2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

If Trump wants to capture and deport all illegals (i.e., estimated 11 million), who is going to pay for this massive law enforcement, temporary containment, and transfer operation? Many of these illegals did not simply cross the southern border, and you cannot simply dump them through a door in the Trump Wall into Mexico. Rather an extraordinarily large number overstayed their visas and came from many countries around the world.

In addition to this, what about all the associated costs occurring from single and class action suits against these massive deportations filed by a host of lawyers, the ACLU, other special interest groups, and in the international courts filed by nations where Trump may be dumping millions of unemployed? And while these lawsuits are being adjudicated in the already overburdened court system, who is going to pay for increased temporary jail space, which in many states are overpopulated with prisoners today?

Furthermore, would Trump have to hire thousands of additional government professionals and workers to handle this massive glut on a system that currently is dysfunctional, so dysfunctional that the 11 million got in and stayed in the first place? Does this sound like BIGGER government, with a very simplistic mob appeal platform statement by Trump that ignores the complexities and massive costs to the taxpayer, with a very likely massive increase in the federal deficit as a result? Some may claim that this increase in government workers would only be temporary, but what then happens when Trump then dumps these government workers on the unemployment lists?

And what about the huge negative impact on international relations with Trump dumping millions of unemployed on other nations, many of which may be lesser developed countries that cannot handle significant additional numbers? Will there be Trump Refugee Camps? American is not a closed-system island that is self-contained behind its Trump Wall, and cannot ignore the international impacts of its actions, especially when we are talking 11 million people being dumped. And pointing to the illegals and their nations of origin simplistically proclaiming "shame on you, you entered illegally," or "overstayed your visas illegally" will not mitigate the adverse economic and social impacts of Trump dumping. Can anyone see the Al-Qaeda and ISIS recruiters setting up in Trump Refugee Camps wooing very unhappy, unemployed, and mad-at-US refugees to the cause?

Lastly, and not less significantly, what domestic economic impacts will be realised when Trump captures and removes 11 million consumers, most of whom are working for US businesses at very low payroll costs, and buying US business products and services? The US model of capitalism is a consumer growth model, and the loss of 11 million consumers and cheap workers could plunge the US economy into another recession; i.e. a Trump Recession.

The extraordinary complexities, financial, and international consequences unaddressed by Trump's grossly oversimplistic spouting from his polemic podium "deport illegals" makes him appear terribly uninformed, uneducated, and as simplistic as his mob appeal statements.

Apologies for the long post, but more often than not Trump supporters use a line or two that exemplifies the terribly oversimplistic Trump message that completely ignores the complexities and consequences of his proposed actions as if all such things can be reduced to the business KISS principle.

We are a nation of laws and need to abide by the laws to survive. It depends on how the deportation would be administered. The true unemployment rate (U-6) ranges between 9.5% (BLS) and 13.8% (Gallup). Sounds like a deportation force is already there... ready and willing (shovel ready, so to speak). Build a wall and end birthright citizenship for those born to illegal immigrants would be the start. If these happened and a deportation force were to be implemented, what do you think would happen if it were announced anyone who self-deports by a certain time would automatically be considered for a guest worker program... And anyone who would need to be deported by the government would not qualify for reentry? I think a large portion of the illegal alien problem would take care of itself.

Here is Trump’s plans on Immigration Reform…
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

On a personal note, here is something to consider. My wife works for an electrical contracting firm. They are constantly losing bids from two companies that low-ball their bids because they utilize illegal immigrants on the workforce. My wife’s firm has reported these companies to law enforcement and immigration. But the government does nothing, choosing to turn a blind eye to the illegal practices. My wife’s company has had to lay off more than 50% of it’s workforce because of the situation, and it’s future operation does not look promising if this continues. This scenario is playing out everywhere. Please tell me how this is good for the country and how it is helping the economy?

And I find it humorous that we say Trumps deportation plans are prohibitively expensive, but we laud plans for the US giving billions of dollars per year to countries that make no binding commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the climate talks.

