[TheRealThing]

^^ NBC again. :Thumbs: It is the job of the media and others to prosecute the case against Hillary, not Donald Trump. He should and did talk about it, but he's not a news agency. Speaker Ryan is supposedly calling Comey in on the carpet tomorrow, let's see if anything turns up there.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hillary's new (unofficial) campaign slogan, "Better than Trump?" Trump's slogan is, "Make America Great Again," but the Trumpsters' best reason to vote for him seems to be, "He is not Hillary." These have got to be the two least inspiring presidential candidates in the history of this country.

Clinton Is Lucky She's Running Against Trump

Tuesday was a mixed bag for Hillary Clinton.

She escaped a recommendation of an indictment from the FBI, removing the biggest storm cloud over her in this presidential campaign.

But it did not come without significant pain for Clinton, because while FBI Director James Comey did not recommend a formal indictment to the Department of Justice, he served up an indictment of her judgment.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Wednesday that she would accept the FBI's recommendation not to charge Hillary Clinton over her email server.

Comey called Clinton and her team "extremely careless" in handling classified material; he said it's "possible" that "adversaries" were able to access or read her emails; that "hostile actors gained access to" the emails of people with whom she corresponded, he said. And never mind whether emails were marked classified or not, Comey pointed out, Clinton and her team should have known better — that a private email server is no place for sensitive information and that, in fact, more than 100 emails were classified at the time sent or received (and eight email chains were top secret).

FBI Director James Comey delivered a stinging statement about Hillary Clinton's use of private email servers while secretary of state, but he did not recommend a formal indictment.

Comey's forceful televised statement reinforced the idea that the Clintons are always skirting just to the edge of what's legal. (And it comes a week after former President Bill Clinton created a completely avoidable political maelstrom by meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac of an airport just to say hi.)

Clinton and her supporters have acknowledged setting up an email server in this way was a "mistake." Yes, other secretaries of state have used private email addresses. But going to the level of setting up servers in your own home may not just open you up to security vulnerabilities but also to political ones.

Yes, plenty of dot-gov email addresses and servers have been hacked, including at the State Department. But the security of the information is the responsibility of the government.

She Said, He Said: How Clinton's Version Of Events Stacks Up With Comey's
When you put servers in your own home, it's on you.

It reveals a level of paranoia, a want for a "zone of privacy" that's virtually nonexistent in public life. There are ways to accomplish a measure of that — but attempting to shield or filter your work communication to this extent is not one of them.

The email scandal has served to distract from policy issues Clinton would rather focus on — from child care, equal pay and paid leave to guns, immigration and foreign policy.

Donald Trump often touts his millions of social media followers. But his freewheeling style — online and on the stump — has gotten him into trouble many times during this campaign.

And over the last year and a half, it has steadily eroded views of her character. A majority of Americans see her as not "honest and trustworthy." She is now the least-liked likely major-party nominee in history except for one person — Donald Trump.

He happens to be her opponent in this campaign, and elections are choices. Because of Trump, Clinton remains favored to be the next president of the United States. On nearly every measure — likability, leadership, temperament — Trump is viewed worse than Clinton.

Make Britain Great Again? Donald Trump's Remarkable Reaction To 'Brexit'
And he has bungled nearly every opportunity handed to him, some of which NPR's Sarah McCammon chronicled — blowing the five weeks after he had sealed the nomination and Clinton was embroiled in her primary fight with Bernie Sanders; tweeting about congratulations he has received for "being right" after the Orlando shooting; praising Brexit for possibly being good for his business while in Scotland, which voted overwhelmingly against it; tweeting out a Jewish/sheriff's star on the same day Clinton was interviewed by the FBI; accusing Lynch of being offered an actual "bribe," Comey of being part of a "rigged" system and praising Saddam Hussein — all on the day Comey thwacked Clinton.

Clinton's team has struggled to come up with a slogan for her campaign. It has seemed to settle on "Stronger Together," an implicit shot at Trump.

It could remove any veneer and re-brand to something more transparent — "Better than Trump."

[TheRealThing]

Hillary's new (unofficial) campaign slogan, "Better than Trump?" Trump's slogan is, "Make America Great Again," but the Trumpsters' best reason to vote for him seems to be, "He is not Hillary." These have got to be the two least inspiring presidential candidates in the history of this country.

Trump is in a political foodfight. As long as the media and one of two political parties are willing to lie, distort and make stuff up about him, it will be a daunting task to keep with. Trump is no misogynist, nor is he a racist, but those two lies will continue to be hammered home until the election and far after, should he win. He must address all these issues and that is what he has done the last two days as Hillary, now miraculously cleared, is free to say whatever she and her rabid staffers can dream up. They'll be good at it too because they've had 8 years to ply their trade. But all of this is not news to somebody who doesn't allow himself to be limited by the truth.

I said the smears, character assassinations, and dog piling would be epic this cycle. You have certainly done your best to prove me right.

[Hoot Gibson]

Maybe Trump is about to make a good decision for a change. Mike Pence towers above most of the other potential VP candidates on Trump's rumored list of finalists. Pence would have been a formidable opponent for Hillary, IMO.

