[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆⬆ Let me interject at this point that love of country is not tied to whether one's suit is more red or more blue, in my view.

[Pick6]

In addition, I would say that the prospects for Republican Presidents, after this cycle are dim and getting dimmer. States like North Carolina and soon Georgia will be swing states. The Establishment GOP (Beneficiaries of Free Trade) and Trump supporters (The victims of Free Trade) are not likely to ever coexist in the GOP. The liberal constituency is growing much faster than the conservative constituency. The 15 million people who voted for Trump are not going to live with being told they have to live with Free Trade and will be receptive to an anti trade pitch from liberals.

[TheRealThing]

⬆⬆ Let me interject at this point that love of country is not tied to whether one's suit is more red or more blue, in my view.

Try putting the correct label on there and see if it still sounds good to you. More liberal/progressive or more traditionally conservative.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Try putting the correct label on there and see if it still sounds good to you. More liberal/progressive or more traditionally conservative.

Simply because a person's philosophy is incompatible with yours does not mean love of country is the issue. I dispute that.

[Pick6]

Simply because a person's philosophy is incompatible with yours does not mean love of country is the issue. I dispute that.

How do you express love of country?

[TheRealThing]

Simply because a person's philosophy is incompatible with yours does not mean love of country is the issue. I dispute that.

You can't dispute that cash strapped Daddies and Mommies are being forced to pay for Syrian refugees along with something north of 12 million illegals already here. And you can't dispute more of the same will pour in here for at least another 200 days.

[Pick6]

Its easy to advocate higher taxes when its someone else paying the taxes!

[Hoot Gibson]

Exactly!!...It's not always what we do that we will be judged by, it's sometimes what we don't do. Amazing that it took this long for someone to bring up this point...You don't have to like Donald Trump to make sure that 4 more liberal judges don't get placed on the Supreme Court....Hold your nose and don't vote for him the next time if you cant stand him. It's real simple..If you personally knew Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, and the rest of the other 14 republican candidates, you more than likely wouldn't like them either....This is no time to not be standing together and to let Hillary Clinton appoint judges that will alter the country's landscape (more than what it already is) and then let it take till the latter part of this century for any chance for it to be overturned....Any conservative who refuses to vote for Trump and let Clinton attain the presidency, CANNOT claim to love their children, their grandchildren or their great grandchildren. I doubt very seriously if Trump will get much passed by Congress to begin with, so what difference will it make?....Objective #1, is to preserve a conservative presence on the Supreme Court.

Does that go for the voters who helped Trump secure the nomination by casting a vote for him in a primary election, Bob? I mean if Trump loses to one of the two worst presumptive nominees in the history of this country, will that mean his early supporters will deserve the same condemnation as the #NeverTrumpers, who warned that Trump would be a very weak general campaign candidate? (I use the word "voters" instead of "conservatives," because I am still struggling to understand how a conservative can support a liberal like Trump, who was a longtime supporter of Hillary's before he decided to become a Republican candidate. A wolf in a sheep costume is still a wolf at heart.)

[Hoot Gibson]

More evidence that Trump cannot even manage a national political campaign. Mr. Kellems' tenure may have ended before he collected his first paycheck.

Donald Trump hit by campaign shakeup just 3 weeks before convention speech

DENVER — Just three weeks before he is set to officially claim the Republican presidential nomination, Donald Trump was hit with another staff shakeup as his campaign struggles to expand in advance of what is expected to be a bruising general election campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Kevin Kellems, a veteran GOP strategist and former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, abruptly resigned from the Trump staff Thursday, less than two weeks after he was hired to help oversee the campaign’s surrogate operations. Erica Freeman, another aide working with surrogates, also quit.

“While brief, it has been an interesting experience, and I am proud of the contributions made to our early-phase project endeavors,” Kellems wrote in a goodbye note to colleagues.

The campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

The latest departures come as Trump has tried to steady a campaign operation that has been shaken by internal drama and outside turmoil, including the candidate’s own missteps. Those include Trump’s racially tinged comments about a federal judge and his response to the Orlando shooting that many Republicans say have distracted from his general election argument against Clinton.