Amerika

Thargor wrote: »

Have you abandoned your bizarre notion that his immigration policies are a good idea and will yield $115 billion in savings every year now Amerika?

No. You haven't given me much more then high and mighty, feel-good, arguments on why we should put illegal aliens ahead of people legally waiting in line for the same thing these people are demanding from their illegal activities.

Overheal

Ted Cruz must think any publicity is good publicity; speaking in relation to the recent attack inside a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/cruz-the-overwhelming-majority-of-violent-criminals-are-democrats/

Ted Cruz wrote:

“Here’s the simple and undeniable fact: the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats. The media doesn’t report that.”

But there is more - he went so far as to contradict what the neighbors and ex-wife said of the Colorado shooter Robert Dear who is reported as a mentally unwell person that expressed right-wing views, had brushes with the law and exhibited strange behaviors. According to Ted Cruz - who knows best - Robert Dear is a transgender liberal and a registered Independent, so we can all stop trying to pin the violence on Dear's warped application of drive-by conservative ideas.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ted-cruz-casually-offers-that-planned-parenthood-shooter-was-transgendered-leftist-activist/

Ted Cruz wrote:

“It’s also been reported that [Robert Dear] was registered as an independent and a woman and a transgendered leftist activist. If that’s what he is, I don’t think it’s fair to blame on the rhetoric on the left. This is a murderer.”

It has been my experience that candidates who make such unfounded statements do not fare all that well. I probably wouldn't waste your vote on him in the Primary..

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

With the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level running about $115 billion, a 2 year payback on investment sounds like a really good deal for the taxpayer.

Before Trump $115 billion lost, and after Trump $0? Does this appear just a bit incomprehensible? And all done extraordinarily within 2 years? It's not realistic or practical, and it won't happen if Trump gets elected, even if some may think he can walk on water.

I am very skeptical about the so called (2 years later) $115 billion in savings every year, and would like to see rigorous, credible, and unbiased studies that support this claim that takes into account the multiplicity of financial impacts on the US domestic economy (and international competitiveness), not just something that comes from Trump's bombastic mob appeal mouth.

Thargor wrote: »

Hmmm, 2 years to pay off an investment in destroying millions of peoples lives before it starts yielding $115 billion in savings every year or everything Black Swan posted...

Who to believe, who to believe? hmmm...

Trump's extraordinarily oversimplistic plan to capture 11 million illegals in the US would require massive resources, including a huge increase in law enforcement, courts, jails, and deportation personnel; i.e., BIGGER GOVERNMENT. These illegals in hiding will not simply raise their 11 million hands when Trump calls, and will have to be detected, apprehended, jailed, adjudicated, and transported to their many countries of origin around the world. And to do this massive capture operation, along with necessary short-cuts in adjudication of 11 million illegals during an incredibly short 2 years with currently overburdened US courts would require the US to turn into a POLICE STATE.

Can anyone imagine the violations of privacy and due process that may occur to law abiding US citizens and businesses while Trump does his massive police sweep of all 50 states and territories, snooping into every nook and cranny in an attempt to find 11 million hiding illegals? POLICE STATE?

What kind of employee will be hired to conduct Trump's massive 11 million illegal deportation programme, knowing that Trump will dump most of them after 2 years on the unemployment lists? Will these be highly qualified, fully trained and intelligent law enforcement professionals of the type that would not violate law abiding citizen or business rights, OR unqualified or underqualified suspect persons quickly hired and poorly trained that might not want to give up their POLICE STATE powers and occupation after 2 years to stand in unemployment lines?

Alternatively, would such employees be eligible to file and vote for union membership well within that two years, and has Trump thought in the slightest that there might be collective roadblocks to dumping them in mass after 2 years when potentially faced with experienced collective bargaining agents from established unions, as well as associated class action law suits which may drag out for years, perhaps all the way to the US Supreme Court? Of course Trump was used to simplistically saying "You're fired!" on his Celebrity Apprentice show, and expects thousands of employees to tuck their tails and walk off.

