes?

'Do illegal immigrants pay taxes?'

I don't think so, apart from sales taxes etc. This is why Cruz and Rubio keep calling each other liars about whether they voted for a path to legalisation and for full citizenship.

Governor of South Carolina, politically correct, Nikki Haley, met with George W Bush a few days ago and Jeb desperately wanted her to endorse him, but she chose to endorse Rubio. That may be a sign that the Establishment have given up on Bush and they are throwing all their cards in with Rubio.

Expect Trump to have to start hitting Rubio soon.

It's on! Trump 2016!

Rubio is a very clever guy but he did have a robotic meltdown in a previous debate where he seemed to repeatedly regurgitate a teenage whizzkid scripted pre-rehearsed patter when asked about somethng else entirely.

Trump will have to take the gloves off and start going for him soon.

Trump made the Trumpites laugh the other night at a rally when he said about Rubio that Trumpwas standing next to him at that debate and he looked over and saw Rubio sweating and it was literally dropping off him and Trump thought "what the hell's going on, he looked like he had been in the swimming pool." He said you can't have a guy like that, a total wreck, trying to deal with Putin, for that you need a Trump.

Which was a fair point!

I don't think so, apart from sales taxes etc.

Transactions taxes are a big revenue source in the US, especially in states like mine that have no state income tax. So yes, illegal immigrants do indeed pay taxes.

Really? No income tax at all?

'in states like mine that have no state income tax'

Wow, no income tax in Florida at all or is there a Federal income tax? What is the level of sales tax there?

No wonder Trump says that Florida is his second home.

Go Trump!

Ah, I got it, federal income tax, but no state income tax.

From my understanding and from what I have seen illegals are not paying their taxes. Another thing is that they get exemptions that poor Americans don't get with regards to healthcare. I strongly disagree with illegals not having to pay anything for using healthcare when our poorest Americans are fined for not having healthcare coverage.

Paying sales taxes barely touches the sides of what they should be paying and what many poor people are paying. Another aspect of this is the additional cost of programs such as subsidized childcare, preK programs and housing.

How I see it is that we have a real problem in America with supporting the poor. Immigration policy has been set up to protect this group and the illegals coming in undermine the effectiveness of the policies put in place to help poorer communities.

Surely most of the problem is with employers. If illegal immigrants were allowed to legalise and pay taxes wouldn't it benefit all?

It also seems a waste how much is paid in health through insurance companies.
Other countries are doing well with much more social care than the US. Including with proportionally high immigration levels too.
I can't see how it can't be better to integrate rather than expell.
The only beneficiaries are employers exploiting illegal immigrants.

This is a few years old, but I think most of it still applies today. It corrects some misconceptions about illegal immigrants.

www.immigrationpolicy.org/high-school/top-10-myths-about-immigration

It should also be pointed out that illegal immigrants contribute indirectly to ad valorem property taxes in the US by paying rent. Ad valorem taxes are a main source of school funding in most states, including mine.

Illegal immigrants certainly do pay income taxes - $13bn worth in 2010 (figure quoted in a U.S. govt report that took me all of 30 seconds on Google to find - www.socialsecurity.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_notes/note151.pdf), along with of course local and sales taxes which are not included in this figure.

Could we quit calling people "illegals" maybe? Illegal immigrants. Economic migrants if you will. But "illegals" just makes you sound prejudiced.

Or undocumented immigrants. Good point.

Roger Stone speaking with Lew Rockwell today breaks down what might happen. If the Establishment candidates stay in the race, then Trump will probably end up with an overall win but possibly not with the required 50% majority in 8 states. This is appraently rule 40d put in by the Romney people to do Ron Paul in last time.

The Republicans have 158 super delegates, all Establishment insiders, not a single Trump voter among them. Trump will probably run the table but it may have to go to a brokered convention in Cleveland. At that point, Stone says that the Establishment hope that Jeb will emerge. He says that they eventually gave up and accepted Reagan, but there is no way that they will accept Trump, they will fight him to the end because he opposes their philosophy and they are "wetting their pants" that he makes it.

Unfortunately, Stone does not say that Trump will make it, he leaves the last bit open.

Trump 2016!

