Speaking Politically Would You Support Rand Paul If He Highly Supports Amnesty To Law-breaking

How would Trump deal with children of undocumented immigrants that are US citizens in his mass deportation plan and would that violate due process?

We don’t know, because he hasn’t told us. His immigration plan (Immigration Reform) doesn’t mention citizen children of illegal immigrants. It says the U.S. should end birthright citizenship, in which case there would be no new “anchor babies”; but as of August 2016, nowhere does it mention the “anchor babies” we already have.Note that Trump has backed away from his vow to deport all of America’s illegal immigrants (Donald Trump eases away from ‘mass deportations’ of illegal immigrants). This is a traditional “pivot,” where a candidate advocates a more extreme policy during the primaries, and then moderates the policy during the general election.Perhaps his claim that he has “the biggest heart of anybody” signals a willingness to let some illegal aliens stay and perhaps even get legal status. I could imagine a deal where undocumented parents with citizen children would get amnesty, but birthright citizenship would end going forward, removing one incentive for future unauthorized immigration.The alternative is foster care for millions of children. 4.5 million, to be exact (Number of babies born in U.S. to unauthorized immigrants declines). Maybe that’s what Trump means when he talks about “us[ing] the monies saved on expensive refugee programs to help place American children without parents in safer homes and communities.”I expect Trump to be pressed on this issue during the debates. We’ll see if he has an answer prepared — if he’s willing to flip on deporting all illegal immigrants, if he’s willing to say he’ll deport parents and let citizen children stay here, or even if he’s willing to say he’ll attempt to deport citizen children along with their parents. Or if he just dodges the question.

What's the winning issue (the main thing) for Republicans in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election?

It truly depends on the Republican nominee. Sure, the economy and the ACA will be issues regardless of the candidates for either party, but the economy is on a decent track and the ACA will be relatively old news in 2016, so something will have to occupy the headlines and give pundits something to talk about. Note: I operate on the potentially incorrect assumption that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee.If its Rand Paul, I expect it to be government surveillance and drug decriminalization. Rand Paul, being anti-surveillance and moderate on drug laws, is actually in a more popular position, especially with young people, relative to Hillary Clinton. This would make for an interesting dynamic given the Democratic Party's consistent success among youths.If the GOP nominee is Jeb Bush, I expect him to make a push on education. Hillary Clinton is bound by her allegiance to teachers' unions and could be cast in a negative light if Bush compiles an education agenda that is superficially attractive to voters.If they pick Chris Christie, the answer is less clear (by that I mean less clear to me, these are obviously all just guesses). To swing voters, he might have some credibility on balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. A nebulous component of his candidacy should stress consensus building and talking about bipartisanship. Undecided voters and plenty of registered Democrats love the idea of a moderate Republican. I have heard actual Democratic political activists privately express ambivalence and indifference about the prospect of a Christie presidency. Past GOP nominees have all needed to portray themselves as "severely conservative" to survive the primary, but Christie can make huge inroads in the general with undecided voters and low-information moderate Democrats just by maintaining and fomenting a perception of him as a moderate. There is always the risk of a "moderate" leading to lower GOP turnout, but I think for Christie in particular the electoral math of moderation makes sense.If the pick is Herman Cain, the election will feature heated debates on such topics as "Awwww shucky ducky now," the role of Pokemon quotes in modern American society, and of course, the ongoing situation in Uzbeki-beki-beki-beki-stanstan.

Are Ann Coulter's comments on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" regarding civil rights representative of the views of the Republican party?

You got to give one thing to ol' Ann; she sticks to her guns.  I've seen her debate Bill Maher and she's appeared on his show several times.  She don't back down for nobody.  I have a friend who's convinced she's a secret liberal mole who says the most outrageous things she can just to expose conservative overreach.  I don't think so but it's an interesting idea.If you examine her argument here what you find is classic divide and conquer strategy.  She may be putting this forward as part of a comprehensive Right-wing plan or she might be doing this all on her own, but the central idea has been popping up on the Right for some time now.  That idea is that black civil rights gains are threatened by focusing on other group's civil rights.  It's as though there's only so much civil rights policy to go around and if one group gains ground it must be at the expense of some other group.  This concept is designed to act as a wedge between gays and blacks, blacks and immigrants, pretty much any suppressed block of citizens vs another.  And this sort of strategy can work in this country, it has in the past; blacks vs Irish, Irish vs Italian & etc.The second tier of her argument finds its foundation in the concept of what is owed to people.  We owe blacks because we once enslaved them.  But civil rights are not something that's owed.  They simply exist.  That's why the Constitution was created, to bestow rights upon citizens.  As it evolved it came to encompass all US citizens, which is just and proper.  Those who stand between these inherent rights and their fellow American's desire to exercise these rights are not only on the wrong side of history, but on the wrong side of justice.  As for immigrant's rights, Ann seems to have forgotten that her forebears were once immigrants to this country as well.I sort of like Ann Coulter, the way I like a good villain in a movie or novel, but I almost never agree with the things she says.