In Donald Trump VP search, Mike Pence 'rings the most bells'

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is under consideration as a running mate for Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president. Here's why.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is widely regarded as the best choice to become Donald Trump's running mate, several Republican strategists told IndyStar, and his recent visit with Trump signals he is willing to join the ticket.

But Pence's future — and the state's gubernatorial race — could depend on whether the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is listening to anyone other than himself.

"The Republican Party has a deep bench of qualified vice presidential candidates," said Michael Caputo, a former Trump adviser. "Some of them ring certain bells, and others ring other bells. I think Mike Pence rings the most bells of all."

Pence, Caputo said, would bring executive experience, a respected congressional record and reassurance to conservatives who may be wary of Trump's positions on several issues.

Caputo worked as Trump's communications director for the GOP convention until June 20, when he resigned after posting a tweet that celebrated the firing of former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. Caputo was not privy to Trump's vetting process for running mates but said he considers Pence to be the best choice in an eight-person field. Other options include U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

"Trump wants to choose somebody who has experience to get things done in Washington," Caputo said. "Not only was (Pence) in Congress, he was a leader in Congress at a time when Republican leadership of Congress was still highly regarded. So that, plus being CEO of a company called Indiana, that means something to Donald Trump."

[WideRight05]

Pence really disappointed me after he pussed out on the religious freedom law last year. I don't know if that would be a good choice. He is taking flak from liberals for passing it, and then from conservatives for backing down after he passed it.

Of the group presented as VP candidates, my choice would be Cotton.

[Hoot Gibson]

Pence really disappointed me after he pussed out on the religious freedom law last year. I don't know if that would be a good choice. He is taking flak from liberals for passing it, and then from conservatives for backing down after he passed it.

Of the group presented as VP candidates, my choice would be Cotton.

I agree about Pence's cave on the religious freedom act, but I don't think Trump is considering anybody as VP who is more conservative than Pence who is willing to serve.

I worry about any conservative who would accept a VP slot on Trump's ticket, but from a political perspective, selecting a popular Rust Belt governor makes the most sense. Trump is running a farcical campaign, so Chris Christie may have a lock on the VP slot.

[Pick6]

Pence is by far away the best VP candidate standing. He has both the conservative creds to help Trump with his own party, and, as Governor or a Rust Belt state can help with voter turnout. I do think Pence will back out though. He sure was not willing to give a clear endorsement in the primaries, and it was clear his donors were influencing him to endorse Cruz.

I believe Newt will be the VP pick as he has nothing to lose by being Trump's VP pick.

[WideRight05]

Pence is by far away the best VP candidate standing. He has both the conservative creds to help Trump with his own party, and, as Governor or a Rust Belt state can help with voter turnout. I do think Pence will back out though. He sure was not willing to give a clear endorsement in the primaries, and it was clear his donors were influencing him to endorse Cruz.

I believe Newt will be the VP pick as he has nothing to lose by being Trump's VP pick.

From a perspective of his viewpoint, I would be thrilled to see someone like Pence be Trump's VP. I'm content with his that, but like many of the establishment Republicans, he caves under pressure.

One area I will give Pence a lot of credit is for how he handled the primary. Pence endorsed Ted Cruz against Donald Trump, but he handled himself with class and was kind to Trump even though he didn't endorse him. I don't know if he had donor influence, but his endorsement of Cruz came across pretty strong to me. The way he handled the primary elections, IMO, is how this process should be handled. Unfortunately, many politicians make their endorsement (e.g. Sarah Palin) and then they go cut-throat at whoever the opponent is - even if they have a past of being on great terms with the opponent of the one they are endorsing. They just need to make their endorsement and not jump in on all the bashing (unless, of course, it's against someone like Hillary Clinton).

I could be wrong, I just can't see Newt being the VP pick.

What are your thoughts on Tom Cotton?

[Pick6]

Cotton, like Pence and Corker have too much to lose if Trump loses. Thier political careers would be over. Cotton is young and has his whole career in front of him. Any VP pick will be persona non grata in the GOP. That's why I feel Newt will be the pick, but not first choice.

[Pick6]

I've decided to engage in a Hobby Project based upon the promise that if Free Trade is producing jobs in the country to negate or exceed jobs lost in manufacturing, then that should be reflected in the tax revenue the country collected. I found the tax revenue data fairly easily. Now, I'm looking for manufacturing job loss data from 1985 - 2015. Wish me luck!

[Hoot Gibson]

I've decided to engage in a Hobby Project based upon the promise that if Free Trade is producing jobs in the country to negate or exceed jobs lost in manufacturing, then that should be reflected in the tax revenue the country collected. I found the tax revenue data fairly easily. Now, I'm looking for manufacturing job loss data from 1985 - 2015. Wish me luck!

Tax receipts are at an all time high, but the total cost that our federal government adds to the cost of manufacturing is much more difficult to measure than considering any one variable. Your time would be better spent studying the works of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. The works of Thomas Sowell would also be a great starting point. You cannot be a conservative and at the same time deny the merits of capitalism and a free market.

Look within our own country at how capital flows. Manufacturing and jobs have fled states like California, Michigan, New York, and New Jersey, not only to foreign destinations, but also to states in the southern U.S., where taxes, wages, regulatory costs, and the cost of living are lower.