What about the millions of underage children born to these millions of illegals? Does the oversimplistic Trump plan address these issues comprehensively or parrot the "law is the law," or does he just SHOUT to the mob "deport illegals" from his polemic podium? These children were born in the US (unlike Canadian born presidential candidate Ted Cruz), and many of these children will have both US and illegal parents; i.e., illegals just don't always marry illegals. Will Trump tear these families apart, with single-parent wage earner consequences (many then drawing on social service tax dollars to survive) while deporting the one illegal parent, or will Trump deport the US born children of 2 illegal parents (e.g., simply calling them with his disdainful smugness "anchor babies" as if they were depersonalised collateral damage in war)?

The associated Trump Wall that he claims Mexico will pay for is just complete and total silliness. He cannot force Mexico to pay for it, and how is it in Mexico's best interests to do so? If they tell Trump to go jump in the Gulf, what will Trump do, try to repeal NAFTA, or try to treat Mexico like Cuba or Iran? What a farce! And besides, wouldn't the Trump Wall have to surround the entire US, and be above 40,000 feet, given that millions fly into the US, now on expired visas? All joking aside, I cannot imagine how any intelligent person who examines his extraordinarily oversimplistic Trump Dump deport illegals plan as voting for him, along with all the other terribly oversimplistic and superficial plans shouted from his polemic podium, many laced with uninformed, uneducated bigotry.

lochderg

Overheal wrote: »

Ted Cruz must think any publicity is good publicity; speaking in relation to the recent attack inside a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/cruz-the-overwhelming-majority-of-violent-criminals-are-democrats/



But there is more - he went so far as to contradict what the neighbors and ex-wife said of the Colorado shooter Robert Dear who is reported as a mentally unwell person that expressed right-wing views, had brushes with the law and exhibited strange behaviors. According to Ted Cruz - who knows best - Robert Dear is a transgender liberal and a registered Independent, so we can all stop trying to pin the violence on Dear's warped application of drive-by conservative ideas.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ted-cruz-casually-offers-that-planned-parenthood-shooter-was-transgendered-leftist-activist/


It has been my experience that candidates who make such unfounded statements do not fare all that well. I probably wouldn't waste your vote on him in the Primary..

Ted Cruz,like Al Qaeda,White Supremacists.Neocons,Unionists,Christian Fundamentalists etc is living breathing evidence of 'when good men do nothing'

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

We are a nation of laws and need to abide by the laws to survive. It depends on how the deportation would be administered. The true unemployment rate (U-6) ranges between 9.5% (BLS) and 13.8% (Gallup). Sounds like a deportation force is already there... ready and willing (shovel ready, so to speak). Build a wall and end birthright citizenship for those born to illegal immigrants would be the start. If these happened and a deportation force were to be implemented, what do you think would happen if it were announced anyone who self-deports by a certain time would automatically be considered for a guest worker program... And anyone who would need to be deported by the government would not qualify for reentry? I think a large portion of the illegal alien problem would take care of itself.

A lot of what you've said here deluded and impractical.

You can't force people into a job that they might not have any interest in performing. A lot of people are unemployed for genuine reasons. They aren't sitting around waiting for a job of this nature to fall into their lap.

Also the fact that you think people will volunteer to leave the US on the promise that they will be readmitted is also folly. Where will they go in the mean time and at who's expense? Will their current employers agree to this and will their jobs be waiting for them when they return?

The Randy Riverbeast

Dont a lot of illegals get in through a method other than walking from Mexico?

I'm no civil engineer or presidential candidate so I might not be familiar with how physics works in these situations but how exactly will a wall reduce people entering from any other method? It wont pay for itself after 2 years, plus you'll have to pay for maintenance, staff etc which will continue to be required for longer than 2 years.

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

A lot of what you've said here deluded and impractical.

You can't force people into a job that they might not have any interest in performing. A lot of people are unemployed for genuine reasons. They aren't sitting around waiting for a job of this nature to fall into their lap.

Also the fact that you think people will volunteer to leave the US on the promise that they will be readmitted is also folly. Where will they go in the mean time and at who's expense? Will their current employers agree to this and will their jobs be waiting for them when they return?