[Hoot Gibson]

Why would a smart man make so many unforced errors in a presidential campaign? Answer: he wouldn't.

Trump sparks online firestorm with anti-Clinton tweet featuring Star of David

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump drew widespread rebuke on Saturday with a tweet featuring a Star of David while accusing rival Hillary Clinton of corruption.

The star, a symbol of Judaism, was on a backdrop of $100 bills and paired with a Fox News poll in which a majority of respondents described Clinton as corrupt. Next to Clinton’s face was a red Star of David bearing the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!”

Later in the morning, Trump posted a version of the tweet with a circle instead of the Star of David. He then deleted the original tweet.

[Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmXZVNTWcAAcsHm.jpg]

[Hoot Gibson]

Lewandowski should have had one of the Trump companies manufacture the T-shirts in China for $2 apiece and then purchased them for $16 apiece. That would have allowed Trump to recoup a little more of his loan the the Trump campaign. No wonder Trump fired this man. He obviously missed the Trump U. class on creative financing.

Trump campaign probes Lewandowski’s ‘friendly’ spending

Donald Trump’s campaign is auditing axed campaign manager Corey Lewandowski’s decision to buy T-shirts and other political swag from a pal’s Colorado-based company, campaign sources told The Post.

Federal records show Trump’s campaign paid $2.1 million to WizBang Solutions, a company based in a Denver suburb. The firm billed the campaign for printing T-shirts, “Make America Great Again” caps, yard signs, note cards and flyers, as well as postage and design costs nearly every month since April 2015, the records show.

WizBang’s director, Mike Ciletti, is a longtime friend and former client of Lewandowski, having provided printing services for conservative group Americans for Prosperity when Lewandowski worked for it.

Ciletti visited Trump Tower several times last summer and launched a super PAC, the Make America Great Again PAC, promoting Trump’s campaign, according to a Washington Post report.

Lewandowski first denied knowing Ciletti but later acknowledged he “knew of” him and did not say whether he hired him, WaPo reported.

When a reporter called WizBang and asked who at Trump HQ hired the company, an employee replied, “I am not allowed to say anything.”

As the campaign’s costs climbed, Trump officials complained they were paying WizBang about $8 per T-shirt, a source said. Lewandowski blew up when the officials suggested choosing a firm that could print shirts at one-fourth the price, the source added.

The spending caught the eye of campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who performed a review when he joined Team Trump in March. Manafort later ordered an audit led by Trump’s top business confidante, Allen Weisselberg, the sources said.

[Hoot Gibson]

Here is an interesting article. Some Italians believe that Trump has the potential to become the American Belusconi. (That would not be a good thing.)

Italians to Americans: Beware of Trump-like candidates

ROME — Speaking from hard-earned experience, Italians offer a warning to American voters: Think twice before electing Donald Trump.

That advice is based on the fact that Italy chose a Trump-like leader — and many later came to regret it.

Italy's version of Trump is Silvio Berlusconi, 79, the media tycoon who served as Italy’s prime minister four times, dating to 1994. The two men have much in common.

They are both billionaires who got their start in real-estate development and who came into politics as newcomers promising to use their business acumen to revitalize their country’s economy. Both are brash and self-confident with reputations as womanizers. Both blame much of their country’s woes on immigration. Both seem impervious to critiques and gaffes that would sink other political careers. They even share an obvious concern about their hair: Trump’s billowy coif is an integral part of his look, while Berlusconi admits to at least two hair transplants to cover up an expanding bald spot.

“For Italy watching the election in the U.S. gives us a sense of déjà vu,” said Gian Franco Gallo, a political affairs analyst with ABS Securities in Milan. “It’s like you’re rewatching a horror movie, and as the protagonist is about to get ambushed, you throw your hands up and scream at the screen, ‘Don’t go through that door!’ ”

That negative view stems from the fact that during Berlusconi's long tenure, which ended in 2011, Italy suffered prolonged periods of economic weakness, political corruption got worse, and Berlusconi became ensnared in sex scandals and legal troubles that included a wide range of charges, from false accounting and tax evasion to bribery and paying a minor for sex.