Why would you suspect that high tax rates and regulatory costs drive manufacturing and jobs offshore, when the same migration is obvious in this country? Trade has driven the spread of civilization throughout history. We cannot thrive as a nation by coercing American companies to operating in this country through high tariffs and anti-trade policies and expect to maintain our standard of living.

Trump has actually threatened to, if elected, punish Ford Motor Company for moving jobs to Mexico with a 35 percent tax on each vehicle imported from Mexico.

Yet, Trump ties and various other Trump products are manufactured in China and other countries. Is he going to punish himself if he is elected for not creating jobs for Americans - for hiring foreign workers where Americans were willing to work for him instead?

Don't fall for Trump's demagoguery on economics. Trump has always supported liberal politicians who have choked the life out of manufacturing and mining operations in this country. As they say, follow the money - and you sill see most of it has ended up in the pockets of corrupt liberal politicians.

Trump's character and core values did not magically change when he decided to run for president. The fact that Trump has convinced so many of his supporters that "free trade" is antithetical to American values and self interests is perhaps the most destructive thing Trump has done as a candidate.

[TheRealThing]

^^I guess I must have missed the clandestine rendezvous between the Trump representative and Judge Curiel on an airport tarmac. As well as I suppose, the point at which you 'magically' became to any degree whatever, an authority on economics. Now, Steve Moore on the other hand, is a premier example of an authority on economics and one who had a vital part of the Reagan economic resurgence. He along with another of that group, Art Laffer, both advise Mr Trump and have therefore endorsed Mr Trump's economic proposals. But as you are obviously 'with her' I can see why you'd continually focus on what any rationally minded person would describe as unsubstantiated Trump failings, while giving Hillary a pass.

None the less, I'm sure that Pick6 and others on here will take your advice and not 'fall' for vetted and sound financial policy. :please:

[Hoot Gibson]

Everybody who knew anybody about presidential politics knew that the mainstream media, aside from the Fox News Channel, would not give fair coverage to the Republican presumptive nominee, whomever he or she was. However, banning major media outlets press credentials was a terrible idea, even for Donald Trump.

Every time Donald Trump makes a stupid comment, the Washington Post and every other media outlet with which Trump has decided to wage war will give Trump plenty of coverage. Doing so helps the media balance the bad news for Hillary's campaign with negative Trump coverage.

I really do not believe Trump intends to win in November. His attacks on Cruz and Rubio shows that he knows the importance of hammering a message home, even if it is a sleazy, dishonest message.

Trump supporters should be asking themselves and each other why Trump is not keeping the focus on Hillary and her problems instead of extending the life of the negative stories about himself.

One final point. Being 20 minutes late to a meeting with House Republicans, many of whom are already reluctant to support Trump, was a show of disrespect and no way to go about unifying Republicans behind him.

Trump blasts media in meeting with House Republicans

In his first meeting with House Republicans, Donald Trump on Thursday sought to do damage control, blasting the "disingenuous" media for reporting that he praised former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein at a rally this week, said sources in the room.

"I said, 'Hussein was a very, very bad man, but the one thing he did very well was kill terrorists,'" Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, told a standing room only crowd of House Republicans at the Capitol Hill Club.

"The next day I wake up to headlines that say 'Trump praises Hussein.' The media is totally disingenuous," Trump said at the closed-door meeting.

Trump, accompanied by his daughter and close adviser, Ivanka Trump, arrived to the meeting about 20 minutes late.

But he received two standing ovations — once when he arrived and later when CNBC's Larry Kudlow introduced him.

Trump will meet with Senate Republicans after the session with House Republicans.

The meetings come as some Republicans worry that having Trump at the top of the ticket could hurt their efforts to keep the Senate majority. Some Republicans were expected to skip the Trump meetings, though hundreds of House Republicans appeared to be in attendance.

Trump is seeking to unify a Republican Party less than two weeks before its nominating convention in Cleveland.

[Hoot Gibson]

^^I guess I must have missed the clandestine rendezvous between the Trump representative and Judge Curiel on an airport tarmac. As well as I suppose, the point at which you 'magically' became to any degree whatever, an authority on economics. Now, Steve Moore on the other hand, is a premier example of an authority on economics and one who had a vital part of the Reagan economic resurgence. He along with another of that group, Art Laffer, both advise Mr Trump and have therefore endorsed Mr Trump's economic proposals. But as you are obviously 'with her' I can see why you'd continually focus on what any rationally minded person would describe as unsubstantiated Trump failings, while giving Hillary a pass.

None the less, I'm sure that Pick6 and others on here will take your advice and not 'fall' for vetted and sound financial policy. :please:

My advice to anybody wanting to learn about economics is to study the teachings of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Thomas Sowell. All three men were/are highly regarded experts in the field of economics.

Your advice is what? To avoid exposing to one's self to any knowledge that might convince one's self that Donald Trump is a buffoon when it comes to economics?

Donald Trump earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Economics after transferring there from Fordham for his final two years of formal education.

