Trump supporters, are you happy?

[jc456]

Most votes for any Republican in the history of the Republican party. Yeah people are pretty happy

I agree you're not an angry Trump supporter. But as a Trump supporter who isn't angry, do you not see what I'm talking about? Do you not look at the Trumpettes and say wow, you're not going to bring anyone in that way?

For example, how is my voting for Johnson a vote for Hillary? Is that really supposed to convince me?

People should always vote for who they want. If you like Johnson, then by all means vote for him. That's the way it should be. However, if the idea of a Clinton Presidency is something you do not want to see THEN one should rethink how they place their votes.

I've always said if Clinton in office is something one cannot bear to see then the choice is clear, but if it wouldn't be the "end of the world" cast your vote how you see fit. I have zero issues with that. Not everyone thinks a Clinton presidency is a terrible thing. Even righties.

I haven't met one person who is on the right that doesn't think that hitlery is a bad thing. Not one. Everyone I've talked to agrees she is a criminal. and then there is Benghazi. I mean, really?

Edit: and then there is the whole scotus nomination and the same ole politics different day thing.

There's some #nevertrumpers and "Republicans" that are going to vote for her.

There isn't any logic in that. I highly doubt that will happen. That would make them hypocrites. They're merely talking, they will not walk that walk.

 

[jc456]

Does he also plan on taxing himself for moving the manufacture of his ties, hats & etc. to China?

No, he'll (and by that I mean company Trump)move the manufacture back to the states because tariffs will make manufacturing more expensive in China than doing it here in the states.

We'll have more factory jobs, but this will kick off tariff wars against our exports and what those jobs produce will be more expensive to the American consumers (and the rest of world as economies of scale get cut down while everyone is tarrifing each other). So WHY the **** would we want to introduce these distortions today while we have low unemployment and so many jobs unfilled?

Our problems are better solved not by relocating back crappy conveyor belt jobs, but by concentrating on better training and re-locating workforce to fill the jobs ALREADY available.

You need to understand that close to 90 million would want those jobs. Educate yourself on how unemployment works. If your benefits expire you come off the count. Get that?

 

[jc456]

All the stuff I bought from Trump, that Trump makes, is made in the USA....so....

Did you go and cherry pick the items so you could come on here and say "all the stuff I bought from Trump, that Trump makes, is made in the USA.."??

Guess what, the videos show Trump admitting many of his products are made in China and other countries offshore. So your comment is not the whole story, is it?

If Trump taxes other companies for moving offshore, should he also tax himself for doing the same thing?

Seems you did...or just swallowed the democrat talking points in one hot big sticky load.....

Can you actually read your own posts? I mean, is there any possible way you could NOT know what a repulsive little rodent pellet you are, and how you are a major argument against voting for ANY candidate who would appeal to the likes of you?

What does that mean?

 

[jc456]

You won the Republican party with 40% of the vote. You turned around and said **** you to the other 60%. And there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country. Then you said **** you to libertarians and anyone else who while being pretty unhappy with your party wanted you to step up and be worth a vote.

Trump's statement he prefers soldiers who aren't captured was an embarrassment. Sure, the press is leftist and warped his statement on Khan and Putin getting Hillary's e-mails, but welcome to being a Republican. So after saying the Supreme Court is the prize, you're about to hand it to Hillary.

Proud of yourselves?

How do you know the 40 / breakdown? Do you think everyone votes in primaries? He received more votes than anyone ever has. Did Killary get 100% of the votes? Trump has far more support than you think.

Trump was running 40% in the primaries when Cruz dropped out and he won. After that he was the only candidate.

Not sure what your claim is based on that he has more support than that and you gave me no idea what it's based on

so why didn't cruz win? There were 17 total primary candidates, If you think Trump was going to get more than he got, you're a fkn nutjob.

And of course all of the sore loser candidates, since you mention cruz, can't accept they didn't have a larger percentage. It's what happens in politics no?

Maybe because there WERE 17 primary candidates, and Donald Trump was the only celebrity with tons of name recognition and the media following behind with their lips firmly glued to his buttocks. By the time it got down to Trump, Cruz, and whatshisname, the damage has been done.

All of which is utterly irrelevant to the point you are so assiduously avoiding: The majority of people who voted DIDN'T want Trump, and it's just as inappropriate for his supporters to say, "**** you, our guy won, we can do whatever we want and you have to agree with us OR ELSE!" to that majority as it was for the "Establishment" to say it before, back when you Trumpettes were pretending you thought that behavior was unacceptable, rather than just objecting to not being the ones doing it.

So Einstein, what percentage did hitlery get?

 

[kaz]

Hard conservatives tend to be binary thinkers, to them there is only two kinds of anything, things they like and things they really ******* hate. They are really big on the "are you with us or against us" trope.

Interetsing, as that is so often the liberal interpretation behind the cry of racism - when conservatives or their candidates are not willing to agree to (abide by) the liberal interpreted view for the role of government.

Once you realize that conservatives get highly agitated by ambiguous things that cannot be easily pigeonholed into good/bad, black/white, left/right, dog/cat, etc. it makes it remarkably easy for conservative leaders to predict your reactions to anything and control your opinions by simply supplying you with the dividing line.

From the monolithic party who agree on every issue and for the same reasons. Classic

What party are you looking at? There is much more variation among democrats but the main difference is that we do not eat our own when they fail to adhere to the letter of party dogma. Look at all the former republican heroes who have been branded heretic RINOs just because they have the gall to criticize Trump. You people do not know how to handle complex, ambiguous situations such as a republican who does not like the republican candidate.

