[Hoot Gibson]

Trump has now lost to Hillary in 29 of 30 most recent national polls. Apparently, Trump is just taking a break from winning.

USA TODAY/Suffolk Poll: Clinton's lead over Trump narrows to 5 points

Democrat Hillary Clinton's lead over Republican Donald Trump has narrowed to five percentage points, a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, in a groundbreaking presidential election that is sparking feelings of alarm for most voters.

The nationwide survey shows a sharply polarized electorate that believes the country is headed in the wrong direction, feels less safe living in the United States than they used to, and gives negative ratings to the both presidential candidates.

Sixty-one percent report feeling alarmed about the election, swamping the 23% who are excited. Few are bored: Just 9%.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Well thank God it wasn't all 30 or I might think their is some fishy stuff going on :biglmao:

[TheRealThing]

^^I don't believe a majority of people will vote for Hillary regardless of the polling, which right now is meaningless. WikiLeaks has been putting Clinton emails out there for public scrutiny. And in time, Paul Manafort will put together a damning picture of her exploits to add to the scandal of the day as well.

[Hoot Gibson]

Maybe the GOP is about to nominate a real dog of a candidate, but at least its convention should be entertaining. I have a hard time believing that the courts will uphold state laws requiring delegates to vote for a particular candidate at a private convention. A lawsuit has already been filed to overturn Virginia's laws.

It is amazing that Trump may still lack the support to win the nomination if delegates were not forced to vote for him by party rules.

Open primaries should be eliminated in the future. Democrats should not be allowed to select a Democrat to be the nominee of the Republican Party.

Your complete guide to the coming anti-Trump rebellion at the RNC

The battle to control the GOP convention in Cleveland — and the fate of party — has reached a turning point.

While the “Stop Trump” movement has unleashed a barrage of cross-country phone calls and emails to seek support for their proposals, a group of longtime Republican rule makers, some working with the Trump campaign, have quickly coalesced to try and block them.

Those Republican rule makers are also going on offense by proposing what would be relatively historic changes in order to take some power away from convention delegates this year and close more primaries to non-Republicans the next time around.

Free the delegates

There are no rules for the Republican Convention. Not yet.

The rules will be determined the Thursday and Friday before the convention by the 112-member (aptly named) Convention Rules Committee. Traditionally those rules control the convention and govern the next four years for the party.

“Conscience” is the dominant word within the Stop Trump movement.
Enter several anti-Trump GOP groups who broadcast their missions as their names: “Free The Delegates,” “Delegates Revolt,” “Unbind the Delegates” and “Courageous Conservatives.”

They are all pushing to change the convention rules so that delegates may vote as they choose, or vote their conscience, when picking a nominee. “Conscience” is the dominant word within the movement. Within these groups, voting by conscience means that delegates would not have to vote as originally bound by their state.

Political translation: delegates would not have to vote for Trump.

“It’s very organic, very grassroots,” said Regina Thompson, an RNC delegate from Colorado and former state organizer for Ted Cruz. A devoted tea party member, Thompson has found herself going to a convention where, she believes, most of the delegates do not support their nominee. She co-founded Free the Delegates and is now helping coordinate the anti-Trump coalition.

“This is not (about) those who didn’t win,” she said. “This is historic and focused on the fitness of the nominee.”

Thompson is gearing up for the next temperature check for the movement: a conference call Tuesday night. Meantime, she and others keep calling and emailing.

Blocking the rebellion

Solomon Yue says those emails from the Stop Trump movement to delegates are unrelenting — arriving as often as every five minutes. Now, at his direction, everything containing the word “conscience” goes to his junk mail.

Yue, a Republican National Committee member from Oregon and longtime rules expert, is trying to block the revolt by proposing that any changes made by the convention rules committee go into effect only after the convention.

It would be a modern first, but Yue argues it’s necessary. “I want to defend … constitutional principles. The most important one is the rule of law,” he said. “That is the cornerstone of this Republican Party.”

By “rule of law,” Yue means the party’s clearly drawn rules process. It is lengthy. A standing committee meets regularly for years to hash out potential changes to rules. That group essentially recommends the rules to the convention committee, which usually approves with a few revisions.

“If their conscience will not allow them (to vote for Donald Trump), what about those millions and millions of people who did vote?”

But due to smart organizing, Ted Cruz supporters were able to win a significant number of spots on the rules committee this year. Adding to that possible rebellion are a few Kasich and Rubio delegates and a few publicly uncommitted RNC officials who are nervous about Trump.