You may think that attacking my credentials on economics and comparing them to Trump's or Art Laffer's is relevant, but I am not representing myself to be an expert on economics. (Although I would gladly stack up my credentials on the subject to your's.)

No, all I did was to provide the names of three experts in the field of economics, and suggest that Pick6 would benefit by studying their views on a free market economy.

I know that you just champ at the bit to unleash your personal attacks to vanquish Trump critics, but the extent that you choose to do so is jaw dropping amazing.

Do you really believe that Donald Trump's knowledge of economics, or for that matter, Art Laffer's knowledge is on the same level as that of Milton Friedman and Hayek, two of the most famous and respected economists in the history of the world? If so, then I am sure that Art Laffer would be flattered.

Why do you find it necessary to criticize a person for giving good advice? I would not offer the same advice to you because you obviously are not interested in it. That's fine. Just ignore it. But don't encourage others not to expand their own knowledge base.

[TheRealThing]

Everybody who knew anybody about presidential politics knew that the mainstream media, aside from the Fox News Channel, would not give fair coverage to the Republican presumptive nominee, whomever he or she was. However, banning major media outlets press credentials was a terrible idea, even for Donald Trump.

Every time Donald Trump makes a stupid comment, the Washington Post and every other media outlet with which Trump has decided to wage war will give Trump plenty of coverage. Doing so helps the media balance the bad news for Hillary's campaign with negative Trump coverage.

I really do not believe Trump intends to win in November. His attacks on Cruz and Rubio shows that he knows the importance of hammering a message home, even if it is a sleazy, dishonest message.

Trump supporters should be asking themselves and each other why Trump is not keeping the focus on Hillary and her problems instead of extending the life of the negative stories about himself.

One final point. Being 20 minutes late to a meeting with House Republicans, many of whom are already reluctant to support Trump, was a show of disrespect and no way to go about unifying Republicans behind him.



Trump is seeking to unify a Republican Party less than two weeks before its nominating convention in Cleveland.

Well see now up pops this problem you seem to have with reality again. Trump understands a very fundamental truth that you obviously do not. Deluding one's self about who his enemies are and labeling them as such, at least making a mental note, is critical to the kind and limits of interactions that two opponents should share. In other words, the owner of The Washington Post is a sworn enemy of Trump. The resultant assignment by that newspaper of 20 reporters whose full time sole responsibility is to harass, dig up dirt, or humiliate in any way possible, one Donald J. Trump is a fact which is apparent on it's face. The substance of or better the belchings of the paper to that end therefore, have been the trashing of the person of Mr Trump continually. Why would Trump want to praise his enemies while his enemies seemingly, routinely violate journalistic ethics and IMO acceptable moral standards in order to bring him down?

Likewise, are the continual assaults of #NeverTrump and Hoot Gibson. Your posts, many hundreds of them, are about as objective as the sources you most often cite, The Post being one of your favs.

[TheRealThing]

My advice to anybody wanting to learn about economics is to study the teachings of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Thomas Sowell. All three men were/are highly regarded experts in the field of economics.

Your advice is what? To avoid exposing to one's self to any knowledge that might convince one's self that Donald Trump is a buffoon when it comes to economics?

Donald Trump earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Economics after transferring there from Fordham for his final two years of formal education.

You may think that attacking my credentials on economics and comparing them to Trump's or Art Laffer's is relevant, but I am not representing myself to be an expert on economics. (Although I would gladly stack up my credentials on the subject to your's.)

No, all I did was to provide the names of three experts in the field of economics, and suggest that Pick6 would benefit by studying their views on a free market economy.

I know that you just champ at the bit to unleash your personal attacks to vanquish Trump critics, but the extent that you choose to do so is jaw dropping amazing.

Do you really believe that Donald Trump's knowledge of economics, or for that matter, Art Laffer's knowledge is on the same level as that of Milton Friedman and Hayek, two of the most famous and respected economists in the history of the world? If so, then I am sure that Art Laffer would be flattered.

Why do you find it necessary to criticize a person for giving good advice? I would not offer the same advice to you because you obviously are not interested in it. That's fine. Just ignore it. But don't encourage others not to expand their own knowledge base.

Total dodge^^ Milton Freidman did not make the following hard and fast statement, Hoot Gibson did; "Don't fall for Trump's demagoguery on economics. Trump has always supported liberal politicians who have choked the life out of manufacturing and mining operations in this country. As they say, follow the money - and you sill see most of it has ended up in the pockets of corrupt liberal politicians."

I cited the names of Moore and Laffer because their place is cemented in history along side of Ronald Reagan. You'd like to deflect away from the reality of the makeup of Trump's economic team with a rather inartful sidestep to land on the life of Milton Freidman who, unless I'm missing something, is a goner.

[Hoot Gibson]

Total dodge^^ Milton Freidman did not make the following hard and fast statement, Hoot Gibson did; "Don't fall for Trump's demagoguery on economics. Trump has always supported liberal politicians who have choked the life out of manufacturing and mining operations in this country. As they say, follow the money - and you sill see most of it has ended up in the pockets of corrupt liberal politicians."

I cited the names of Moore and Laffer because their place is cemented in history along side of Ronald Reagan. You'd like to deflect away from the reality of the makeup of Trump's economic team with a rather inartful sidestep to land on the life of Milton Freidman who, unless I'm missing something, is a goner.