Perhaps if it was already in place, our small community school district, with a population of 15,000 – comprising of a large percentage of elderly on fixed incomes, wouldn’t have had to build a new middle school at a cost of $4 million to the taxpayers, and are looking to have to build a high school because of the influx of Spanish speaking children born to illegal aliens. Add to that we have to staff 2 teachers for many classes (one English speaking, one Spanish speaking). A very high price that small community must pay for the government turning a blind eye to illegal activities. We're looking for donations to help defray the costs... All the high and mighty, bleeding hearts, here should PM me on where to send donations in order to put their money where their mouths are. :rolleyes:

“With ObamaCare we will reduce your insurance premiums by $2,500, per family per year,” and “ObamaCare won’t cost the government one single dime,” and it “Won't Add One Dime To The Deficit.” All untrue yet we pass ObamaCare. I guess all those who oppose Trump’s deportation of illegal aliens based on their thoughts of a cost/benefit analysis, also argued against the passing of ObamaCare... NOT!

"Operation Wetback" was successful under President Eisenhower. I don’t see why another, and even tougher, deportation operation wouldn’t either. And the workforce jobs for the operation will easily be filled, of that have no doubt.

And “where will they go in the mean time and at who's expense?” They will go to the countries they are citizens of. They are not US citizens. And if their countries refuse to take them back, economic sanctions should be enacted.

“Will their current employers agree to this and will their jobs be waiting for them when they return?” No, that's the point. If their jobs can be filled by US citizens, all the better. Only jobs needing a guest worker would be open to them.

Amerika

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Dont a lot of illegals get in through a method other than walking from Mexico?

I'm no civil engineer or presidential candidate so I might not be familiar with how physics works in these situations but how exactly will a wall reduce people entering from any other method? It wont pay for itself after 2 years, plus you'll have to pay for maintenance, staff etc which will continue to be required for longer than 2 years.

The southern border is the primary way for illegals entering the country. The other big problem are people overstaying their visas. That problem would require better tracking of visas. And yes, maintenance and staff will be required for a border fence, but it will pay for itself... That is the point.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amerika

lochderg wrote: »

Ted Cruz,like Al Qaeda,White Supremacists.Neocons,Unionists,Christian Fundamentalists etc is living breathing evidence of 'when good men do nothing'

Are you equating Ted Cruz and Neocons to Al Qaeda? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Originally Posted by Ted Cruz
“Here’s the simple and undeniable fact: the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats. The media doesn’t report that.”

Is it true?

Lockstep

lochderg wrote: »

Ted Cruz,like Al Qaeda,White Supremacists.Neocons,Unionists,Christian Fundamentalists etc is living breathing evidence of 'when good men do nothing'

Ted Cruz is hardly equivalent to Al Qaeda. Don't resort to such silly tactics.

The Randy Riverbeast

Amerika wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So the plan is to send some illegals back to mexico, build a great big wall paid for by Mexico and then allow Mexicans to get guest worker visas who will then just go back home afterwards because...reasons. I'm sure it would reduce illegal immigration, by how much and whether it would be worth it is the other question.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, not leave them alone. If caught they should be sent back. Building a wall that another country is paying for is a stupid idea though. There comes a point where it costs more to reduce illegal immigration than it costs for them to be there.

Amerika

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

So the plan is to send some illegals back to mexico, build a great big wall paid for by Mexico and then allow Mexicans to get guest worker visas who will then just go back home afterwards because...reasons. I'm sure it would reduce illegal immigration, by how much and whether it would be worth it is the other question.



No, not leave them alone. If caught they should be sent back. Building a wall that another country is paying for is a stupid idea though. There comes a point where it costs more to reduce illegal immigration than it costs for them to be there.

The problem is when they are caught, nothing happens. It will take someone with some level of Trump's thinking on illegal immigration to actually make a difference beneficial and cost effective to US citizens.