Isn't "politically correct" really the most mindless insult ever? I never feel that people who use the term really actually apply a single brain cell to what it is that they're saying.

Yes, :)

And who'd have thought DT might not actually win the nomination?
Hmmm, let me think...
Oh, yeah, some in this thread. But Roger Stone is Roger Stone.

GruntledOne, you are obviously not a non-modernising conservative. "Politically correct" is the absolutely crucial key factor above all others that drives real conservatives to oppose bullshit. Politically correct really means lies and spin and incompetence, it means the political class that follow the lie and spin line that they are told to follow, so politically correct means false and untruthful.

That is why Trump is not politically correct because he tells the truth. If you are not a non-modernising conservative, you probably can't understand how it lies at the core of real conservatism and is the main factor in Trump's rise and success. It will sweep America because the opposition to lies, spin and political correctness is the core driver of anti-establishment feeling because the Establishment is by definition politically correct because it spins that line to its bought and paid for candidates.they move up the ladder because they do as they are told and act correctly in a political sense i.e. correct according to the wishes of the Establishment i.e. are politically correct.

Trump is a "common sense conservative" and that is not politically correct because it is not allowed by the Establishment.

So Trump wants to end illegal immigration but that is not allowed, not politically correct, so Trump's Wall is not politically correct. The Establishment see how popular Trump is because he defies them and dares to be politically incorrect, so they send the Pope in on him to spell out how the Wall is not politically correct, to such an extent that the Pope implies that Trump is not Christian. It is desperation on their part.

Being against the global warming agenda is not allowed, it is not politically correct. Trump, being common sense, is obviously against it. So my guess is that they will have to send the Pope in on him on that one later in the election cycle.

But the problem they have got is that lots of Catholics are against illegal immigration and don't believe in man-made global warming, so the Pope ends up looking like part of the liveral Establishment and ultimately that is not good for the Catholic Church since a lot of catholics are in fact conservative.

Pat Buchanan is as catholic as it gets, but he is against illegal immigration and my guess is he doesn't believe in global warming and he is a fan of Trump. Therefore he is a real conservative and not politically correct.

When they have to get the Pope to intervene in politics, you know they are desperate..

You're not getting the point, claig. People come out with the "politically correct" shtick all the time to describe anything that, basically, they don't like, even when it's a matter of unassailable fact. Tell them, for example, that there were black people living in the UK in the Middle Ages; or that prisons are not 5 star hotels, and they'll claim you're being politically correct. They make no attempt to analyse whether political correctness is even relevant to whatever they're moaning about. It leads to the sort of lazy thinking that seriously believes in the Winterval myth. In the US, it's the mindset that can only cope with the fact that millions of people voted for Obama by blaming it on political correctness. It's a knee-jerk way of dismissing something you're uncomfortable with when you can't come up with a decent reason for your discomfort.

What is particularly fascinating is that you include being against illegal immigration in the political incorrectness category. But the clue's in the name - illegal immigration. Dear me, that must mean that Obama is politically incorrect, because he's head of a government which maintains its illegality. All Trump's political opponents are politically incorrect because they don't indicate any intention of legalising all immigration. Oh dear, where does that leave Trump?

Classic example of standard Trump batshittery here. I love the fact that he tweeted his resolve to boycott Apple - from his iPhone.

Claig - I think it would be fair to say that the role of head of the Roman Catholic church is part of the establishment. After all it was established nearly 2000 years ago and has had an important role in directing how large numbers of people live from the beginning.

It is a conservative role by definition because the church changes deliberately slowly holding onto traditions until it is clear that the latest thing is not just a passing fad.

It is also a liberal role in the modern day sense of the word in that morality is one of the four main categories that the church has concerned itself with since the beginning. How people treat others goes back even further: the 10 commandments laid it out for Moses about 1300BC. (BTW Trump fails on quite a few of these rules, some of them quite famously but probably all of them).

I'd be willing to bet with you that the Pope will not speak directly about Trump again before the election, and probably not after it either, unless Trump wins. To define the bet, I am saying that the Pope will make no further public statements to the press. Specifically, I am excluding letters from Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, maybe the Pope which are read out to catholics at Sunday mass that do not use the word "Trump" nor refer to him in a less direct, but still completely identifiable way.