Why Republicans should hope Donald Trump loses in a landslide.
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine staff
I cover the intersection of economics and politics.
It’s a little known fun fact, but after a debate in the 1960s with Ronald Reagan, defeated liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy yelled “Who the f—k got me into this?” to his aides. It’s not spoken of enough, but Reagan’s charisma was to some degree a function of his extensive knowledge of policy. Reagan’s favorite economic thinker was Fredric Bastiat.
Back in 2008, and as Barack Obama’s political star was on the rise, the late Jack Kemp was trying to reach the ascendant Democrat. The lifelong Republican had been a star quarterback at Occidental College (where Obama attended for two years), and figured their distant school ties might lead to some kind of policy discussion between the two about reducing the penalties levied on investment success. Kemp hoped to convince Obama to talk up capital gains tax cuts as a way (there are no companies and no jobs without investment first) to lift the economic fortunes of rich and poor alike.
And while he didn’t win the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, Steve Forbes forever changed the tax discussion among GOP hopefuls. Having made a brilliant case for tax simplification with his call for a flat tax, Forbes’ articulation of sharply reduced prices placed on work subsequently made big proposed tax cuts the price of admission for Republicans with national ambitions. To this day Forbes is a tireless speaker aggressively promoting the policies of prosperity not just around the country, but around the world.
All of which brings us to Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president. Republicans who care about the long-term health of the Party, Republicans who are proud of the great ideas that Reagan, Kemp and Forbes represented, and still represent thanks to Forbes, and Republicans who care about the Party’s brand as an optimistic one defined by free markets, growth, and shining city on the hill inclusion, must hope Trump loses on Tuesday. Better yet, they should hope he loses in an historically big way precisely because Republicans choose not to vote for him en masse.
If Republicans need reasons to not vote for Trump, they need only consider Reagan, Kemp and Forbes once again. Can any GOP or Trump partisan imagine a Democrat saying about Trump what RFK said about Reagan? Goodness, Trump couldn’t even beat Hillary Clinton in debates. His only inter-debate “victories” were his petty, frequently authoritarian insults that similarly insulted the dignity of the presidency itself. Clinton’s list of bad policy ideas is impressive, but since Trump wouldn’t know a great policy idea from a hideous one, he could never exploit Clinton’s myriad weaknesses. What are the odds Trump’s ever heard of Bastiat?
Can any Trump partisans imagine their candidate working tirelessly to convince others of the good or bad of a policy sans obnoxious rhetoric, and better yet, anyone listening to this most empty-headed of candidates? Regardless of Tuesday’s outcome, can anyone honestly say Trump will leave behind any kind of legacy that actually advances the policy debate?
Donald Trump is quite simply the most policy ignorant presidential candidate to ever emerge from the Republican primaries. But it’s not Trump’s stunning ignorance about seemingly everything policy-related that makes him such a lousy candidate, and such an embarrassment to the GOP. Figure that we’re advantaged economically and also in terms of freedom when presidents do nothing. Trump’s problem is that he combines policy ignorance with an impressive lack of common sense, and then tops it off with a desire to actually turn his know-nothingness into law. This is worth mentioning simply because yours truly would be cheering for Trump rather boisterously if he advertised his total cluelessness alongside an expressed desire to sit on his hands for four years. The problem with Trump once again is that he’s got lots of policy ideas. They’re nearly all bad. And the manufactured facts supporting them are nearly all wrong.
Despite the fact that China’s currency has risen over 20 percent against the dollar since 2005, and despite the fact that Japan’s yen has thoroughly crushed the dollar (in 1971 the dollar bought 360 yen, today it buys 105) over the last 45 years, Trump persists with the falsehood that both countries have gained economic advantage by devaluing their monies against the dollar. That Trump has spent 18 months promoting what is empirically false doesn’t seem to trouble either Trump or his supporters.
jimahrens wrote:
What a pile of crap!
why dosen't he just come out with vote for the criminal?
slatten49 wrote:
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine staff
I cover the intersection of economics and politics.
It’s a little known fun fact, but after a debate in the 1960s with Ronald Reagan, defeated liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy yelled “Who the f—k got me into this?” to his aides. It’s not spoken of enough, but Reagan’s charisma was to some degree a function of his extensive knowledge of policy. Reagan’s favorite economic thinker was Fredric Bastiat.
