Pronk Pops Show 635: March 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 634: March 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 633: March 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 632: February 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 631: February 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 630: February 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 629: February 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 628: February 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 627: February 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 626: February 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 625: February 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 624: February 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 623: February 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 622: February 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 621: February 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 620: February 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 619: February 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 618: February 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 617: February 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 616: February 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 615: February 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 614: January 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 613: January 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 612: January 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 611: January 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 610: January 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 609: January 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 608: January 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 607: January 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 606: January 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 605: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 604: January 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 603: January 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 602: January 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 601: January 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 600: January 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 599: January 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 598: January 5, 2016

	Republican Convention Presidential Nominating Process Debate –  Fox – Cleveland, Ohio: Thursday 6 August 2015 Debate – CNN – Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California: Wednesday 16 September 2015 Debate – CNBC – Boulder, Colorado: Wednesday 28 October 2015 Debate – Fox Business News – Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Tuesday 10 November 2015 Debate – CNN – Las Vegas, Nevada: Tuesday 15 December 2015 Debate – Fox Business Channel, Charleston, South Carolina: Thursday 14 January 2016 Debate – Fox – Iowa: Thursday 28 January 2016 Debate – CBS – South Carolina: February 2016 (presumably) Debate – NBC/Telemundo – Texas: Friday 26 February 2016 Debate – CNN – TBD: March 2016 (presumably) Debate – Salt Lake City, Utah (announced 20 February 2016): Monday 21 March 2016 41st Republican National Convention: Monday 18 July – Thursday 21 July 2016
Candidate Popular Vote Delegate Votes Soft Pledged Soft Unpledged Soft Total Hard Total Trump, Donald John, Sr. 8,256,309  37.01% 757  32.04% 1   0.92% 758  30.66% 757  30.62% Cruz, Rafael Edward “Ted” 6,319,244  28.33% 533  22.56% 11  10.09% 544  22.01% 529  21.40% Rubio, Marco A. 3,482,129  15.61% 173   7.32%   173   7.00% 173   7.00% Kasich, John Richard 2,979,379  13.36% 144   6.09%   144   5.83% 144   5.83% Carson, Benjamin Solomon “Ben”, Sr. 698,532   3.13% 9   0.38%   9   0.36% 9   0.36% Bush, John Ellis “Jeb” 257,760   1.16% 4   0.17%   4   0.16% 4   0.16% Uncommitted 68,374   0.31% 11   0.47% 17  15.60% 28   1.13% 64   2.59% Paul, Randal H. “Rand” 59,009   0.26% 1   0.04%   1   0.04% 1   0.04% Christie, Christopher James “Chris” 54,016   0.24%         Huckabee, Michael Dale “Mike” 48,694   0.22% 1   0.04%   1   0.04% 1   0.04% Fiorina, Carleton Sneed “Carly” 36,099   0.16% 1   0.04%   1   0.04% 1   0.04% Santorum, Richard John “Rick” 16,301   0.07%         No Preference 9,312   0.04%         Graham, Lindsey Olin 5,689   0.03%         Gray, Elizabeth 5,455   0.02%         (others) 3,382   0.02%         Gilmore, James Stuart “Jim”, III 2,903   0.01%         Pataki, George E. 2,010   0.01%         Others 1,586   0.01%         Cook, Timothy “Tim” 517   0.00%         Jindal, Piyush “Bobby” 221   0.00%         Martin, Andy 202   0.00%         Witz, Richard P.H. 109   0.00%         Lynch, James P. “Jim”, Sr. 100   0.00%         Messina, Peter 79   0.00%         Cullison, Brooks Andrews 56   0.00%         Lynch, Frank 47   0.00%         Robinson, Joe 44   0.00%         Comley, Stephen Bradley, Sr. 32   0.00%         Prag, Chomi 16   0.00%         Dyas, Jacob Daniel “Daniel”, Sr. 15   0.00%         McCarthy, Stephen John 12   0.00%         Iwachiw, Walter N. 9   0.00%         Huey, Kevin Glenn 8   0.00%         Drozd, Matt 6   0.00%         Mann, Robert Lawrence 5   0.00%         Hall, David Eames           (available)   729  30.85% 80  73.39% 809  32.73% 789  31.92% Total 22,307,661 100.00% 2,363 100.00% 109 100.00% 2,472 100.00% 2,472 100.00%
Popular vote total includes AK,AL,AR,AZ,DC,FL,GA,HI,IA,ID,IL,KS,KY,LA,MA,ME,MI,MN,MO,MP,MS,NC,NH,NV,OH,OK,PR,SC,TN,TX,UT,VA,VI,VT,WI.
2,472 total delegates – 560 base at-large / 1,305 re: 435 congressional districts / 168 party / 439 bonus