Today, Berlusconi, who is recovering from last month's heart surgery, is barred from holding office before 2019 because of his legal problems. Maria Rossi, co-director of Opinioni polls, said her polling finds fewer than one in seven Italians would still back him today.

“Every time I see Donald Trump, I think of Silvio Berlusconi,” said Stefano Matucci, 55, a restaurant manager. “I don’t say not to vote for him. In fact, I supported Berlusconi for a while. But if you do vote for someone like that, understand what you get. Silvio always did what was best for Silvio. I think Trump is probably the same.”

Alan Friedman, a U.S. journalist who wrote a popular biography of Berlusconi and has interviewed Trump, calls Berlusconi "the second-most influential Italian leader of the last hundred years, after (wartime fascist leader Benito) Mussolini.”

“He transformed Italian politics,” Friedman said. “But in the end, he will be remembered much more for his scandals than for his achievements.”

Berlusconi’s high-profile sex antics — he coined the term “bunga bunga” to refer to sex soirees he hosted involving scores of teenage women and powerful, older men — made Italy the butt of jokes around the world.

In April, Il Fatto Quotidiano, an influential newspaper, said in an editorial that, Trump, like Berlusconi, is a threat because he is “a parasite that destroys the political establishment through the use of self-marketing and advertising techniques.”

Gallo, the analyst, agreed: “In a way, Italy has always looked to comparatively orderly elections in the U.S. as something to strive for,” he said. “I think it’s a bit confusing that the Americans are considering the same kind of error Italy already made: voting for a seductive demagogue like Trump.”

Some rank-and-file Italians say they recognize Trump’s charms but are not seduced by them.

"There might have been a time when I would have liked Trump, and it’s true he can be charming,” said Barbara Conti, 78, a retired schoolteacher. “But that doesn’t work on me anymore. I supported Berlusconi and ended up losing part of my pension by being forced to retire early. When you get taken advantage of by one con man, you can see the next one coming 100 steps away.”

[Bob Seger]

Does that go for the voters who helped Trump secure the nomination by casting a vote for him in a primary election, Bob? I mean if Trump loses to one of the two worst presumptive nominees in the history of this country, will that mean his early supporters will deserve the same condemnation as the #NeverTrumpers, who warned that Trump would be a very weak general campaign candidate? (I use the word "voters" instead of "conservatives," because I am still struggling to understand how a conservative can support a liberal like Trump, who was a longtime supporter of Hillary's before he decided to become a Republican candidate. A wolf in a sheep costume is still a wolf at heart.)

He is what he is what he is.....No argument here....However the point is, he is the republican nominee, and there is no changing that fact...We can have 4,000 threads demonizing him all you want...It's not going to change anything.You have to make lemonade out of the lemon this time......4 years of a president who will get nothing accomplished through Congress is way far better than 4 years of a witch who will, provided he gets the opportunity to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court...Agreed?

[Hoot Gibson]

In addition, I would say that the prospects for Republican Presidents, after this cycle are dim and getting dimmer. States like North Carolina and soon Georgia will be swing states. The Establishment GOP (Beneficiaries of Free Trade) and Trump supporters (The victims of Free Trade) are not likely to ever coexist in the GOP. The liberal constituency is growing much faster than the conservative constituency. The 15 million people who voted for Trump are not going to live with being told they have to live with Free Trade and will be receptive to an anti trade pitch from liberals.

After this cycle? :biglmao:

The GOP's nomination of Donald Trump, who has been a strong supporter of liberal causes throughout most of his adult life, is making the near future prospects for Republicans dim. Trump already trails in North Carolina and his lead in Georgia is within the margin of error in 3 of the 4 most recent polls for Georgia.

Liberalism is advancing in this country because the Republican Party keeps failing to nominate conservative presidential candidates who can effectively articulate conservative positions. If the GOP continues to fail to offer clear moral and philosophical choices to voters, its presidential election successes will become few and far between. November could have and should have been a turning point for the GOP. Democrats played a key role in nominating both Trump and Hillary. The GOP needs to eliminate open primaries if it wants to avoid train wrecks like Trump in the future.