Back in 2008, and as Barack Obama’s political star was on the rise, the late Jack Kemp was trying to reach the ascendant Democrat. The lifelong Republican had been a star quarterback at Occidental College (where Obama attended for two years), and figured their distant school ties might lead to some kind of policy discussion between the two about reducing the penalties levied on investment success. Kemp hoped to convince Obama to talk up capital gains tax cuts as a way (there are no companies and no jobs without investment first) to lift the economic fortunes of rich and poor alike.
And while he didn’t win the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, Steve Forbes forever changed the tax discussion among GOP hopefuls. Having made a brilliant case for tax simplification with his call for a flat tax, Forbes’ articulation of sharply reduced prices placed on work subsequently made big proposed tax cuts the price of admission for Republicans with national ambitions. To this day Forbes is a tireless speaker aggressively promoting the policies of prosperity not just around the country, but around the world.
All of which brings us to Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president. Republicans who care about the long-term health of the Party, Republicans who are proud of the great ideas that Reagan, Kemp and Forbes represented, and still represent thanks to Forbes, and Republicans who care about the Party’s brand as an optimistic one defined by free markets, growth, and shining city on the hill inclusion, must hope Trump loses on Tuesday. Better yet, they should hope he loses in an historically big way precisely because Republicans choose not to vote for him en masse.
If Republicans need reasons to not vote for Trump, they need only consider Reagan, Kemp and Forbes once again. Can any GOP or Trump partisan imagine a Democrat saying about Trump what RFK said about Reagan? Goodness, Trump couldn’t even beat Hillary Clinton in debates. His only inter-debate “victories” were his petty, frequently authoritarian insults that similarly insulted the dignity of the presidency itself. Clinton’s list of bad policy ideas is impressive, but since Trump wouldn’t know a great policy idea from a hideous one, he could never exploit Clinton’s myriad weaknesses. What are the odds Trump’s ever heard of Bastiat?
Can any Trump partisans imagine their candidate working tirelessly to convince others of the good or bad of a policy sans obnoxious rhetoric, and better yet, anyone listening to this most empty-headed of candidates? Regardless of Tuesday’s outcome, can anyone honestly say Trump will leave behind any kind of legacy that actually advances the policy debate?
Donald Trump is quite simply the most policy ignorant presidential candidate to ever emerge from the Republican primaries. But it’s not Trump’s stunning ignorance about seemingly everything policy-related that makes him such a lousy candidate, and such an embarrassment to the GOP. Figure that we’re advantaged economically and also in terms of freedom when presidents do nothing. Trump’s problem is that he combines policy ignorance with an impressive lack of common sense, and then tops it off with a desire to actually turn his know-nothingness into law. This is worth mentioning simply because yours truly would be cheering for Trump rather boisterously if he advertised his total cluelessness alongside an expressed desire to sit on his hands for four years. The problem with Trump once again is that he’s got lots of policy ideas. They’re nearly all bad. And the manufactured facts supporting them are nearly all wrong.
Despite the fact that China’s currency has risen over 20 percent against the dollar since 2005, and despite the fact that Japan’s yen has thoroughly crushed the dollar (in 1971 the dollar bought 360 yen, today it buys 105) over the last 45 years, Trump persists with the falsehood that both countries have gained economic advantage by devaluing their monies against the dollar. That Trump has spent 18 months promoting what is empirically false doesn’t seem to trouble either Trump or his supporters.
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine staff br br I cover t... (
show quote)
You are a big dissapointment to the great state of Texas!!!
jimahrens wrote:
What a pile of crap!
Duly noted, Jim. Write or call Mr. Tamny or Forbes Magazine, and register your complaint with them.
Posting and reading different perspectives is, I believe, what OPP is all about. At the very least, the article confirmed yours.
jimahrens wrote:
What a pile of crap!
I agree, what a pile of establishment RINO fence straddling crap!
slatten49 wrote:
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine staff
I cover the intersection of economics and politics.
It’s a little known fun fact, but after a debate in the 1960s with Ronald Reagan, defeated liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy yelled “Who the f—k got me into this?” to his aides. It’s not spoken of enough, but Reagan’s charisma was to some degree a function of his extensive knowledge of policy. Reagan’s favorite economic thinker was Fredric Bastiat.