[Pick6]

So if Trump is denied the nomination, a substitute candidate is appointed, 15 million Trump supporters abandon the party and HRC rolls in a landslide, how do conservatives benefit?

[Hoot Gibson]

So if Trump is denied the nomination, a substitute candidate is appointed, 15 million Trump supporters abandon the party and HRC rolls in a landslide, how do conservatives benefit?

Trump is going to win the nomination but fewer than 45 percent of voters in GOP primary elections and caucuses voted for him.

Trump is a weak general campaign candidate, a terrible fundraiser for the party and himself, and he is very likely headed for a landslide loss anyway. Even worse, if Trump loses big, the GOP will almost certainly lose control of the Senate and its margin in the House will be much smaller.

In fact, there is a good chance that even if Trump beats Hillary in November, Democrats will still take control of the Senate. If that happens, the chance that Trump will be able to get Senate consent for appointments of multiple conservatives to the Supreme Court will be remote.

Presidential candidates are expected to raise large amounts of money for candidates for the Senate and House races. Trump is failing miserably in that regard.

[Demarcus ware]

Lol. Wishful thinking by the establishment types, and of course the Hillary supporters pretending to be republicans. Let them nominate someone else and you will see the Republican Party destroyed for the next 20 years. You will see millions turn on the party like rabid dogs. Good thing is, it's not going to happen. Ttump will be the nominee.

[Hoot Gibson]

Lol. Wishful thinking by the establishment types, and of course the Hillary supporters pretending to be republicans. Let them nominate someone else and you will see the Republican Party destroyed for the next 20 years. You will see millions turn on the party like rabid dogs. Good thing is, it's not going to happen. Ttump will be the nominee.

Most of the establishment types are behind Trump because they agree with you. Given the party's recent performance, its destruction might not be such a bad thing. McConnell, Ryan, Priebus, McCain, and the rest of the RINOs in DC have done very little to oppose Obama and his liberal agenda. Now, they have mismanaged the nomination process and given us a liberal Democrat as the GOP nominee.

The move to Dump Trump is not being led by the establishment, although there are a few neocons like Bill Crystal trying to take credit for it.

I agree that Trump will be the nominee. Where we disagree is that I believe Trump's nomination has set the GOP back many years. What we are left with is a uniparty system, where the real differences between the Democrats and Republicans is almost imperceptible on issues that matter most to me.

[Pick6]

Trump is going to win the nomination but fewer than 45 percent of voters in GOP primary elections and caucuses voted for him.

Trump is a weak general campaign candidate, a terrible fundraiser for the party and himself, and he is very likely headed for a landslide loss anyway. Even worse, if Trump loses big, the GOP will almost certainly lose control of the Senate and its margin in the House will be much smaller.

In fact, there is a good chance that even if Trump beats Hillary in November, Democrats will still take control of the Senate. If that happens, the chance that Trump will be able to get Senate consent for appointments of multiple conservatives to the Supreme Court will be remote.

Presidential candidates are expected to raise large amounts of money for candidates for the Senate and House races. Trump is failing miserably in that regard.

Virtually every member of the House and Senate has supported both Free trade Agreements and Foreign Interventionism. The beneficiaries of Free Trade ARE the big dollar GOP donors. They are not going to support Trump because his Trade policy opposes their interests.

The GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 general election popular votes. They lose because they impose their values on the electorate and are completely deaf to the needs of the electorate.

So this election is really about the status quo GOP, which is basicly a servant of the 1%, and a self perceived guardian of conservatism that is molded to their self interest, and a morphed GOP that is responsive to the electorate, and independent from large donors.

For years, the rank and file GOP have railed against political candidates that are politically correct and obey the ideological litmus tests the party has imposed. N ow that we have that candidate that is sticking his middle finger at the establishment, we are complaining?

[Pick6]

Much of Trumps perceived slights of ethnic groups are really just articulation issues. For example, Trump proposes to impose a temporary ban from countries that support Islamic Terror. If he had stated it this way originally, instead of describing it as a Muslim ban, there would have been no issue.

Another example is the Curiel issue. Although it was a mistake to bring this private business issue into the campaign, if Trump had simply stated that the professional organization that Curiel belongs to, La Raza, is participating in an organized boycott of Trump's businesses , and that it is a conflict of interest for this same judge to have a case involving a business that he is officially boycotting is a conflict of interest. If Trump had just avoided the ethnic reference, his statement would have been perfectly legit.