And having Mexico pay for the wall is not so stupid, IMO. Here is how Trump plans on making Mexico pay for the border fence…

Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

I appears Trump is willing to start a trade war and create diplomatic struggles with Mexico, until it funds a fence. I guess the primary question is who will lose more in trade war... the US or Mexico? I believe Mexico loses on that front.

The Randy Riverbeast

Amerika wrote: »

The problem is when they are caught, nothing happens. It will take someone with some level of Trump's thinking on illegal immigration to actually make a difference beneficial and cost effective to US citizens.

If you think that all illegals are Mexicans who just walked over the border in the middle of the night then sure, which I suppose is Trump's target audience.

Amerika wrote: »

And having Mexico pay for the wall is not so stupid, IMO. Here is how Trump plans on making Mexico pay for the border fence…

Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

I appears Trump is willing to start a trade war and create diplomatic struggles with Mexico, until it funds a fence. I guess the primary question is who will lose more in trade war... the US or Mexico? I believe Mexico loses on that front.

Mexico loses and Mexicans then emigrate. I wonder where they would go?

In the end, he is a republican so no matter what magical properties this wall grown from magic beans has, you will agree with it.

Amerika

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

If you think that all illegals are Mexicans who just walked over the border in the middle of the night then sure, which I suppose is Trump's target audience.

Mexico loses and Mexicans then emigrate. I wonder where they would go?

If there was a border wall, I guess they would have to go south.

In the end, he is a republican so no matter what magical properties this wall grown from magic beans has, you will agree with it.

Well, republican thinking is better than democratic thinking... that is a given.
But I do need to make a disclaimer... I voted for two democrats in the November election, albeit they were local politicians.

But Trump is not my first choice in the GOP primary. But if it comes down to the general election... and it’s Trump vs Clinton, then yes, I will be voting for Trump.

Amerika

I wonder why anything isn’t being made of, or talked about, FBI Director James Comey. He could be a game changer in the 2016 presidential race. He is responsible for the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as Secretary of State. Comey served in George W. Bush’s Justice Department, and was later appointed to head up the FBI by President Obama. He enjoys a stellar reputation from both sides of the political aisle because of his nonpartisan approach and guidance to the rule of law. What happens if he brings criminal charges against Hillary Clinton? She could face a misdemeanor for keeping classified secrets on a home server that was not secured by the government. Or more serious charges for conspiracy to “conceal documents from government computers,” which carries a penalty of three years in jail per document, and a conviction would disqualify her from holding public office. If she escapes criminal charges because she’s too big to jail but some of her aides don’t... will it look to voters like just another government cover-up perpetrated by a “party first” administration? What does the democratic party do if it doesn’t go down well for Clinton... Hope for the best, go with Sanders or O’Malley, or bring in Biden riding a white horse to the rescue?

Overheal

Biden will not run. That's a dead horse you're flogging.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Biden will not run. That's a dead horse you're flogging.

I agree he won't "run," but I do think he would relish the idea of being the white knight and riding to the rescue.

eire4

Overheal wrote: »

Biden will not run. That's a dead horse you're flogging.

Would agree there. It is clear that Biden is not running at this point. The Democratic nomination will go to Clinton, Sanders or O'Malley. Most likely to Clinton although Sanders has certainly surpassed many peoples expectations thus far. O'Malley has performed well but just doesn't seem to have been able to get any traction. I do wonder though could O'Malley maybe end up as the VP nominee for the Democrats.

Thargor

Which of her aides do you see going to prison and for what exactly?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I agree he won't "run," but I do think he would relish the idea of being the white knight and riding to the rescue.

And what's the President precedent for that? In what general election has the election been swept by a late addition to the race? What late additions to a race, in general, would you be referring to with this "White Knight" thing?

Black Swan

eire4 wrote: »

The Democratic nomination will go to Clinton, Sanders or O'Malley. Most likely to Clinton although Sanders has certainly surpassed many peoples expectations thus far. O'Malley has performed well but just doesn't seem to have been able to get any traction. I do wonder though could O'Malley maybe end up as the VP nominee for the Democrats.