Back in 2008, and as Barack Obama’s political star was on the rise, the late Jack Kemp was trying to reach the ascendant Democrat. The lifelong Republican had been a star quarterback at Occidental College (where Obama attended for two years), and figured their distant school ties might lead to some kind of policy discussion between the two about reducing the penalties levied on investment success. Kemp hoped to convince Obama to talk up capital gains tax cuts as a way (there are no companies and no jobs without investment first) to lift the economic fortunes of rich and poor alike.
And while he didn’t win the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, Steve Forbes forever changed the tax discussion among GOP hopefuls. Having made a brilliant case for tax simplification with his call for a flat tax, Forbes’ articulation of sharply reduced prices placed on work subsequently made big proposed tax cuts the price of admission for Republicans with national ambitions. To this day Forbes is a tireless speaker aggressively promoting the policies of prosperity not just around the country, but around the world.
All of which brings us to Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president. Republicans who care about the long-term health of the Party, Republicans who are proud of the great ideas that Reagan, Kemp and Forbes represented, and still represent thanks to Forbes, and Republicans who care about the Party’s brand as an optimistic one defined by free markets, growth, and shining city on the hill inclusion, must hope Trump loses on Tuesday. Better yet, they should hope he loses in an historically big way precisely because Republicans choose not to vote for him en masse.
If Republicans need reasons to not vote for Trump, they need only consider Reagan, Kemp and Forbes once again. Can any GOP or Trump partisan imagine a Democrat saying about Trump what RFK said about Reagan? Goodness, Trump couldn’t even beat Hillary Clinton in debates. His only inter-debate “victories” were his petty, frequently authoritarian insults that similarly insulted the dignity of the presidency itself. Clinton’s list of bad policy ideas is impressive, but since Trump wouldn’t know a great policy idea from a hideous one, he could never exploit Clinton’s myriad weaknesses. What are the odds Trump’s ever heard of Bastiat?
Can any Trump partisans imagine their candidate working tirelessly to convince others of the good or bad of a policy sans obnoxious rhetoric, and better yet, anyone listening to this most empty-headed of candidates? Regardless of Tuesday’s outcome, can anyone honestly say Trump will leave behind any kind of legacy that actually advances the policy debate?
Donald Trump is quite simply the most policy ignorant presidential candidate to ever emerge from the Republican primaries. But it’s not Trump’s stunning ignorance about seemingly everything policy-related that makes him such a lousy candidate, and such an embarrassment to the GOP. Figure that we’re advantaged economically and also in terms of freedom when presidents do nothing. Trump’s problem is that he combines policy ignorance with an impressive lack of common sense, and then tops it off with a desire to actually turn his know-nothingness into law. This is worth mentioning simply because yours truly would be cheering for Trump rather boisterously if he advertised his total cluelessness alongside an expressed desire to sit on his hands for four years. The problem with Trump once again is that he’s got lots of policy ideas. They’re nearly all bad. And the manufactured facts supporting them are nearly all wrong.
Despite the fact that China’s currency has risen over 20 percent against the dollar since 2005, and despite the fact that Japan’s yen has thoroughly crushed the dollar (in 1971 the dollar bought 360 yen, today it buys 105) over the last 45 years, Trump persists with the falsehood that both countries have gained economic advantage by devaluing their monies against the dollar. That Trump has spent 18 months promoting what is empirically false doesn’t seem to trouble either Trump or his supporters.
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine staff br br I cover t... (
show quote)
You must be a fence straddler.
slatten49 wrote:
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine staff
I cover the intersection of economics and politics.
It’s a little known fun fact, but after a debate in the 1960s with Ronald Reagan, defeated liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy yelled “Who the f—k got me into this?” to his aides. It’s not spoken of enough, but Reagan’s charisma was to some degree a function of his extensive knowledge of policy. Reagan’s favorite economic thinker was Fredric Bastiat.
Back in 2008, and as Barack Obama’s political star was on the rise, the late Jack Kemp was trying to reach the ascendant Democrat. The lifelong Republican had been a star quarterback at Occidental College (where Obama attended for two years), and figured their distant school ties might lead to some kind of policy discussion between the two about reducing the penalties levied on investment success. Kemp hoped to convince Obama to talk up capital gains tax cuts as a way (there are no companies and no jobs without investment first) to lift the economic fortunes of rich and poor alike.