The tweet that you referenced with the star in it. Only someone with a political agenda could look at that graphic and see offense. That is just pure PC. Is that what you stand for?

[Hoot Gibson]

Virtually every member of the House and Senate has supported both Free trade Agreements and Foreign Interventionism. The beneficiaries of Free Trade ARE the big dollar GOP donors. They are not going to support Trump because his Trade policy opposes their interests.

The GOP has lost 5 out of the last 6 general election popular votes. They lose because they impose their values on the electorate and are completely deaf to the needs of the electorate.

So this election is really about the status quo GOP, which is basicly a servant of the 1%, and a self perceived guardian of conservatism that is molded to their self interest, and a morphed GOP that is responsive to the electorate, and independent from large donors.

For years, the rank and file GOP have railed against political candidates that are politically correct and obey the ideological litmus tests the party has imposed. N ow that we have that candidate that is sticking his middle finger at the establishment, we are complaining?

I believe that you are absolutely wrong about free trade. In the past, politicians sold trade deals as "free trade," when some of the trade deals erected trade barriers, while benefiting big political donors and large corporations. Now, people like you attack economic freedom because the free trade label has been sullied by crooked politicians in the past.

Opening markets for American manufacturers and allowing our companies to successfully compete in free markets has always been the key to American prosperity. Protectionist policies, such as the high tariffs that Trump has threatened to impose, never benefit consumers and nobody wins trade wars.

After suggesting recently that you take time to watch some Milton Friedman videos on free trade and economic freedom, I watched one of his speeches that I had not seen before. Friedman used the example of American tariffs on sugar, which resulted in the price of sugar for consumers being 500 percent as much as they would have been without the tariffs. The federal government collects the tariffs and then redistributes the proceeds to the sugar producers but the end result is the transfer of money from consumers to the sugar producers. Because sugar is used in so many products, the cost to American consumers was very steep.

Politicians like tariffs because they can impose them, stick it to American consumers, boast that they have not raised taxes, and pocket large political donations from American companies that benefit from subsidies paid indirectly by consumers. Tariffs are just taxes levied on Americans under another name. They are a shell game.

Remember Trump's support for increased ethanol subsidies for Iowa farmers? Ethanol is worse for the environment than gasoline, it raises food costs because it decreases the supply of corn for other uses, it damages gasoline engines, and it consumes about as much energy to produce as the energy that it produces.

So why does Trump support increasing subsidies for the ethanol industry? The answer is that he was pandering to large agribusiness corporations and Iowa farmers. We all pay dearly for ethanol use but most people outside of corn producing states like Iowa don't take time to understand that we are paying ethanol subsidies. The government has no money. It creates no wealth. As Milton Friedman was fond of saying, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

When the government interferes with free trade, costs go up - never down. Prices may go down because politicians are very good at playing shell games, but the actual cost rises because taxpayers and consumers always foot the bill for politicians' mistakes.

[Hoot Gibson]

Much of Trumps perceived slights of ethnic groups are really just articulation issues. For example, Trump proposes to impose a temporary ban from countries that support Islamic Terror. If he had stated it this way originally, instead of describing it as a Muslim ban, there would have been no issue.

Another example is the Curiel issue. Although it was a mistake to bring this private business issue into the campaign, if Trump had simply stated that the professional organization that Curiel belongs to, La Raza, is participating in an organized boycott of Trump's businesses , and that it is a conflict of interest for this same judge to have a case involving a business that he is officially boycotting is a conflict of interest. If Trump had just avoided the ethnic reference, his statement would have been perfectly legit.

The tweet that you referenced with the star in it. Only someone with a political agenda could look at that graphic and see offense. That is just pure PC. Is that what you stand for?

Trump does not say offensive things by mistake. They are intended to create controversy and free publicity and the scheme worked great in the primary season. If Trump had articulated his positions without making himself the center of controversy, then he would have been forced to spend more money on campaign ads.

Trump's use of the Jewish Star of David was likewise, no mistake. You may not recognize the symbolism of the star superimposed over a background of $100 bills, but a 70 year old native of New York City who has Jewish family members did not mistake the star for a "sheriff's star." Trump could easily have a staff member vet his tweets and avoid these blunders - but the tweets are not blunders. They are gimmicks.

