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.

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.

Sir, you have an admiral quality. You defended your friend, but I am defending my children and my grandchildren. OPEN BORDERS scares me to death for their safety. Come on in...we don't care if you're drug runners, criminals, terrorists. If you harm or kill someone we'll just catch and release. Then our so called POTUS can come on TV and tell us how much his heart goes out to us....BS.......Its not his loved ones that were taken from him. I can stay a deplorable, Blacks can stay super predators, Hispanics can stay needy, and Mellinials can be good for nothing except living in their mommy and daddys' basement. If she wins....we have won NOTHING!!

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

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

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

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.