Free trade is just one conservative principle that Trump and the GOP have abandoned. Trump is right to criticize bad trade agreements and he is right to pledge to renegotiate their terms - but free trade has been a cornerstone of the foundation of this country's success. People who demonize free trade should be supporting a fringe candidate like Bernie Sanders.

[ekyswvahsfan]

Free trade is not a conservative principle. Certain brands of conservative intellectuals with pronounced free market or libertarian leanings have pushed free trade. People such as Past Buchanan- for example, have never been free traders. Back in the fifties and sixties conservatives rarely, if ever mentioned free trade.
Free trade is a cancer- it is economic treason. I have been a life-long Republican, but I would never support a free market-free trade Republican, they are as evil and worthless as liberals.
Prominent amongst this sorry no good worthless lot are Hoot Gibson's pet dog Ted Cruz and his garbage buddies Bush and Rubio. Flush the lot of them down a toilet and this country will be better off.

[Pick6]

After this cycle? :biglmao:

The GOP's nomination of Donald Trump, who has been a strong supporter of liberal causes throughout most of his adult life, is making the near future prospects for Republicans dim. Trump already trails in North Carolina and his lead in Georgia is within the margin of error in 3 of the 4 most recent polls for Georgia.

Liberalism is advancing in this country because the Republican Party keeps failing to nominate conservative presidential candidates who can effectively articulate conservative positions. If the GOP continues to fail to offer clear moral and philosophical choices to voters, its presidential election successes will become few and far between. November could have and should have been a turning point for the GOP. Democrats played a key role in nominating both Trump and Hillary. The GOP needs to eliminate open primaries if it wants to avoid train wrecks like Trump in the future.

Free trade is just one conservative principle that Trump and the GOP have abandoned. Trump is right to criticize bad trade agreements and he is right to pledge to renegotiate their terms - but free trade has been a cornerstone of the foundation of this country's success. People who demonize free trade should be supporting a fringe candidate like Bernie Sanders.

You could not be more off base. The GOP has failed to win the popular vote the 5 out of the last 6 cycles because they seek to impose ideology on the electorate, rather than deriving their policy from listening to the electorate. The GOP has strict position litmus tests for its Presidential Candidates that have been complied with by every candidate -- EXCEPT TRUMP. Trump derives his policy positions from actually listening to the electorate and adopting policy positions based upon the needs of the electorate. His policies on trade and non interventionist foreign policy put him in opposition to his own party, most of whom are on record as supporting both free trade and interventionism.

This is why you will not see many GOP Congressmen or Senators speak at the convention next week. It is also why Trump will not be receiving much support from traditional GOP donors because they are the beneficiary of free trade.

Washington is a cesspool of corruption and self interest and this is leading to the deterioration of our country. We know for certain that HRC will continue to lead us down this path. Where Trump will take us, given both parties will oppose him is uncertain. The country has lost 6million jobs and had 55,000 factory closings since 2000. We cannot continue down this path.

[Hoot Gibson]

He is what he is what he is.....No argument here....However the point is, he is the republican nominee, and there is no changing that fact...We can have 4,000 threads demonizing him all you want...It's not going to change anything.You have to make lemonade out of the lemon this time......4 years of a president who will get nothing accomplished through Congress is way far better than 4 years of a witch who will, provided he gets the opportunity to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court...Agreed?

Electing either Hillary or Trump will be a disaster for this country. Don't count on President Trump nominating conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

Reagan was a true conservative who did his best to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court. While he did give us Antonin Scalia, he also appointed Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Conner - both of whom are remembered for their swing votes. George H. W. Bush appointed conservative Clarence Thomas, but he also appointed liberal David Souter. George W. Bush hit a home run with Samuel Alito but John Roberts has been a disappointment so far and if conservatives had not rebelled, liberal Harriet Mayers would have probably been confirmed instead of Alito.

My point is that recent presidents who were real conservatives have not had a stellar record of appointing conservatives to the Supreme Court, so what is the chance that a friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton - a man who was a lifetime liberal until he decided to run for president as a Republican, will do as well?