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R

Liz Wheeler: A Trump/Cruz Unity Ticket?!!

Limbaugh on Trump-Cruz “Dream Ticket”

Full Speech: Donald Trump MASSIVE Rally in Bethpage, NY (4-6-16)Donald Trump Bethpage New York Rally

Sen. Cruz: I am proud to stand with Donald Trump

How Can Trump Turn Things Around Race To The White House Hannity

Donald Trump Vs The Establishment New Found Love For Ted Cruz – Convention Chaos – Hannity

Buchanan: Trump, Cruz will not allow nomination to be taken

Pat Buchanan: Ted Cruz is a Trojan Horse for the GOP establishment

Digital Exclusive: Establishment Shuffle

Paul Ryan on GOP presidential nomination: ‘Count me out’

Paul Ryan – Count Me Out

Why Rule 40b might backfire on GOP establishment

Peggy Lee – The Party’s Over

Peggy Lee The Party’s Over Lyrics

Pat Buchanan: Let’s face it, a Trump/Cruz ticket would set the country on fire

Via Breitbart, the key bit below starts at 6:30. When he says “set the country on fire,” does he mean people literally setting things on fire in rage over how much they hate a Trump/Cruz ticket? Because I can sort of see that. Trump’s numbers are flaming garbage, as you know, but check out Cruz’s numbers from the same poll:

What should we call that? Smoldering garbage? I’m a Cruz backer but I’m also under no illusion about how popular he is and isn’t among the general electorate. (Although the AP data here is from a poll of adults, not likely voters, please note.) Unlike Trump, he really would have a chance against Hillary this fall, but only because her own numbers are a smoking dumpster — and even then, he’ll have trouble flipping any of Obama’s blue states in 2012 to red. There is no ticket involving Trump or Cruz, let alone both of them, that sets the country on fire. There’s a ticket involving Cruz and someone not named Trump that might eke out a close victory if they catch some breaks. That’s your best-case scenario.

Buchanan’s logic here, if there’s any logic behind this, presumably is that a Trump/Cruz ticket would give the party its best chance at unity against Clinton this fall by reconciling embittered Trump fans and embittered Cruz fans. It would, for sure, eliminate the risk of a major third-party effort from one side or the other. But so what? What’s the prize for bringing the party together only to lose with 45 percent of the vote in a two-way race instead of with 37 percent in a three-way one? Trump/Cruz still leaves you saddled with all of Trump’s negatives at the top of the ticket, with all but the most hardcore Cruz-fan conservatives deeply disaffected with the direction of the party. It’s one thing for Trump to win the nomination by piling up votes in the primaries, it’s another thing for him to coopt the party’s leading conservative lights by bringing them onto his team to serve his agenda. Many Cruz fans would be enraged at him, I’m sure, for tossing his principles aside to join Trump, especially after Trump’s boorish nastiness towards Heidi Cruz. There’d still be a #NeverTrump movement, albeit a bit smaller than it is now as some strong Cruz supporters would eventually decide to suck it up and back Trump. How does all of this add up to setting the country on fire? Which swing voters, among whom Trump is toxic right now, are thinking, “No way will I support that buffoon — unless he puts Ted Cruz on the ticket, in which case ‘game on’”?