[TheRealThing]

"Much of Trump's perceived slights of ethnic groups are really just articulation issues." ----PICK6

^^ Not much of it, all of it. The entire argument is a fiction and foment of the left and other Trump foes and especially #NeverTrump. Trump critics who know him personally will even tell you that Trump is not a racist. Let's just talk about the woman card for just a bit. Reportedly Trump called one woman, that's one, a pig. Back in the 60's men called women pigs if they were shall we say 'loose?' But it certainly did not mean that in saying that about one woman, that they somehow meant all women. No, the slam would have been singular and meant for only one woman. That word pig was used by every man at some point to describe a particular woman if he grew up during that time.

Trump did in fact grow up in that time. Nowadays one might hear the word skank used instead of pig. But let's be fair here, men are disparaged too and were disparaged in the 60's as well. Ever heard the term chauvinist pig? But the point is this; we've all heard men and women in the process of breaking up, or any social dispute use such terminology about each other and nothing much has ever been made of it. Until now. Now because Trump in times past, cast specific women in a derogatory light, according to his liberal political foes, he is a misogynist, an abuser of women. And even though women have stepped up to refute the charge and even though hundreds of women occupy high paying management positions in the Trump business organization, political foes keep pouring it on because after all, it's not about truth it's about winning. Remember how Harry Reid responded when caught up in his lie in which he stated that Romney hadn't paid income tax in a decade? Said Reid with a smirk and a laugh; "Well, he didn't get elected, did he."

But you are exactly right Pick6, Trump can be inartful in typical New York brogue and style. They all do it up there until like Rudy Jiuliani, they get a little polish.

[Hoot Gibson]

Trump's crusade against free trade is driving many big business leaders into Hillary's arms. Maybe some of Bernie's socialist supporters should take a second look at Trump as an alternative.

Clinton seizes opening as Trump alienates big business

Hillary Clinton has an opportunity that has eluded Democratic presidential nominees for decades: Being the candidate of big business.

In an election already rocked by bizarre twists and turns, Donald Trump's speech meant to galvanize working-class voters in the Rust Belt last week exposed a yawning divide between the billionaire and the business community -- a powerful force in U.S. presidential elections that has historically aligned itself with the Republican Party.

As Trump railed against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the North American Free Trade Agreement at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other leading business lobbies publicly condemned the GOP presumptive nominee. Their warning: Trump's policies would spell economic disaster.

The extraordinary rebuke from the business community was a reminder of just how upside down politics are this year. It comes as Trump is looking to garner support from the GOP establishment just weeks out from his party's convention in Cleveland this month. It also opened the door for Clinton to court corporate leaders and donors who, in a typical election year, may have been inclined to back the GOP nominee.

Even before Trump's speech in Pennsylvania last week, the Clinton campaign was actively reaching out to industry leaders across the political spectrum. Former Walmart executive Leslie Dach has been involved in outreach efforts to business leaders on the campaign's behalf, according to a source familiar with Dach's role.

Clinton aides acknowledge the split between Trump and the business community presents an opportunity to gain allies, winning over Republican-leaning interests or at least persuading them to stay neutral. Clinton, who campaigns Tuesday for the first time with President Barack Obama, used Trump's response to the "Brexit" vote last month -- he cheered Britain's decision to leave the European Union, which sent markets into turmoil -- to argue that Trump is too volatile to play a leading role in the global economy.
Former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, who until last year was head of the American Bankers Association, said the Chamber's public scorn at Trump's economic vision marked a "very significant" break in the alliance between big business and the GOP.

"It's certainly counter cultural," said Keating, a Republican who has not endorsed Trump. The Trump campaign should be particularly wary, Keating added, of the national Chamber's scorn trickling down to local business groups and leaders.

"The Oklahoma City chamber or the Natchez, Mississippi, or the Albany, New York, chamber, a chamber of commerce in a small town California: If they think what the Republican presidential candidate makes no sense for small business development, I would be very concerned," Keating said.

Late last month, the Clinton campaign rolled out endorsements from a bipartisan group of business executives. Several of them made this striking admission: they have never before supported a Democrat for president.

"Since my time at the Naval Academy and service in the Navy, I have consistently voted for Republicans for president," Dan Akerson, former chairman of General Motors, said in a statement shared by the campaign. "Serving as the leader of the free world requires effective leadership, sound judgment, a steady hand and most importantly, the temperament to deal with crises large and small. Donald Trump lacks each of these characteristics."

[The Urban Sombrero]

If Donald Trump stumps like he is currently doing in Raleigh, North Carolina, the first Tuesday in November is up for grabs.

[TheRealThing]

Trump is going to win the nomination but fewer than 45 percent of voters in GOP primary elections and caucuses voted for him.