What kind of Supreme Court justices will a goofball like Trump likely get confirmed if Republicans lose control of the U.S. Senate? Given his failure so far as a Republican fundraiser, the chances of the GOP maintaining control of the Senate appears pretty dim.

So, while I agree that it is more likely that Trump would get a conservative or two on the Supreme Court than Hillary, I would be shocked if his record of appointments is as good as any of his Republican predecessors were and they were far from perfect. We can count on Hillary nominating the most liberal judges that she can, but we still cannot rule out that her friend Donald Trump will do almost as badly.

I have reached the point that I am fed up with the quality of candidates that the GOP is offering us. But I did not decide against supporting Trump because I love my children or future grandchildren any less than you love yours. Those children could easily become victims in the worst war in the history of the world with either Hillary or Trump in charge of our military.

BTW, the best argument in favor of Trump, IMO, is that our military absolutely hates Hillary Clinton - probably even more than they hate Barack and Michelle Obama. The military deserve better leadership than the two parties are offering voters.

[Hoot Gibson]

Free trade is not a conservative principle. Certain brands of conservative intellectuals with pronounced free market or libertarian leanings have pushed free trade. People such as Past Buchanan- for example, have never been free traders. Back in the fifties and sixties conservatives rarely, if ever mentioned free trade.
Free trade is a cancer- it is economic treason. I have been a life-long Republican, but I would never support a free market-free trade Republican, they are as evil and worthless as liberals.
Prominent amongst this sorry no good worthless lot are Hoot Gibson's pet dog Ted Cruz and his garbage buddies Bush and Rubio. Flush the lot of them down a toilet and this country will be better off.

Apparently, American History was not one of your better classes. Economic freedom is inseparable from personal liberty and both have been key parts of what was known as the American dream.

I think that people like you, who mistakenly believe that Donald Trump is a conservative, confuse free trade and economic freedom with trade agreements. They are not the same. One can be a strong supporter of free trade and opposed to trade agreements that weaken this country's position.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are both anti-free trade, as is Donald Trump. Trump is a crony capitalist, who admits to buying political favors for his companies through campaign donations (mostly to liberal politicians). Trump has prospered in large part, not through any creative genius or hard work, but through programs like H1B visas and getting his products manufactured overseas. What do you think he got in return for all the money that he donated to politicians all these years?

I encourage you to learn more about economics before you accept Donald Trump and Pat Buchanan as your economic gurus. Watching a few Milton Friedman videos on Youtube on economic freedom would be a great start. I also encourage you to consider the alternative to economic freedom.

The leaders of Venezuela probably agree with your hatred of the free market. The people of Venezuela would probably welcome economic freedom and a roll or two of toilet paper with open arms.

[TheRealThing]

Free trade is not a conservative principle. Certain brands of conservative intellectuals with pronounced free market or libertarian leanings have pushed free trade. People such as Past Buchanan- for example, have never been free traders. Back in the fifties and sixties conservatives rarely, if ever mentioned free trade.
Free trade is a cancer- it is economic treason. I have been a life-long Republican, but I would never support a free market-free trade Republican, they are as evil and worthless as liberals.
Prominent amongst this sorry no good worthless lot are Hoot Gibson's pet dog Ted Cruz and his garbage buddies Bush and Rubio. Flush the lot of them down a toilet and this country will be better off.

Apparently, American History was not one of your better classes. Economic freedom is inseparable from personal liberty and both have been key parts of what was known as the American dream.

I think that people like you, who mistakenly believe that Donald Trump is a conservative, confuse free trade and economic freedom with trade agreements. They are not the same. One can be a strong supporter of free trade and opposed to trade agreements that weaken this country's position.

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are both anti-free trade, as is Donald Trump. Trump is a crony capitalist, who admits to buying political favors for his companies through campaign donations (mostly to liberal politicians). Trump has prospered in large part, not through any creative genius or hard work, but through programs like H1B visas and getting his products manufactured overseas. What do you think he got in return for all the money that he donated to politicians all these years?