Buchanan does make one good point, though. If we go to a brokered convention, which seems likely, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which Cruz agrees to accept the VP slot. Trump will lead on the first ballot; if he doesn’t clinch there, a bunch of votes will shift to Cruz on the second. If Cruz doesn’t lead on that one, he almost certainly will when more delegates become unbound on the third. Once he takes the lead, what incentive does he have to accept the number-two slot? You’d need to see some delegates shift back to Trump on the fourth ballot or fifth ballot, I think, and then have them end up in a protracted stalemate. In that case, Cruz might eventually cave and agree to be VP. (If only because, once there’s a stalemate, the odds of a dark-horse nominee will rise and Cruz will risk being left with nothing.) So long as Cruz maintains a lead among the delegates, though, he has no reason to bow to any other prospective nominee. If you want a Trump/Cruz ticket, it needs to happen with Trump winning on the first ballot.

Exit question: If you’re saddled with Trump as nominee, wouldn’t one of your top priorities for VP be finding someone who’s exceptionally personally likable, whom voters trust instinctively? They could look at the veep and tell themselves that if that person trusts Trump to run the country, maybe he’s worth taking a chance on. Ted Cruz has many good qualities. Being exceptionally likable isn’t one of them.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/07/pat-buchanan-lets-face-it-a-trumpcruz-ticket-would-set-the-country-on-fire/

Rep. Paul Ryan’s Immigration-Reduction Report Card

Updated April 12, 2016

• This Congress (2015 – 2016)
• Recent (2013 – 2016) C+
• Career (1999 – 2016) C+

Printable Handouts

2015–2016F

MEMBER PROFILE – PAUL RYAN

REP. PAUL RYANWISCONSIN (R)

• F
• LIBERTY SCORE^®

• 56%
• Understanding the Liberty Score®

TRACK

CONTACT

1. 1233 Longworth HOB
2. Wisconsin
3. PHONE: 202-225-3031

• WEBSITE
• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER

RYAN AT A GLANCE

Rep. Paul Ryan was elected to the House of Representatives in 1998. Since his arrival in the House, he has been regarded by many as a rising star in a new generation of conservatives. However, his voting record as well as behind-the-scenes backing of an establishment agenda, reveals that he is one of the more moderate members of the House Republican Conference.

Before he ran for office, Ryan worked for Republicans Sen. Bob Kasten and Rep. Jack Kemp. He joined Empower America, a think-tank formed by Rep. Kemp and William Bennett, and became legislative director for Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. He then went home to Wisconsin where he won a seat in the House of Representatives at the age of 28. (National Journal)

Ryan positioned himself as a leading conservative voice on fiscal and economic issues during his tenure as chairman of the House Budget Committee. His budget plan, the Path to Prosperity, “called for freezing most domestic spending for five years and repealing the economic stimulus law in the course of cutting spending more than $6 trillion over 10 years, shrinking federal spending as a percentage of the economy to its lowest level since 1949.” (National Journal) The plan proved controversial with Democrats and the media, who took particular issue with the budget’s plan to eventually replace Medicare with a subsidy that used free market forces to drive down the cost while raising the level of care. (National Journal)

In the wake of his budget passing the House and promoting a more conservative roadmap for the nation’s fiscal future, Ryan was chosen by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as his running mate. Ryan was selected with the goal of brining a more conservative approach to balance out Romney’s moderate policies, and provide a more youthful demeanor to challenge President Obama, despite Ryan’s voting record. (Washington Post) While the ticket lost in the general election, Ryan was viewed as an asset to Romney’s efforts, providing substance on the campaign trail, reaching out to conservatives while staying loyal to Romney’s talking points.

After the election, Ryan returned to the House and pursued what was supposed to be a more pragmatic approach to policy, that moved Ryan closer to the center. He said that the presidential election reminded him that “[t]he Electoral College matters. That’s what I learned.” (National Journal) Ryan seemed to be increasingly concerned with creating a more geographically broad base for Republicans and his voting record tracked more to the middle. In December 2013, he helped broker a budget deal with liberal Senator Patty Murray that repealed one of the key conservative victories under President Obama’s reign — the sequester budget caps that helped keep spending in check. The Ryan-Murray budget increased fees, and claimed to reduce the deficit in the final years of the 10-year plan, making it unlikely that said reductions would ever be realized. (FreedomWorks) Simplified, Ryan-Murray was trading real spending cuts occurring at the time, for increased spending and spending cuts in future years, which are unlikely to materialize.