You are probably ignorant of this fact, but Ronald Reagan was a great admirer of Milton Friedman and Friedman is by far the best known and most respected of Reagan's inner circle of economic advisers. You are correct in your assessment that Milton Friedman is no longer living among us, but great ideas live forever.

Reagan has also been dead for quite awhile. I do not believe that Reagan would have given as much credit to Art Laffer or as little credit to Milton Friedman to his success as you do.

Friedman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1976. In 1988, Friedman received the National Medal of Science and Ronald Reagan awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Neither Laffer's achievements nor his professional awards compare to those compiled by Milton Friedman.

Still, if Trump were following Laffer's advice on the campaign trail, he would not have made so many stupid statements concerning economic policy. Laffer believes strongly in free trade. Being an adviser has got to be a very tough job. Laffer does not defend Trump's outrageous statements himself, yet you do so in the name of Laffer. That says something about the level of your devotion to Mr. Trump.

What Reagan's Greatest Economic Adviser Thought About Austerity

You do not need to study Friedman's writings very long to realize that he would have ridiculed Donald Trump's protectionist speeches. Like Art Laffer, Friedman was an advocate of free trade and leaned toward the libertarian side of the political spectrum.

When citizens cast votes for candidates that they know are unqualified and morally unfit to hold office, they lend legitimacy to politicians that is a danger to this country.

Donald Trump is the first Republican presumptive nominee of my lifetime who I believe to be unqualified and morally unfit to be president.

BTW, did you know that Art Laffer voted for Bill Clinton twice? Maybe their mutual friends recommended Laffer to Trump. nicker:

[WideRight05]

Cotton, like Pence and Corker have too much to lose if Trump loses. Thier political careers would be over. Cotton is young and has his whole career in front of him. Any VP pick will be persona non grata in the GOP. That's why I feel Newt will be the pick, but not first choice.

You might be right that Newt gets picked, but I just can't see it happening. I don't see Cotton being picked either. Newt would challenge Trump in a lot of areas, and I just don't see Trump picking somebody that wouldn't be a "yes man" toward him.

Not necessarily, about Cotton's career being over should Trump lose. Cotton was elected in 2014 to the Senate. I know that John McCain went back to the Senate and Paul Ryan ran concurrently for both The House of Representatives and the VP position at the same time. So should Trump run and lose, I'm not sure if Cotton would be able to return to the Senate. If he does, then it wouldn't impact him that much.

Franklin Roosevelt ran for VP in 1920 when he was around the same age as Tom Cotton, just under 40. James Cox ended up losing and Roosevelt still won the presidency years later. I'm not sure of Cotton's presidential ambitions, but I think he would be okay if they lost.

We might be able to agree on Cotton's youth being a factor. I don't think there are any senators younger than him at this point. That can be a good or a bad thing, but in this scenario I think it might hurt.

Me personally, if I were Cotton, I would give it a shot. You just never know what would happen. If Chris Christie had run in 2012, he probably would have won it. However, he went down the tubes fast. Thus, it's best for people to push for it whenever they have the opportunity.

I don't see Trump losing. I don't think the general public is passionate about either candidate, but I just don't see Hillary pulling this out.

I also think whoever wins will have a major struggle on their hands. I have felt for the past 2-3 years that this next president, regardless of who it is, will likely serve one term. Trump will likely have a Democratic controlled Senate, but even if he doesn't he will still have Republican obstacles in Collins, Kirk, and sometimes Portman and a couple others that lean to the left on some issues.

[Hoot Gibson]

You might be right that Newt gets picked, but I just can't see it happening. I don't see Cotton being picked either. Newt would challenge Trump in a lot of areas, and I just don't see Trump picking somebody that wouldn't be a "yes man" toward him.

Not necessarily, about Cotton's career being over should Trump lose. Cotton was elected in 2014 to the Senate. I know that John McCain went back to the Senate and Paul Ryan ran concurrently for both The House of Representatives and the VP position at the same time. So should Trump run and lose, I'm not sure if Cotton would be able to return to the Senate. If he does, then it wouldn't impact him that much.

Franklin Roosevelt ran for VP in 1920 when he was around the same age as Tom Cotton, just under 40. James Cox ended up losing and Roosevelt still won the presidency years later. I'm not sure of Cotton's presidential ambitions, but I think he would be okay if they lost.

We might be able to agree on Cotton's youth being a factor. I don't think there are any senators younger than him at this point. That can be a good or a bad thing, but in this scenario I think it might hurt.

Me personally, if I were Cotton, I would give it a shot. You just never know what would happen. If Chris Christie had run in 2012, he probably would have won it. However, he went down the tubes fast. Thus, it's best for people to push for it whenever they have the opportunity.

I don't see Trump losing. I don't think the general public is passionate about either candidate, but I just don't see Hillary pulling this out.

I also think whoever wins will have a major struggle on their hands. I have felt for the past 2-3 years that this next president, regardless of who it is, will likely serve one term. Trump will likely have a Democratic controlled Senate, but even if he doesn't he will still have Republican obstacles in Collins, Kirk, and sometimes Portman and a couple others that lean to the left on some issues.