I encourage you to learn more about economics before you accept Donald Trump and Pat Buchanan as your economic gurus. Watching a few Milton Friedman videos on Youtube on economic freedom would be a great start. I also encourage you to consider the alternative to economic freedom.

The leaders of Venezuela probably agree with your hatred of the free market. The people of Venezuela would probably welcome economic freedom and a roll or two of toilet paper with open arms.

ekyswvahsfan made a perfectly acceptable post. But as usual, the guy who believes himself to be the one suffering the insult, rides in to call eky's mental faculties into question. Please explain to us what in the world NAFTA or TPP has to do with personal liberty? Both of which place restrictions on the where and the how of which American manufacturers trade. We're not free to trade when EPA regulations choke the life out of any manufacturing concern located within US borders. That and a forecasted FY 2016 32.8 % capital gains tax just about killed it, or there would be a few jobs left to be had.

The NAFTA view is the globalist view, and as such governs US trade which affects every American who isn't rich. Furthermore, American industry has been all but eliminated from American soil and so too are American jobs which have been moved to Mexico. And if all that were not enough, the stake through the heart of American industry and commercial entities was certainly the passage, or make that the rammage, of ObamaCare. In fact, the only thing manufactured in the land as we speak are solar panels, wind mills and legislation which are funded by powerless Americans who are compelled to spend what ever might be left of their bank accounts to pay ever rising taxes, for those who don't work but who none the less share in the ever diminishing bounty. Please give us a break from your so-called encouragements, cause from where I sit you could use a little brush up on economics yourself.

[Hoot Gibson]

ekyswvahsfan made a perfectly acceptable post. But as usual, the guy who believes himself to be the one suffering the insult, rides in to call eky's mental faculties into question. Please explain to us what in the world NAFTA or TPP has to do with personal liberty? Both of which place restrictions on the where and the how of which American manufacturers trade. We're not free to trade when EPA regulations choke the life out of any manufacturing concern located within US borders. That and a forecasted FY 2016 32.8 % capital gains tax just about killed it, or there would be a few jobs left to be had.

The NAFTA view is the globalist view, and as such governs US trade which affects every American who isn't rich. Furthermore, American industry has been all but eliminated from American soil and so too are American jobs which have been moved to Mexico. And if all that were not enough, the stake through the heart of American industry and commercial entities was certainly the passage, or make that the rammage, of ObamaCare. In fact, the only thing manufactured in the land as we speak are solar panels, wind mills and legislation which are funded by powerless Americans who are compelled to spend what ever might be left of their bank accounts to pay ever rising taxes, for those who don't work but who none the less share in the ever diminishing bounty. Please give us a break from your so-called encouragements, cause from where I sit you could use a little brush up on economics yourself.

Keep waving that protectionist flag for Donald Trump. A person can have economic freedom without political freedom, as many in China do, but one cannot be truly free without having economic freedom. The founders of our nation understand that principle. Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman understood that concept and applied it in the roaring 1980s. The lesson of the Reagan recovery was apparently lost on you and Donald Trump.

It's ironic that you would be objecting to my support of free trade and economic freedom on Independence Day.

[TheRealThing]

Keep waving that protectionist flag for Donald Trump. A person can have economic freedom without political freedom, as many in China do, but one cannot be truly free without having economic freedom. The founders of our nation understand that principle. Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman understood that concept and applied it in the roaring 1980s. The lesson of the Reagan recovery was apparently lost on you and Donald Trump.

It's ironic that you would be objecting to my support of free trade and economic freedom on Independence Day.

Still better than being just plain lost, you sidestepped my post and tried to deflect, again. NAFTA, which I have always opposed, does not allow for free trade and it's big brother TPP (pun intended), will be truly onerous. I will give you this, the transitory link between the 80's and today was the free trade agreement signed in Dec of '93. It was additionally, the precursor of globalism which in turn will usher in the one world government. Not the founders, nor Friedman, nor Reagan, nor Trump would think Independence Day has the first thing to do with this thing you call free trade, which is anything but free.

How can something be free when it is tightly regulated? It might be homogenous, but it certainly isn't free.