Trump is a weak general campaign candidate, a terrible fundraiser for the party and himself, and he is very likely headed for a landslide loss anyway. Even worse, if Trump loses big, the GOP will almost certainly lose control of the Senate and its margin in the House will be much smaller.

In fact, there is a good chance that even if Trump beats Hillary in November, Democrats will still take control of the Senate. If that happens, the chance that Trump will be able to get Senate consent for appointments of multiple conservatives to the Supreme Court will be remote.

Presidential candidates are expected to raise large amounts of money for candidates for the Senate and House races. Trump is failing miserably in that regard.

^^That is a distortion of the facts. Romney was supposedly opposed by 59% of Republicans at a critical point in his nomination quest. https://www.thenation.com/article/its-ro...publicans/

Trump's vote total blew Romney's out of the water by millions of votes, setting an all time Republican primary and caucus vote record at 15 million. Added to that is the fact that Romney faced off against only 6 other challengers and Trump faced 16. Added to that is the fact that never in the history of the nomination process (in my lifetime) has a potential nominee been attacked with such furor from within his own party, though Reagan did face some of the same kind of contempt from the establishment. In any case, given the opposition to Trump from inside his own tent, his 45% as compared to Romney's 52 is understandable.

To say that there is a good chance that Republicans will lose the Senate even if Trump wins is a Democrat talking point. I know, I know, you're with her. :biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

This would have been an easy race to win for a decent, authentic Republican candidate. Trump is the most unpopular presidential candidate in history and he is and will continue to humiliate the Republican Party.

Even today, with the spotlight on Hillary Clinton's crimes and gross negligence, he found time to praise Saddam Hussein as a great force against terrorism. What Trump's brilliant analysis left out, of course, is that Hussein was a terrorist who murdered Iraqi citizens by the thousands and threatened to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush.

The old adage that any publicity is good publicity may work for a reality TV star, but it does not play well for a presidential candidate. Instead of keeping the focus on the second most unpopular presidential candidate in history for a full day, Trump could not resist making another controversial statement to compete for news coverage. Just the latest blunder by the presumptive Republican nominee who does not really seem committed to winning this election.

No matter how you look at it, Trump's not winning

History and polls speak doom for his campaign, but he'll leave an indelible mark on the party.

Amid the incessant din of election-year punditry and prognostication, one fact reigns supreme: Republicans vote for Republicans and Democrats vote for Democrats.

It is an inescapable truth that informs 90% of races; the more members of one party that reside in any given state or district, the better chance a politician of that party will win. It is why America is freckled with "red" and "blue" states and "safe" congressional seats. It is also why American presidential races are typically close, regardless of who the candidates may be.

But 2016 is no typical year. Republicans have nominated a candidate who is only recently and tangentially Republican, and whose staunchest supporters are left to argue he is fit for the presidency only because his Democratic opponent is more unfit.

It has long been clear that Donald Trump's party fluidity almost certainly will spell doom for Republicans in November. Trump hurdled the GOP primary field because he said things politicians could never say — and now Republicans are going to learn the hard way why politicians never say those things. Trump is now the Bruce Willis character in "The Sixth Sense": his candidacy is dead, he just doesn't realize it yet. (Sorry for the spoiler, but c'mon — it's been 17 years.)

The myriad ways Trump's candidacy will fail provide a Rashomon-style buffet of scenarios to contemplate. Even if "Generic Republican" were on the ballot, he or she would be at a distinct electoral disadvantage — Trump's repulsiveness simply accelerates that disadvantage. (If anyone has a black and white "Generic Republican" yard sign, decorated with a UPC bar code, I will happily purchase one.)

As Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post frequently points out, given the GOP's built-in underdog status, Hillary Clinton only needs to win every state Democrats have won in every presidential election since 1992, then add Florida, and she is the winner.

[TheRealThing]

This would have been an easy race to win for a decent, authentic Republican candidate. Trump is the most unpopular presidential candidate in history and he is and will continue to humiliate the Republican Party.

Even today, with the spotlight on Hillary Clinton's crimes and gross negligence, he found time to praise Saddam Hussein as a great force against terrorism. What Trump's brilliant analysis left out, of course, is that Hussein was a terrorist who murdered Iraqi citizens by the thousands and threatened to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush.

The old adage that any publicity is good publicity may work for a reality TV star, but it does not play well for a presidential candidate. Instead of keeping the focus on the second most unpopular presidential candidate in history for a full day, Trump could not resist making another controversial statement to compete for news coverage. Just the latest blunder by the presumptive Republican nominee who does not really seem committed to winning this election.