In the 114th Congress, Rep. Ryan became chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, where he plans to “fix the tax code, hold the I-R-S [sic] accountable, strengthen Medicare and Social Security, repair the safety net, promote job-creating trade agreements, and determine how best to repeal and replace Obama-care with patient-centered solutions.” (The Drive FM) He has announced that he would not run for president in 2016, choosing instead to devote his efforts in the House to leading the Ways and Means Committee. (FoxNews)

Reflecting his recent move toward the political center, Rep. Ryan has earned a poor Liberty Score.

There can be no doubt that some of Ryan’s prominent entitlement reform efforts—such as the introduction of the Medicare “premium support” proposal that garnered national attention during the 2012 election—have helped conservative solutions enter the forefront of political debate. He has similar success in landing a media spotlight on conservative welfare reform proposals, helping to jumpstart a conversation about the untenable state of spending in these areas. Nonetheless, these contributions to the mainstream dialogue do not excuse his often patently liberal votes. While championing fiscal sanity from his perch on Budget Committee, Ryan voted for an extension of unemployment benefits, for a bailout of the IMF, and several times to increase the debt limit with no discernible reductions.

In the pre-Tea Party days of Washington, Ryan quietly but firmly supported the No Child Left Behind Act, the failed big government approach to education policy, as well as the enormous Medicare prescription drug program. He opposes crony capitalism in theory, but this has not stopped him from endorsing bailouts for banks and the auto industry, as well as a failed stimulus package. He continually supports status quo transportation spending, and even led the charge in the House to make amnesty a reality.

Friendly Republicans will defend Ryan’s consistent moves to the middle as “pragmatic,” but the policy results are the same — gains for a big government agenda. (Mediaite) While Ryan may have an eye toward a more conservative governing vision, and would one day like to see that vision realized, it is a mistake to see him as an enemy of Speaker Boehner or the establishment — he simply provides no true contrast to their culture of surrender.

www.conservativereview.com/members/paul-ryan/#sthash.dq7BKFQa.dpuf

How GOP Could Still Steal Nomination From Trump Even If He Wins 1,237 Delegates

Zuckerberg criticizes ‘fearful voices calling for building walls’

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg criticized the “fearful voices calling for building walls” during his opening remarks at the company’s developer conference Tuesday in San Francisco.

The social media company’s founder and chief executive said the world has become a global community and warned against people and nations trying to isolate themselves — a possible allusion to GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump, who has heavily pushed a plan to finish building a wall along the Mexican border to limit the influx of immigrants coming to the country illegally.

“We’ve gone from a world of isolated communities to one global community, and we are all better off for it,” Zuckerberg said. “But now, as I look around and I travel around the world, I’m starting to see people and nations turning inward — against this idea of a connected world and community.”
He added: “I hear fearful voices calling for building walls and distancing people they label as others, for blocking free expression, for slowing immigration, reducing trade and, in some cases around the world, even cutting access to the internet.”

Adopting the rhetoric of a politician, Zuckerberg said, “It takes courage to choose hope over fear” and said the company would continue to focus on connecting people.

He did not mention any politician or nation explicitly. But during the speech, he briefly highlighted a number of policy issues including immigration reform, the Syrian refugee crisis, climate change and Ebola.

Zuckerberg has been a vocal advocate for immigration reform, including expanding a visa program for high-skilled immigrants. The Facebook founder’s name has even been invoked on the GOP debate stage as candidates argued over the issue.

Zuckerberg made his remarks during the opening of the company’s annual developers conference. He described Facebook’s 10-year plan, which includes connecting millions of people around the world with basic internet service, as well as making improvements to virtual reality and artificial intelligence technology.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/275998-zuckerberg-criticizes-fearful-voices-calling-for-building-walls