[Hoot Gibson]

Still better than being just plain lost, you sidestepped my post and tried to deflect, again. NAFTA, which I have always opposed, does not allow for free trade and it's big brother TPP (pun intended), will be truly onerous. I will give you this, the transitory link between the 80's and today was the free trade agreement signed in Dec of '93. It was additionally, the precursor of globalism which in turn will usher in the one world government. Not the founders, nor Friedman, nor Reagan, nor Trump would think Independence Day has the first thing to do with this thing you call free trade, which is anything but free.

How can something be free when it is tightly regulated? It might be homogenous, but it certainly isn't free.

I never mentioned NAFTA or TPP in my post. It is dishonest of you to attempt to attribute a position to me that I have not taken. The rules do not require me to address every tangent that you spin off to in your long, rambling posts, and my preference is to minimize the time I waste responding to them. High tariffs have never made a nation prosperous and nothing could be further from free trade.

[TheRealThing]

I never mentioned NAFTA or TPP in my post. It is dishonest of you to attempt to attribute a position to me that I have not taken. The rules do not require me to address every tangent that you spin off to in your long, rambling posts, and my preference is to minimize the time I waste responding to them. High tariffs have never made a nation prosperous and nothing could be further from free trade.

And here we go asliding off in yet another direction. Tariffs are tools of the trade. Nothing has been taken off of the negotiator's table except chinless liberalism.

[Hoot Gibson]

If you are a Trump supporter who only believes polls that show Trump winning, then you may just want to ignore the article below. If you supporting Trump only because you believe that he is the lesser of two evils and you are among the 51 percent of Republicans who prefer somebody else as the nominee, then maybe this poll is not such bad news.

The GOP establishment is applying heavy pressure on delegates bound to Trump on the first ballot not to abstain or vote their conscience. If Trump continues trailing Clinton in the national polls and continues his miserable fundraising performance, more delegates may find the backbone to vote for somebody who has a better chance of defeating her in November.

It probably won't happen, but nobody likes to be saddled up on a loser in a horse race or bet on the losing horse.

Donald Trump breaks a record, and it's not a good one

Donald Trump enjoys pushing boundaries – though he is unlikely to brag about pushing this one.

Gallup reports that Trump is more disliked than any general election candidate in the last 60 years. Even Barry Goldwater at his lowest point was not viewed as negatively as Trump is now. The polling organization’s latest survey looked not just at whether people view a candidate favorably or unfavorably, but to what extent.

Participants grade the candidate’s appeal on a 10-point scale. Forty-two percent of those surveyed gave Trump either the lowest or second-lowest possible rating. It was a record for Gallup, though Trump was not alone in besting Goldwater there. Clinton had 33% of voters giving her such low grades, which far exceeds the 26% Goldwater received at his low point in 1964.

But where Trump excelled in record setting was the total number of people who found him unfavorable to at least some extent. For every two people who view him positively, another three view him negatively. Clinton about breaks even, just as Goldwater did on the Gallup “scalometer” back in 1964.

It’s worth noting, though, that such dubious distinctions hardly stand out the way they did when Goldwater set records. Voters were far less likely to express a dim view of candidates then. Dwight Eisenhower received rock-bottom favorability scores from just 4% of voters in 1956. Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy got the lowest scores from just 5% of voters in the elections that followed.

[Pick6]

Why would a smart man make so many unforced errors in a presidential campaign? Answer: he wouldn't.

You would have to be a total moron to perceive ethnic slight in this tweet. This is PC BS.

[Hoot Gibson]

You would have to be a total moron to perceive ethnic slight in this tweet. This is PC BS.

The image appeared on a white supremacist website in mid June before Trump tweeted it. Trump deleted the original tweet and replaced the Jewish Star of David with a circle instead of a star in the updated tweet. So, are you saying that Trump caved to PC pressure? Do you really think that he believes that the star was a "sheriff's star?"

As I said, this was an unforced error. Otherwise, why did Trump delete the original tweet and replace it with a more PC version?

[Hoot Gibson]

Trump may need an eye exam.