The Washington Post huh? All Trump is saying is that though these guys were thugs, Saddam, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and all the rest, they kept all the hatred and murder under relative control and the US did not necessarily need to be over there continually with hundreds of thousands of troops in an effort to keep things at no greater than a slow boil. The foreign policy term for that was "Stability in the Region," and if we've all hear it once, we've hear it a hundred times.

Killing off or running off these admitted thugs, all except perhaps Anwar Sadat who was decent by Saddam's standard, was the equivalent of pouring gas on a fire. And that fire is presently a great threat to the entire planet. All of what you just said and the source you used is straight out of the DNC. The Arab Spring, Hillary et-al liked to call it.

[Hoot Gibson]

Trump continues to consider Bob Corker, one of the primary architects of the of the bill that gave Obama fast track authority for selling us out to the Iranians. Corker has shown restraint from criticizing Trump's blunders on the campaign trail. That makes Corker one of the good guys in Trump's eyes.

It has never been easier to make the short list of VP candidates. Just praise Trump profusely, and shazzam, you are there.

I have heard that our own TRT may be on that list. nicker:

Corker Being Formally Vetted for Trump VP Slot

Tennessee Senator Bob Corker has submitted vetting materials for Donald Trump's vice presidential search, NBC News can confirm.

While the Senate was not in session today, Corker spent Tuesday in New York City at Trump Tower in a series of back to back meetings with Trump and top campaign officials. The meetings were first reported by the Washington Post.

Corker was invited to travel to North Carolina on Trump's aircraft as part of a day-long job interview and rapport-building exercise.

Corker is said to be able to speak Trump's language when it comes to business and real estate where he too made his personal fortune. He could be a bridge to the party establishment and the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican Party.

Corker has won praise for getting out front in support of Trump's foreign-policy outlook and for being measured in his criticism of the candidate.

Corker's folksy, plainspoken demeanor is also seen as an asset.

Corker could be a running mate who would bring knowledge and work ethic without being likely to compete for attention or distract from Trump.

The second-term senator has direct, personal relationships with foreign ministers currently serving US allies and other countries around the world.

Those relationships could be valuable to interpret Trump to US allies.

The head of the Trump vetting process is a fellow Tennessean, DC lawyer and former Reagan White House counsel, AB Culvahouse. Corker and Culvahouse have known each other for years.

[Pick6]

This would have been an easy race to win for a decent, authentic Republican candidate. Trump is the most unpopular presidential candidate in history and he is and will continue to humiliate the Republican Party.

Even today, with the spotlight on Hillary Clinton's crimes and gross negligence, he found time to praise Saddam Hussein as a great force against terrorism. What Trump's brilliant analysis left out, of course, is that Hussein was a terrorist who murdered Iraqi citizens by the thousands and threatened to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush.

The old adage that any publicity is good publicity may work for a reality TV star, but it does not play well for a presidential candidate. Instead of keeping the focus on the second most unpopular presidential candidate in history for a full day, Trump could not resist making another controversial statement to compete for news coverage. Just the latest blunder by the presumptive Republican nominee who does not really seem committed to winning this election.

The Republican party NEEDS to be humiliated. They are totally unresponsive to the needs of the electorate and are as owned as HRC is. The fact that they feel they can impose their values on the electorate is disgusting.

Regarding your trade position, I already pointed out that 6 million jobs have been lost and 55,000 factory closings has occurred since 2000. Do you think that is all modernization?

https://www.creators.com/read/pat-buchan...laborators

[Hoot Gibson]

The Republican party NEEDS to be humiliated. They are totally unresponsive to the needs of the electorate and are as owned as HRC is. The fact that they feel they can impose their values on the electorate is disgusting.

Regarding your trade position, I already pointed out that 6 million jobs have been lost and 55,000 factory closings has occurred since 2000. Do you think that is all modernization?

https://www.creators.com/read/pat-buchan...laborators

I agree that the GOP has earned a thorough humiliation. But humiliation through the nomination of a liberal Democrat and subsequent loss to a very weak, criminal Democratic opponent will be humiliation for all of the wrong reasons.

As for job losses, I believe that you are accepting Trump's word for something that will not withstand much scrutiny. He is right that there is a correlation between time and job loss but correlation and causation are not the same. There is also a strong correlation between federal and state regulations, and tax increases promulgated since 2000 and massive job losses. Trump, like so many politicians before him, prefers to create boogeymen instead of calmly identifying problems and detailing real solutions for them.