If Clinton gets the nomination, who will be her running mate as Vice President? One of the remaining two, or someone else that may pull a major EC state, or swing state, or represent a large minority voter segment (e.g., Hispanic)? This may be a game breaker for Clinton in terms of November 2016.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

And what's the President precedent for that? In what general election has the election been swept by a late addition to the race? What late additions to a race, in general, would you be referring to with this "White Knight" thing?

Off the top of my head I don’t know if it has happened in a presidential election, although that doesn’t say it hasn’t.

But I recall in 2002 it happening in a US Senate race. The Democrat candidate Robert Torricelli had won the Democratic nomination for a second term in the June primary election, and was expected to defeat the Republican nominee Doug Forrester in the general election. But a probe into his donation activities resulted in Torricelli being indicted on federal corruption charges. With news of the charges caused his poll numbers to drop dramatically and Forrester was expected to then win the general election. Democrats forced him off the ballot late in the election process, and a beloved retired Senator, Raleigh Lautenberg (the white knight riding in to save the day), was thrown into the election by Democrats, but too late in the game to be but on the ballot... as it would be against election law. Republicans filed charges and the New Jersey Supreme Court completely ignored the law and allowed Lautenberg’s name be put on the ballots (it was New Jersey though, where laws don’t often seem to matter much when they hurt Democrats). Lautenberg, the white knight, won the general election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/nyregion/new-jersey-senate-race-overview-new-jersey-court-lets-lautenberg-into-senate.html

Amerika

Thargor wrote: »

Which of her aides do you see going to prison and for what exactly?

The most obvious charges would be for braking federal rules and/or laws, and mishandling of classified and top secret information. Off the top of my head I’d say the FBI would be investigating Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Timmy Davis and Philippe Reines. But if I had to put my money on one aide taking the rap and falling on their sword to protect Hillary Clinton, it would be Bryan Pagliano. He was an IT staff member who worked for the State Department, and was personally paid by Clinton to help maintain her personal email server. Pagliano invoked his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions that could incriminate him at the House Select Committee on Benghazi. I figure he’s not any great asset to the Clinton campaign, and expendable. (Although Abedin has her own possible legal problems for potentially breaking other laws regarding government employment, which are over and above the Clinton email scandal).

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

If Clinton gets the nomination, who will be her running mate as Vice President? One of the remaining two, or someone else that may pull a major EC state, or swing state, or represent a large minority voter segment (e.g., Hispanic)? This may be a game breaker for Clinton in terms of November 2016.

This early in the race I’d put my money on Julian Castro, followed by Tim Kaine and Martin Heinrich. If she thinks it will be a close general election, I could also see her picking Michael Bloomberg to try and lure some Republicans voters over to the Dark Side.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

If Clinton gets the nomination, who will be her running mate as Vice President? One of the remaining two, or someone else that may pull a major EC state, or swing state, or represent a large minority voter segment (e.g., Hispanic)? This may be a game breaker for Clinton in terms of November 2016.

Clinton being the first female condidate who has a very real chance of being president and her current popularity with most minority groups mean that having a minority running mate is probably not essential for her. Having a running mate from a toss up state is a very real possibility. As is picking Martin O'Malley who I must say has impressed me quite a bit over the last couple of months. I just do not see here picking her main rival for the Democratic nomination in Bernie Saunders though. Just my gut beliefs on who she would pick if she wins the Democratic nomination.

Black Swan

eire4 wrote: »

Clinton being the first female condidate who has a very real chance of being president and her current popularity with most minority groups mean that having a minority running mate is probably not essential for her.

What if the GOP does not pick Trump or Carson (or some other non-Hispanic candidate), rather they nominate Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, would Clinton then consider an Hispanic running mate as VP to ensure keeping the large minority voting block?

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

What if the GOP does not pick Trump or Carson (or some other non-Hispanic candidate), rather they nominate Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio

There's a lot of rumours circulating about rubio that he's fathered two children with women who were not his wife. Apparently hes been spending big bucks keeping the stories under wraps.

Possibly just malicious rumours. Google "rubio love child" and you'll see the stories.