And while he didn’t win the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, Steve Forbes forever changed the tax discussion among GOP hopefuls. Having made a brilliant case for tax simplification with his call for a flat tax, Forbes’ articulation of sharply reduced prices placed on work subsequently made big proposed tax cuts the price of admission for Republicans with national ambitions. To this day Forbes is a tireless speaker aggressively promoting the policies of prosperity not just around the country, but around the world.
All of which brings us to Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president. Republicans who care about the long-term health of the Party, Republicans who are proud of the great ideas that Reagan, Kemp and Forbes represented, and still represent thanks to Forbes, and Republicans who care about the Party’s brand as an optimistic one defined by free markets, growth, and shining city on the hill inclusion, must hope Trump loses on Tuesday. Better yet, they should hope he loses in an historically big way precisely because Republicans choose not to vote for him en masse.
If Republicans need reasons to not vote for Trump, they need only consider Reagan, Kemp and Forbes once again. Can any GOP or Trump partisan imagine a Democrat saying about Trump what RFK said about Reagan? Goodness, Trump couldn’t even beat Hillary Clinton in debates. His only inter-debate “victories” were his petty, frequently authoritarian insults that similarly insulted the dignity of the presidency itself. Clinton’s list of bad policy ideas is impressive, but since Trump wouldn’t know a great policy idea from a hideous one, he could never exploit Clinton’s myriad weaknesses. What are the odds Trump’s ever heard of Bastiat?
Can any Trump partisans imagine their candidate working tirelessly to convince others of the good or bad of a policy sans obnoxious rhetoric, and better yet, anyone listening to this most empty-headed of candidates? Regardless of Tuesday’s outcome, can anyone honestly say Trump will leave behind any kind of legacy that actually advances the policy debate?
Donald Trump is quite simply the most policy ignorant presidential candidate to ever emerge from the Republican primaries. But it’s not Trump’s stunning ignorance about seemingly everything policy-related that makes him such a lousy candidate, and such an embarrassment to the GOP. Figure that we’re advantaged economically and also in terms of freedom when presidents do nothing. Trump’s problem is that he combines policy ignorance with an impressive lack of common sense, and then tops it off with a desire to actually turn his know-nothingness into law. This is worth mentioning simply because yours truly would be cheering for Trump rather boisterously if he advertised his total cluelessness alongside an expressed desire to sit on his hands for four years. The problem with Trump once again is that he’s got lots of policy ideas. They’re nearly all bad. And the manufactured facts supporting them are nearly all wrong.
Despite the fact that China’s currency has risen over 20 percent against the dollar since 2005, and despite the fact that Japan’s yen has thoroughly crushed the dollar (in 1971 the dollar bought 360 yen, today it buys 105) over the last 45 years, Trump persists with the falsehood that both countries have gained economic advantage by devaluing their monies against the dollar. That Trump has spent 18 months promoting what is empirically false doesn’t seem to trouble either Trump or his supporters.
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine staff br br I cover t... (
show quote)
slatten49-ironically many of us prefer some political ignorance to embedded corruption. Governing can be learned quickly if one surrounds himself with adept people. Barack Obama had absolutely no leadership qualities and he survived for eight years. Trump is a smart man who, unlike Hillary, will not sell this country out. Hillary is corrupt to the core as is the entire D.C. establishment. We have some unfair trade deals which need to be amended and Trump is the only one who will do it. The technicalities of those deals are unimportant in this race but getting them changed to favor our country is. Hillary has already demonstrated that she does not have any leadership abilities and her judgement is seriously flawed. She is totally incompetent in addition to being untrustworthy and absolutely corrupt. America will rue the day it elects this totally flawed person to the POTUS job. We have been seriously weakened and have become the laughing stock of the world under Obama/Clinton and Hillary does not have any plans to make things better for anyone except Hillary. Her answer to our economic problems is a tax hike, another stimulus package and turning the economy over to Slick who is as ignorant of the economy as she is. If you want more taxes, more job killing regulations, and continued pouring of billions of our taxpayer dollars to the UN for Climate Change ,without any accounting for where the money is used, than Hillary is your candidate. Good Luck America !!!
slatten49 wrote:
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine staff
I cover the intersection of economics and politics.