Economic freedom (a/k/a capitalism) has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system ever devised by man. To blame the economic system that made this country for job losses and embrace protectionist policies that have been proven to cost this country jobs in the past makes no sense.

Politicians love scapegoats and trade agreements are one of Trump's many scapegoats. The irony is, that running as a Washington outsider, Trump is squandering a great opportunity to place the blame for our deteriorating economy where it belongs - on high taxes, over regulation, entitlement programs, and out of control government growth in general. In almost every instance, when the federal government interferes with the private sector, costs soar, and quality of goods or services plummet or shortages result.

Maybe if Trump is elected, he will take advice from people who understand how our economy works but his advocacy of 45 percent tariffs that would wreck our own economy is cause for much concern. Some of his economic advisers believe such threats are just political bluster, but Trump has shown me no inclination to listen to good advice.

[Pick6]

I agree that the GOP has earned a thorough humiliation. But humiliation through the nomination of a liberal Democrat and subsequent loss to a very weak, criminal Democratic opponent will be humiliation for all of the wrong reasons.

As for job losses, I believe that you are accepting Trump's word for something that will not withstand much scrutiny. He is right that there is a correlation between time and job loss but correlation and causation are not the same. There is also a strong correlation between federal and state regulations, and tax increases promulgated since 2000 and massive job losses. Trump, like so many politicians before him, prefers to create boogeymen instead of calmly identifying problems and detailing real solutions for them.

Economic freedom (a/k/a capitalism) has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system ever devised by man. To blame the economic system that made this country for job losses and embrace protectionist policies that have been proven to cost this country jobs in the past makes no sense.

Politicians love scapegoats and trade agreements are one of Trump's many scapegoats. The irony is, that running as a Washington outsider, Trump is squandering a great opportunity to place the blame for our deteriorating economy where it belongs - on high taxes, over regulation, entitlement programs, and out of control government growth in general. In almost every instance, when the federal government interferes with the private sector, costs soar, and quality of goods or services plummet or shortages result.

Maybe if Trump is elected, he will take advice from people who understand how our economy works but his advocacy of 45 percent tariffs that would wreck our own economy is cause for much concern. Some of his economic advisers believe such threats are just political bluster, but Trump has shown me no inclination to listen to good advice.

If the elites running our economy are so effective, why is out debt out of control? Why are wages stagnant for 20 years? Why is it that college graduates have basically the same job opportunities they had coming out of High School?

[Hoot Gibson]

If the elites running our economy are so effective, why is out debt out of control? Why are wages stagnant for 20 years? Why is it that college graduates have basically the same job opportunities they had coming out of High School?

You answered your own question. The elites trying to run the economy are the problem. That does not mean that Trump is the solution.

Lower the cost of doing business in this country, and business will boom. The forward march of technology and automation will not stop, no matter what our federal government does. However, young people in this country are not taking advantages of opportunities that are available. I know first hand that software companies have a difficult time filling openings for programmers and database administrators.

I have worked with outstanding programmers who were self taught high school graduates, and one who earned his GED and took some community college courses. College students going deep into debt partying their way through school and earning a degree in an area where high paying jobs are unavailable, have only themselves to blame.

People who have lost good paying jobs in manufacturing, mining, and other labor intensive fields, have only their own government to blame for their situation. As long as voters let candidates like Hillary and Trump demagogue their way into office, our economy will continue to limp along and shed jobs.

[Bob Seger]

If the elites running our economy are so effective, why is out debt out of control? Why are wages stagnant for 20 years? Why is it that college graduates have basically the same job opportunities they had coming out of High School?

Way to much adoo goes into this "stagnant wage" claim. Stagnant wages would be a non issue if government (over)regulations were not so defining in what it takes to meet a bottom line in business and the effects it has on the out of control soaring cost of what it takes to live. Couple that with that there is never enough profit in the minds of the stockholder and the incessant "we don't get paid enough" from the union labor force it is no wonder that industry is leaving this country in droves....I guess it's just human nature to be greedy because it's a condition industry and labor both contribute to equally.

[Bob Seger]

the republican party needs to be humiliated. they are totally unresponsive to the needs of the electorate and are as owned as hrc is. The fact that they feel they can impose their values on the electorate is disgusting.