Donald Trump Can’t Believe the Size of Colorado Crowd, and Neither Will You

One of the many recurring themes of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump‘s campaign, in addition to overt racism and advocacy for war crimes, is his constant complaining that the media never turns the cameras around to show the true size of his crowds. True to form, Trump spent some time at Friday’s Western Conservative Summit to brag about the size of the “tremendous crowd” that showed up for his speech, exclaiming “Wow! That’s a good crowd of people!”

In a case of being careful what you wish for, however, conservative video site Digitas Daily did the job the media refuses to do, and compiled a video featuring side-by-side comparisons of Trump’s boasts, and views of the actual crowd:

[YOUTUBE="Trump impressed by small turnout"]Q4OAVA95AN4[/YOUTUBE]

[Pick6]

Trump may need an eye exam.

Donald Trump Can’t Believe the Size of Colorado Crowd, and Neither Will You

One of the many recurring themes of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump‘s campaign, in addition to overt racism and advocacy for war crimes, is his constant complaining that the media never turns the cameras around to show the true size of his crowds. True to form, Trump spent some time at Friday’s Western Conservative Summit to brag about the size of the “tremendous crowd” that showed up for his speech, exclaiming “Wow! That’s a good crowd of people!”

In a case of being careful what you wish for, however, conservative video site Digitas Daily did the job the media refuses to do, and compiled a video featuring side-by-side comparisons of Trump’s boasts, and views of the actual crowd:

[YOUTUBE="Trump impressed by small turnout"]Q4OAVA95AN4[/YOUTUBE]

This was not a Trump rally. This was the Western Conservative Summit. I watch a lot of Trumps rallies. They only show the crowd when a protester is removed.

[Hoot Gibson]

This was not a Trump rally. This was the Western Conservative Summit. I watch a lot of Trumps rallies. They only show the crowd when a protester is removed.

I stand corrected. Did Trump not boast about how large the crowd was at the Western Conservative Summit? Was the crowd at the Western Conservative Summit not, in fact, quite small with many empty seats? Was Trump telling the truth when he described the size of the crowd at the Western Conservative Summit?

Exaggerating the size of their crowds is a pretty common tactic used by politicians. It is always entertaining to see the crowd shown split screen as a politician lies about its size.

[Hoot Gibson]

Trump is turning Western swing states blue. He is also trailing in North Carolina and has turned Georgia into a swing state. Time is running out for Trump to do the right thing and bow out of the race. His lack of experience and self discipline will lead the GOP to heavy losses in November.

Donald Trump May Have Turned These Swing States Blue

His disparaging words about Mexicans and women and weak campaign organization are the culprits.

Once a swing state in presidential elections, Colorado has teetered on the brink of becoming solidly Democratic. Donald Trump may have pushed it over the edge.

Trump’s disparaging words about Mexicans, negative comments about women and weak campaign organization have punctuated the state’s shift from a nip-and-tuck battleground to one that’s Democrat-friendly. For the first time in more than 20 years, there are now more registered Democrats in the state than Republicans.

“Trump is turning off as many key voter groups as we have in this state,” said former state Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams. “I would have to believe Trump’s having trouble.”

And it’s not just Colorado. Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and weak campaign structure could ensure that perennially competitive Nevada and New Mexico are out of reach as well.

That matters for Trump. He can’t win the 270 electoral votes needed to capture the presidency without capturing some states that favored Barack Obama in the last two elections.

The three Southwestern states — which have a combined 21 electoral votes — might have offered some hope. All backed Republican George W. Bush 12 years ago.

But Trump isn’t making as much of a push for those states as is his likely Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton. He made his first campaign appearance in Colorado just Friday, speaking at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver.

Clinton made her fifth trip on Wednesday, proposing college-loan deferment for graduates who start businesses. It was a tactical move aimed at swaying young voters, many of whom flocked to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who beat Clinton soundly in March’s Colorado caucuses.

“Hillary has some ground to make up,” said Craig Hughes, who ran Democratic President Barack Obama’s winning 2012 Colorado campaign. “But compared to Trump, Hillary is in a far, far better place.”