It’s a little known fun fact, but after a debate in the 1960s with Ronald Reagan, defeated liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy yelled “Who the f—k got me into this?” to his aides. It’s not spoken of enough, but Reagan’s charisma was to some degree a function of his extensive knowledge of policy. Reagan’s favorite economic thinker was Fredric Bastiat.
Back in 2008, and as Barack Obama’s political star was on the rise, the late Jack Kemp was trying to reach the ascendant Democrat. The lifelong Republican had been a star quarterback at Occidental College (where Obama attended for two years), and figured their distant school ties might lead to some kind of policy discussion between the two about reducing the penalties levied on investment success. Kemp hoped to convince Obama to talk up capital gains tax cuts as a way (there are no companies and no jobs without investment first) to lift the economic fortunes of rich and poor alike.
And while he didn’t win the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, Steve Forbes forever changed the tax discussion among GOP hopefuls. Having made a brilliant case for tax simplification with his call for a flat tax, Forbes’ articulation of sharply reduced prices placed on work subsequently made big proposed tax cuts the price of admission for Republicans with national ambitions. To this day Forbes is a tireless speaker aggressively promoting the policies of prosperity not just around the country, but around the world.
All of which brings us to Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president. Republicans who care about the long-term health of the Party, Republicans who are proud of the great ideas that Reagan, Kemp and Forbes represented, and still represent thanks to Forbes, and Republicans who care about the Party’s brand as an optimistic one defined by free markets, growth, and shining city on the hill inclusion, must hope Trump loses on Tuesday. Better yet, they should hope he loses in an historically big way precisely because Republicans choose not to vote for him en masse.
If Republicans need reasons to not vote for Trump, they need only consider Reagan, Kemp and Forbes once again. Can any GOP or Trump partisan imagine a Democrat saying about Trump what RFK said about Reagan? Goodness, Trump couldn’t even beat Hillary Clinton in debates. His only inter-debate “victories” were his petty, frequently authoritarian insults that similarly insulted the dignity of the presidency itself. Clinton’s list of bad policy ideas is impressive, but since Trump wouldn’t know a great policy idea from a hideous one, he could never exploit Clinton’s myriad weaknesses. What are the odds Trump’s ever heard of Bastiat?
Can any Trump partisans imagine their candidate working tirelessly to convince others of the good or bad of a policy sans obnoxious rhetoric, and better yet, anyone listening to this most empty-headed of candidates? Regardless of Tuesday’s outcome, can anyone honestly say Trump will leave behind any kind of legacy that actually advances the policy debate?
Donald Trump is quite simply the most policy ignorant presidential candidate to ever emerge from the Republican primaries. But it’s not Trump’s stunning ignorance about seemingly everything policy-related that makes him such a lousy candidate, and such an embarrassment to the GOP. Figure that we’re advantaged economically and also in terms of freedom when presidents do nothing. Trump’s problem is that he combines policy ignorance with an impressive lack of common sense, and then tops it off with a desire to actually turn his know-nothingness into law. This is worth mentioning simply because yours truly would be cheering for Trump rather boisterously if he advertised his total cluelessness alongside an expressed desire to sit on his hands for four years. The problem with Trump once again is that he’s got lots of policy ideas. They’re nearly all bad. And the manufactured facts supporting them are nearly all wrong.
Despite the fact that China’s currency has risen over 20 percent against the dollar since 2005, and despite the fact that Japan’s yen has thoroughly crushed the dollar (in 1971 the dollar bought 360 yen, today it buys 105) over the last 45 years, Trump persists with the falsehood that both countries have gained economic advantage by devaluing their monies against the dollar. That Trump has spent 18 months promoting what is empirically false doesn’t seem to trouble either Trump or his supporters.
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine staff br br I cover t... (
show quote)
Hey, dude, welcome to the new Jim Crow. With a narcissistic butt head like Trump, his sons, his model, arm-candy wives, we are still winning. I am a new proud "Nasty Woman". Partying on November 9th, and Mr. Donald Jumpsuit Trump will not graciously concede (duh), unlike Al Gore, who ought to have won. Hillary is going to have such a hard time. Today I am going to Clinton's basement headquarter in Oakland. To call (or rather, use my laptop) swing state voters. Good luck. I'm pissed off with friends who are voting for Jill Stein or not voting. I cannot convince them of anything and have stopped trying. Good courage, friend. Nora
kankune wrote:
You are a big dissapointment to the great state of Texas!!!