We disagree about Trump's chances of winning. To me, it seems like Trump is determined to lose. Selecting Newt as his VP candidate would help him achieve that goal. Newt is not a good campaigner. With Newt, potential voters would be treated to one candidate who speaks mostly in sentence fragments and prefers to communicate with voters in 140 character bits. Newt is the exact opposite. He is very intelligent but will bore the kind of people who might support Trump to tears with his long winded speeches.

The only thing that Cotton might bring to a Trump ticket would be to appeal to conservatives - but most people vote based on the top of the ticket and don't give much thought to the VP. And if Trump needs help winning Arkansas or any other state in the deep south, then no VP pick is going to enable him to avoid a massive loss.

The smart money is on Hillary. If members of Congress believed that Trump had a better than even chance of winning in November, there would not be so many holdouts. I don't think Trump won over many new converts during his recent visit with Republican House and Senate members.

I hope that no young conservative risks his or her career by accepting a spot on Trump's ticket. Newt, a political has-been, would be the perfect running mate for a candidate who will probably lose anyway. If circumstances required Newt to replace Trump, then he is very qualified to be president, unlike the top of the ticket.

Trump did invite Ted Cruz to speak at the convention and Cruz accepted the invitation (without endorsing Trump). That was a step in the right direction.

BTW, I have always respected Newt. He was the most outstanding Speaker of the House of my lifetime and he has a great understanding of what has made this country great. I thoroughly enjoyed a controversial U.S. History class that he taught while he served in the House.

[TheRealThing]

You are probably ignorant of this fact, but Ronald Reagan was a great admirer of Milton Friedman and Friedman is by far the best known and most respected of Reagan's inner circle of economic advisers. You are correct in your assessment that Milton Friedman is no longer living among us, but great ideas live forever.

Reagan has also been dead for quite awhile. I do not believe that Reagan would have given as much credit to Art Laffer or as little credit to Milton Friedman to his success as you do.

Friedman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1976. In 1988, Friedman received the National Medal of Science and Ronald Reagan awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Neither Laffer's achievements nor his professional awards compare to those compiled by Milton Friedman.

Still, if Trump were following Laffer's advice on the campaign trail, he would not have made so many stupid statements concerning economic policy. Laffer believes strongly in free trade. Being an adviser has got to be a very tough job. Laffer does not defend Trump's outrageous statements himself, yet you do so in the name of Laffer. That says something about the level of your devotion to Mr. Trump.

What Reagan's Greatest Economic Adviser Thought About Austerity

You do not need to study Friedman's writings very long to realize that he would have ridiculed Donald Trump's protectionist speeches. Like Art Laffer, Friedman was an advocate of free trade and leaned toward the libertarian side of the political spectrum.

When citizens cast votes for candidates that they know are unqualified and morally unfit to hold office, they lend legitimacy to politicians that is a danger to this country.

Donald Trump is the first Republican presumptive nominee of my lifetime who I believe to be unqualified and morally unfit to be president.

BTW, did you know that Art Laffer voted for Bill Clinton twice? Maybe their mutual friends recommended Laffer to Trump. nicker:

I would say that your own familiarity of the workings of the Reagan era is largely the benefit of second hand information. I doubt you had all that much interest in such matters when it was all going down. The point is, one more time, that you said this; "Don't fall for Trump's demagoguery on economics. Trump has always supported liberal politicians who have choked the life out of manufacturing and mining operations in this country. As they say, follow the money - and you sill see most of it has ended up in the pockets of corrupt liberal politicians."


Now, your having said that had nada to do with rankings among noted economists be they Friedman or Keynes, and everything about trashing Trump with another of you unfair characterizations of him. Mr Trump is being advised by the same men that advised Reagan. His economic plan is sound according to them.

[Hoot Gibson]

I would say that your own familiarity of the workings of the Reagan era is largely the benefit of second hand information. I doubt you had all that much interest in such matters when it was all going down. The point is, one more time, that you said this; "Don't fall for Trump's demagoguery on economics. Trump has always supported liberal politicians who have choked the life out of manufacturing and mining operations in this country. As they say, follow the money - and you sill see most of it has ended up in the pockets of corrupt liberal politicians."


Now, your having said that had nada to do with rankings among noted economists be they Friedman or Keynes, and everything about trashing Trump with another of you unfair characterizations of him. Mr Trump is being advised by the same men that advised Reagan. His economic plan is sound according to them.

Tell me if I am mistaken, but I don't believe that you have ever taken your first class in economics. I am no expert in economics, but I have taken several classes on the subject. One does not need to be an expert to know that Friedman and Hayek are two of the most important economists in history, but one must be pretty ignorant of the subject to deny that to be a fact.

You keep dropping names to defend Trump, but do you really believe that Trump's economic advisers agreed with his threat to impose up to a 45 percent tariff on all Chinese imports? I know that Laffer would not support such an action. He dismissed Trump's threat as political rhetoric and has given assurances that if elected, Trump will support free trade policies.

Those were Trump's words. If quoting a candidate's own words is unfairly characterizing him, what is the fair way to characterize such a buffoon?