Regarding your trade position, i already pointed out that 6 million jobs have been lost and 55,000 factory closings has occurred since 2000. Do you think that is all modernization?

https://www.creators.com/read/pat-buchan...laborators

bingo

[WideRight05]

Way to much adoo goes into this "stagnant wage" claim. Stagnant wages would be a non issue if government (over)regulations were not so defining in what it takes to meet a bottom line in business and the effects it has on the out of control soaring cost of what it takes to live. Couple that with that there is never enough profit in the minds of the stockholder and the incessant "we don't get paid enough" from the union labor force it is no wonder that industry is leaving this country in droves....I guess it's just human nature to be greedy because it's a condition industry and labor both contribute to equally.

Bob, you would probably know this more than anybody given your experience you have discussed on this board in the past, if you were in Donald Trump's shoes - from an economic perspective, where would you start?

[Pick6]

Way to much adoo goes into this "stagnant wage" claim. Stagnant wages would be a non issue if government (over)regulations were not so defining in what it takes to meet a bottom line in business and the effects it has on the out of control soaring cost of what it takes to live. Couple that with that there is never enough profit in the minds of the stockholder and the incessant "we don't get paid enough" from the union labor force it is no wonder that industry is leaving this country in droves....I guess it's just human nature to be greedy because it's a condition industry and labor both contribute to equally.

I spent my first 15 years working in the chemical industry. I participated in the training of foreign workers who were going to be displacing the folks I was working with. Every day I went to work, I knew two years from now, that these people would all be out of work.

I then left and changed careers to technology where I have to compete with foreign guest workers who have many cost advantages over citizen labor.

I have experienced all of the stuff that Trum talks about in my career. Hillary wants to give graduates of foreign technology programs automatic green cards. She is doing a bang up job keeping labor costs down for the tech. industry!

[Hoot Gibson]

Republican presidential candidates have owned the white college graduate vote for the past 60 years. The current presumptive Republican nominee trails in polls of that demographic after struggling with them in the primaries.

Trump May Become The First Republican In 60 Years To Lose White College Graduates

Donald Trump does really well among white voters without a college degree. Indeed, he is on track to carry that group by a wider margin than Mitt Romney did over President Obama four years ago. But there’s another side to that coin: While Trump is outperforming your run-of-the-mill Republican among whites without a college degree, he’s underperforming among white voters with a college degree. In fact, he is on a track to lose white college graduates.

That’s really unusual for a Republican, and it means that among white voters overall, he’s probably not holding a winning hand.

If you look at seven live interview polls taken since Trump wrapped up the nomination in May, he has trailed among whites with a college degree by an average of 6 percentage points. The same polls have him losing among the overall electorate by an average of 5 percentage points. (That’s about where the race stands now.)

[TheRealThing]

^^ Again, you cite a liberal's ideas to support your #NeverTrump position. Harry Enten, the writer of the article you cited above, is a Dartmouth Alumnus and predictably, a flaming liberal. Not only that, he interned at the flamingly liberal NBC. I often use liberal cites and writers myself, especially to bolster a conservative view in which they happen to agree, it just bears more weight. However in this case, all flaming libs are out campaigning for Hillary, and thus any argument they may put out on Trump is going to be biased at best and an outrageous untruth at the worst. And BTW, Enten is a ripe old 25-ish, years of age.

[Hoot Gibson]

Once again, Trump takes the pressure off of Hillary and tries to call attention to himself. His record in Atlantic City is not one to boast about, but boast about it he does.

Trump Tries and Fails to Stay on Message

Will Donald Trump ever learn to stay on topic?

It's a question that left Republicans scratching their heads anew on Wednesday, after the presumptive Republican nominee spent the day talking about himself instead of FBI director James Comey's scathing report on how rival Hillary Clinton handled her email as secretary of state.

Given the biggest political gift yet of his troubled campaign, Trump muddled his message and diminished its impact. He spent the day variously defending his decade-old business record in Atlantic City, digging up past allegations about the Clinton Foundation, and boasting of his fundraising haul — leaving congressional Republicans to make the case against the former secretary of state.

Comey on Tuesday declined to recommend bringing criminal charges against Clinton, but left her opponents with more than enough material for a year's worth of attack ads: he called Clinton "extremely careless" and sharply criticized her judgement in using a private server and confirmed she did indeed send classified information on it. A meaty condemnation of her judgement by the FBI is the stuff most campaigns would have made a central tenet of the campaign, but Trump struggled to focus on it at all.

When Clinton hosted a campaign event at a bankrupted Trump casino in New Jersey — something Trump said Wednesday was simply an attempt to change the subject — the real estate mogul took the bait.