No he is not!! A person can have differing political beliefs than you and still be a good person. Slat is a good man, and a gift to the great state of Texas.
You owe him an apology for your remark.
archie bunker wrote:
No he is not!! A person can have differing political beliefs than you and still be a good person. Slat is a good man, and a gift to the great state of Texas.
You owe him an apology for your remark.
Thanks, Archie, but no apology needed from anyone.
Those who know me are aware of my posted criticism of both major candidates in this election. They also know, far from being a fence-straddler, I made my pick of Jim Webb as my write-in candidate of choice early in the primaries. It is my opinion he is far better than either Clinton or Trump. Besides, Kankune is a fellow Texan, and I can live with criticism...I'm used to it. I'm married.
slatten49 wrote:
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine staff
I cover the intersection of economics and politics.
It’s a little known fun fact, but after a debate in the 1960s with Ronald Reagan, defeated liberal icon Robert F. Kennedy yelled “Who the f—k got me into this?” to his aides. It’s not spoken of enough, but Reagan’s charisma was to some degree a function of his extensive knowledge of policy. Reagan’s favorite economic thinker was Fredric Bastiat.
Back in 2008, and as Barack Obama’s political star was on the rise, the late Jack Kemp was trying to reach the ascendant Democrat. The lifelong Republican had been a star quarterback at Occidental College (where Obama attended for two years), and figured their distant school ties might lead to some kind of policy discussion between the two about reducing the penalties levied on investment success. Kemp hoped to convince Obama to talk up capital gains tax cuts as a way (there are no companies and no jobs without investment first) to lift the economic fortunes of rich and poor alike.
And while he didn’t win the Republican presidential nomination in 1996, Steve Forbes forever changed the tax discussion among GOP hopefuls. Having made a brilliant case for tax simplification with his call for a flat tax, Forbes’ articulation of sharply reduced prices placed on work subsequently made big proposed tax cuts the price of admission for Republicans with national ambitions. To this day Forbes is a tireless speaker aggressively promoting the policies of prosperity not just around the country, but around the world.
All of which brings us to Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president. Republicans who care about the long-term health of the Party, Republicans who are proud of the great ideas that Reagan, Kemp and Forbes represented, and still represent thanks to Forbes, and Republicans who care about the Party’s brand as an optimistic one defined by free markets, growth, and shining city on the hill inclusion, must hope Trump loses on Tuesday. Better yet, they should hope he loses in an historically big way precisely because Republicans choose not to vote for him en masse.
If Republicans need reasons to not vote for Trump, they need only consider Reagan, Kemp and Forbes once again. Can any GOP or Trump partisan imagine a Democrat saying about Trump what RFK said about Reagan? Goodness, Trump couldn’t even beat Hillary Clinton in debates. His only inter-debate “victories” were his petty, frequently authoritarian insults that similarly insulted the dignity of the presidency itself. Clinton’s list of bad policy ideas is impressive, but since Trump wouldn’t know a great policy idea from a hideous one, he could never exploit Clinton’s myriad weaknesses. What are the odds Trump’s ever heard of Bastiat?
Can any Trump partisans imagine their candidate working tirelessly to convince others of the good or bad of a policy sans obnoxious rhetoric, and better yet, anyone listening to this most empty-headed of candidates? Regardless of Tuesday’s outcome, can anyone honestly say Trump will leave behind any kind of legacy that actually advances the policy debate?
Donald Trump is quite simply the most policy ignorant presidential candidate to ever emerge from the Republican primaries. But it’s not Trump’s stunning ignorance about seemingly everything policy-related that makes him such a lousy candidate, and such an embarrassment to the GOP. Figure that we’re advantaged economically and also in terms of freedom when presidents do nothing. Trump’s problem is that he combines policy ignorance with an impressive lack of common sense, and then tops it off with a desire to actually turn his know-nothingness into law. This is worth mentioning simply because yours truly would be cheering for Trump rather boisterously if he advertised his total cluelessness alongside an expressed desire to sit on his hands for four years. The problem with Trump once again is that he’s got lots of policy ideas. They’re nearly all bad. And the manufactured facts supporting them are nearly all wrong.