[TheRealThing]

Tell me if I am mistaken, but I don't believe that you have ever taken your first class in economics. I am no expert in economics, but I have taken several classes on the subject. One does not need to be an expert to know that Friedman and Hayek are two of the most important economists in history, but one must be pretty ignorant of the subject to deny that to be a fact.

You keep dropping names to defend Trump, but do you really believe that Trump's economic advisers agreed with his threat to impose up to a 45 percent tariff on all Chinese imports? I know that Laffer would not support such an action. He dismissed Trump's threat as political rhetoric and has given assurances that if elected, Trump will support free trade policies.

Those were Trump's words. If quoting a candidate's own words is unfairly characterizing him, what is the fair way to characterize such a buffoon?

LOL, a better question would be when, as of late, are you not either mistaken or making false statements?; But yes you are quite mistaken and yes, I have taken college level economics. And I'm just not going to bite on your deflections anymore. Frankly to my memory it was in times past, but I was the first between the two of us to cite Milton Friedman in a post anyway. But this conversation isn't and wasn't about him. On the contrary, it is and was about your patently false statement of which I have been quoting you on now for lo these last 8 or ten posts now. You made another libelous slander against Trump, (the afore mentioned and oft quoted) and now you're trying to hide behind some smoke screen about Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman cannot be on Trump's advisory team because he is unfortunately, passed on. His proteges or associates as they may prefer to be called, are however still with us and are part of Mr Trump's economic advisory team.

The tariff no matter the percentage as I have told you repeatedly, is a tool, a potential, in the negotiators tool box and as such, should not be taken off the table before negotiations are even convened.

So, if you want to get technical about it, if Milton Friedman's ideas are in a sense timeless, then so too are those associated with him and who now carry on his work. And those who do carry on with his work, now work for Donald J. Trump.

[Hoot Gibson]

LOL, a better question would be when, as of late, are you not either mistaken or making false statements?; But yes you are quite mistaken and yes, I have taken college level economics. And I'm just not going to bite on your deflections anymore. Frankly to my memory it was in times past, but I was the first between the two of us to cite Milton Friedman in a post anyway. But this conversation isn't and wasn't about him. On the contrary, it is and was about your patently false statement of which I have been quoting you on now for lo these last 8 or ten posts now. You made another libelous slander against Trump, (the afore mentioned and oft quoted) and now you're trying to hide behind some smoke screen about Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman cannot be on Trump's advisory team because he is unfortunately, passed on. His proteges or associates as they may prefer to be called, are however still with us and are part of Mr Trump's economic advisory team.

The tariff no matter the percentage as I have told you repeatedly, is a tool, a potential, in the negotiators tool box and as such, should not be taken off the table before negotiations are even convened.

So, if you want to get technical about it, if Milton Friedman's ideas are in a sense timeless, then so too are those associated with him and who now carry on his work. And those who do carry on with his work, now work for Donald J. Trump.

Keep making excuses for Trump, and I will keep refuting them. Nothing in your posts indicate that you have even a basic understanding of economics. If you did, you would not be defending anybody proposing the type of tariffs that failed in the early years of the Great Depression. Maybe you could negotiate a tuition refund.

Making threats on which one is not prepared to make good should not be part of anybody's negotiating toolbox. Trump's threats remind me of Obama's red line threats. Neither one is credible. But both have their own defenders of the indefensible. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

Keep making excuses for Trump, and I will keep refuting them. Nothing in your posts indicate that you have even a basic understanding of economics. If you did, you would not be defending anybody proposing the type of tariffs that failed in the early years of the Great Depression. Maybe you could negotiate a tuition refund.

Making threats on which one is not prepared to make good should not be part of anybody's negotiating toolbox. Trump's threats remind me of Obama's red line threats. Neither one is credible. But both have their own defenders of the indefensible. nicker:

Just heard Peter Morici speak on this very matter on Charles Payne's show. He said in response to charges that Trump's economic policies would lead the US down the same path as was the prelude to WW1, and I quote, "a 45% tariff makes perfect sense to me." and then he went on to express his general disagreement with the whole premise of those who disagree with the Trump economic model, that would include you BTW.

And you'll have to forgive me, but I must have missed the point in time when you established your self to be anything other than a gossip monger, much less in a position to slam the renowned of the Trump economic team. Because as RiUTG accurately assessed weeks ago, you're view of life always has a desktop and a keyboard in the foreground of any endeavor in which you are associated. But again, this conversation is about your propensity to make false statements about the Republican nominee. And from my perspective, no depth to that end is too low for you to stoop.

[Hoot Gibson]

Just heard Peter Morici speak on this very matter on Charles Payne's show. He said in response to charges that Trump's economic policies would lead the US down the same path as was the prelude to WW1, and I quote, "a 45% tariff makes perfect sense to me." and then he went on to express his general disagreement with the whole premise of those who disagree with the Trump economic model, that would include you BTW.

And you'll have to forgive me, but I must have missed the point in time when you established your self to be anything other than a gossip monger, much less in a position to slam the renowned of the Trump economic team. Because as RIUTG accurately assessed weeks ago, you're view of life always has a desktop and a keyboard in the foreground of any endeavor in which you are associated. But again, this conversation is about your propensity to make false statements about the Republican nominee. And from my perspective, no depth to that end is too low for you to stoop.