Despite the fact that China’s currency has risen over 20 percent against the dollar since 2005, and despite the fact that Japan’s yen has thoroughly crushed the dollar (in 1971 the dollar bought 360 yen, today it buys 105) over the last 45 years, Trump persists with the falsehood that both countries have gained economic advantage by devaluing their monies against the dollar. That Trump has spent 18 months promoting what is empirically false doesn’t seem to trouble either Trump or his supporters.
John Tamny, Forbes Magazine staff br br I cover t... (
show quote)
===================
Bunch of crap! The whole purpose of GOP is saving our country from invasion of the Muslims. Right now they have come supporting Trump.
Currently Hillary Clinton has sold the soul of the United states to the Arabs headed by Saudi Arabia. Fact is the recent BD of Bill Clinton, Qatar sent him a birthday present of $1 million dollars. This act is building and expediting the process so that by the time Hillary Clinton is elected, millions of Muslims are transported to the US in the guise of illegal immigration that she'll provide Amnesty costing $1.3 trillion dollars taxes to be charged to the US taxpayers.
Except the Muslims looking forward for US takeover, US relationships with other countries in very sour and so low. No one respects the US anymore. Only the Arabs get a tight grip to Hillary Clinton, who was paid and blinded by the money of the Arabs.
Hillary will be become a billionaire the price of selling the soul of the US to the Muslims. I believe that President Obama likes that very much, for the sake of Islam!
DanceTherapist wrote:
Hey, dude, welcome to the new Jim Crow. With a narcissistic butt head like Trump, his sons, his model, arm-candy wives, we are still winning. I am a new proud "Nasty Woman". Partying on November 9th, and Mr. Donald Jumpsuit Trump will not graciously concede (duh), unlike Al Gore, who ought to have won. Hillary is going to have such a hard time. Today I am going to Clinton's basement headquarter in Oakland. To call (or rather, use my laptop) swing state voters. Good luck. I'm pissed off with friends who are voting for Jill Stein or not voting. I cannot convince them of anything and have stopped trying. Good courage, friend. Nora
Hey, dude, welcome to the new Jim Crow. With a nar... (
show quote)
DanceTherapist-you are lucky that you have friends with enough common sense not to vote for slimy Hillary. Try Weiner's lap top-probably much more interesting that yours. lol Good Luck America !!!
DanceTherapist wrote:
Hey, dude, welcome to the new Jim Crow. With a narcissistic butt head like Trump, his sons, his model, arm-candy wives, we are still winning. I am a new proud "Nasty Woman". Partying on November 9th, and Mr. Donald Jumpsuit Trump will not graciously concede (duh), unlike Al Gore, who ought to have won. Hillary is going to have such a hard time. Today I am going to Clinton's basement headquarter in Oakland. To call (or rather, use my laptop) swing state voters. Good luck. I'm pissed off with friends who are voting for Jill Stein or not voting. I cannot convince them of anything and have stopped trying. Good courage, friend. Nora
Hey, dude, welcome to the new Jim Crow. With a nar... (
show quote)
So, you admire crooks and liars? You admire some one who is undergoing five criminal investigations? You admire some one who hates the Secret Service personnel who are paid by us taxpayers to protect her? You admire some one who hates the military? You admire some one in office who sells access to foreign government and rich Wall Street fat cats? You admire pathological liars who will tell you anything, and you just swallow it hook, line, and sinker? You admire some one who berates their staff on a continuous basis laced with expletives? You admire a foul mouth cold hearted woman? You admire a woman who is untrustworthy, unstable, and dishonest? You admire a globalist who is for open borders and one world government? You admire a woman who cares nothing about you or the American people, only her own political power? You admire some one who would lie under oath? Are you a lesbian?
Those traits are Hillary Clinton, and if you support and vote for her, they apply to you too. It also means you hate America.
slatten49 wrote:
Thanks, Archie, but no apology needed from anyone.
Those that know me are aware of my posted criticism of both major candidates in this election. They also know, far from being a fence-straddler, I made my pick of Jim Webb as my write-in candidate of choice early in the primaries. It is my opinion he is far better than either Clinton or Trump. Besides, Kankune is a fellow Texan, and I can live with criticism...I'm used to it. I'm married.
Thanks, Archie, but no apology needed from anyone.... (
show quote)
I will agree with you on Jim Webb, and I would vote for him if he was still running. He is not, and there is no way I want Hillary in office, so I have no choice but to vote for Trump.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