I have not criticized Trump's economic advisers. I have criticized Trump. He is too dimwitted to follow good advice, no matter who he surrounds himself with. A candidate is responsible for what he says (and tweets) during a campaign.

Advisers can easily be replaced. Trump's problem is himself, and unfortunately upgrading a candidate is not nearly as easy.

Why hasn't Trump released his academic transcripts? What is he hiding by refusing to release his tax returns, despite the fact that every Republican candidate has done so since 1976?

There is an honesty and trust issue here, and his name is Donald J. Trump Many, but not all of his supporters are afflicted with the same character issues and do not know how to engage in civil political debate.

[TheRealThing]

I have not criticized Trump's economic advisers. I have criticized Trump. He is too dimwitted to follow good advice, no matter who he surrounds himself with. A candidate is responsible for what he says (and tweets) during a campaign.

Advisers can easily be replaced. Trump's problem is himself, and unfortunately upgrading a candidate is not nearly as easy.

Why hasn't Trump released his academic transcripts? What is he hiding by refusing to release his tax returns, despite the fact that every Republican candidate has done so since 1976?

There is an honesty and trust issue here, and his name is Donald J. Trump Many, but not all of his supporters are afflicted with the same character issues and do not know how to engage in civil political debate.

So, you lose and we put the lid on that particular crock while you open yet another up. Tell you what, just as soon as Donald J. Trump comes under the scrutiny of the US Congress and falls under investigation by the FBI, so much so that there is a backlog of Congressionally generated investigations in fact, then you can try to get that argument off the ground.

BTW, you knew that the object of prophecy according to Glen Beck and the savior of conservatism according to you, has graciously consented to speak at the Republican convention at the behest of Mr Trump? In fact, the good Senator even spoke in endearing terms of Mr Trump today, stating that he'd had a very good and productive meeting with him.

[luke skywalker]

Ah I see the neverTrumper is still at it. You really should switch to democrat, because you're doing a fine job of cheering for Clinton. I guess you want abortions and gay marriage to continue. I mean there are only two options here, Trump or Clinton. Throwing a vote to anyone else is just being selfish and making yourself feel good. Maybe you want Hillary to determine the next 20 years of our country with her SCOTUS picks. We already know what she wants, Trump put out a very good list of judges, I'll take my chances with the unknown Trump over the known Hillary any day. Just don't come back whining over abortions and gay marriage when you've done nothing but berate the Presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Is Trump perfect? No he isn't, but the man did beat 16 others to earn the nod.

[Hoot Gibson]

So, you lose and we put the lid on that particular crock while you open yet another up. Tell you what, just as soon as Donald J. Trump comes under the scrutiny of the US Congress and falls under investigation by the FBI, so much so that there is a backlog of Congressionally generated investigations in fact, then you can try to get that argument off the ground.

BTW, you knew that the object of prophecy according to Glen Beck and the savior of conservatism according to you, has graciously consented to speak at the Republican convention at the behest of Mr Trump? In fact, the good Senator even spoke in endearing terms of Mr Trump today, stating that he'd had a very good and productive meeting with him.

Ted Cruz is a class act. If more self described conservatives had voted for Cruz instead of a liberal Democrat in the GOP primary season, Republicans would be in a much better position to win in November. Instead, the party is looking at the prospect of catastrophic losses this fall.

[TheRealThing]

Ted Cruz is a class act. If more self described conservatives had voted for Cruz instead of a liberal Democrat in the GOP primary season, Republicans would be in a much better position to win in November. Instead, the party is looking at the prospect of catastrophic losses this fall.

Wrong, the voter spoke and you cannot accept that. Now you're pinning your hopes on a contested convention that no one, not even Rich Lowry at this point, has the stomach for. Cruz should be the Veep, that would be both classy and classic. He'd be at the top of the political world for the next 16 years. And BTW, it would just take one guy like him coming to his senses and accepting the people's will to turn the fortunes of this country around. Trump and Cruz, Make America Great Again.

[Hoot Gibson]

Ah I see the neverTrumper is still at it. You really should switch to democrat, because you're doing a fine job of cheering for Clinton. I guess you want abortions and gay marriage to continue. I mean there are only two options here, Trump or Clinton. Throwing a vote to anyone else is just being selfish and making yourself feel good. Maybe you want Hillary to determine the next 20 years of our country with her SCOTUS picks. We already know what she wants, Trump put out a very good list of judges, I'll take my chances with the unknown Trump over the known Hillary any day. Just don't come back whining over abortions and gay marriage when you've done nothing but berate the Presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Is Trump perfect? No he isn't, but the man did beat 16 others to earn the nod.

Vote however you want. I am not voting for either liberal Democrat. If Republicans want to nominate a sure loser to run against Hillary, then they will get what they deserve. Trump is where he is because of open primaries and winner take all primaries in the more moderate states. The scheme was supposed to help Romney fend off conservative challengers. Romney lost, so the plan backfired and the GOP got stuck with liberal Democrat Trump. Ouch!