So give me an example of two major Democrats of any issue they disagree on. Go ...

 

[jc456]

You won the Republican party with 40% of the vote. You turned around and said **** you to the other 60%. And there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country. Then you said **** you to libertarians and anyone else who while being pretty unhappy with your party wanted you to step up and be worth a vote.

Trump's statement he prefers soldiers who aren't captured was an embarrassment. Sure, the press is leftist and warped his statement on Khan and Putin getting Hillary's e-mails, but welcome to being a Republican. So after saying the Supreme Court is the prize, you're about to hand it to Hillary.

Proud of yourselves?

How do you know the 40 / breakdown? Do you think everyone votes in primaries? He received more votes than anyone ever has. Did Killary get 100% of the votes? Trump has far more support than you think.

Trump was running 40% in the primaries when Cruz dropped out and he won. After that he was the only candidate.

Not sure what your claim is based on that he has more support than that and you gave me no idea what it's based on

so why didn't cruz win? There were 17 total primary candidates, If you think Trump was going to get more than he got, you're a fkn nutjob.

And of course all of the sore loser candidates, since you mention cruz, can't accept they didn't have a larger percentage. It's what happens in politics no?

Maybe because there WERE 17 primary candidates, and Donald Trump was the only celebrity with tons of name recognition and the media following behind with their lips firmly glued to his buttocks. By the time it got down to Trump, Cruz, and whatshisname, the damage has been done.

All of which is utterly irrelevant to the point you are so assiduously avoiding: The majority of people who voted DIDN'T want Trump, and it's just as inappropriate for his supporters to say, "**** you, our guy won, we can do whatever we want and you have to agree with us OR ELSE!" to that majority as it was for the "Establishment" to say it before, back when you Trumpettes were pretending you thought that behavior was unacceptable, rather than just objecting to not being the ones doing it.

By the way, he got more than the other sixteen otherwise he wouldn't have won. Is that your issue? I'm trying to figure out your point!

None of the sixteen got above 10% except Cruz. He got 20%

 

[jc456]

Hard conservatives tend to be binary thinkers, to them there is only two kinds of anything, things they like and things they really ******* hate. They are really big on the "are you with us or against us" trope.

Interetsing, as that is so often the liberal interpretation behind the cry of racism - when conservatives or their candidates are not willing to agree to (abide by) the liberal interpreted view for the role of government.

Once you realize that conservatives get highly agitated by ambiguous things that cannot be easily pigeonholed into good/bad, black/white, left/right, dog/cat, etc. it makes it remarkably easy for conservative leaders to predict your reactions to anything and control your opinions by simply supplying you with the dividing line.

From the monolithic party who agree on every issue and for the same reasons. Classic

What party are you looking at? There is much more variation among democrats but the main difference is that we do not eat our own when they fail to adhere to the letter of party dogma. Look at all the former republican heroes who have been branded heretic RINOs just because they have the gall to criticize Trump. You people do not know how to handle complex, ambiguous situations such as a republican who does not like the republican candidate.

No, you rig the election. Hahahaha

 

[AntonToo]

Does he also plan on taxing himself for moving the manufacture of his ties, hats & etc. to China?

No, he'll (and by that I mean company Trump)move the manufacture back to the states because tariffs will make manufacturing more expensive in China than doing it here in the states.

We'll have more factory jobs, but this will kick off tariff wars against our exports and what those jobs produce will be more expensive to the American consumers (and the rest of world as economies of scale get cut down while everyone is tarrifing each other). So WHY the **** would we want to introduce these distortions today while we have low unemployment and so many jobs unfilled?

Our problems are better solved not by relocating back crappy conveyor belt jobs, but by concentrating on better training and re-locating workforce to fill the jobs ALREADY available.

You need to understand that close to 90 million would want those jobs. Educate yourself on how unemployment works. If your benefits expire you come off the count. Get that?

I understand what you just said is counter-factual bullshit.

No, 16 year old in school do not need a job, they need school and no, old people do not need a job, they need retirement, disabled can't have a job. And further yet, not everyone even wants a job, yes some people would rather stay home and raise kids (or do whatever it is thief heart desires and means sustain)

 

[80zephyr]

Its funny. I have never had this "problem" before. And I have thousands of posts in various forums. Like I said, maybe our misunderstanding comes from your lack of clarity.

Mark

Or maybe it comes from you putting words in my mouth rather than responding to what I actually said

Yes, that must be it. You telling us that we ALL misunderstand you has to be our problem, not yours.

Mark

Well, if you address what I said, then I'll stop saying you didn't address what I said

And like I said, if it was just me you were having a problem with, I might rethink my position.

Mark

It's several of you who all are Trumpettes, that doesn't make you wonder at all? Show me a post where you actually addressed my point and I didn't get it

Because my ability to vote is limited, doesn't make me a Trump backer.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Now who is misquoting? When did I say that the field of economics was wrong concerning free trade? I stated there would be winners and losers.

And we BOTH know that is correct.

Mark

That isn't where I said you contradicted economics. It was that forcing manufacturing to stay here would provide a net increase in jobs

Will allowing them to leave provide a net increase in jobs? If so, where? That is my point about creating winners and losers. While economic theory is correct that free trade will provide an increase worldwide, it will DEFINITELY hurt some players. Do you deny this?

As an economist, you MUST SEE what has happened to our earning power, our economic growth, and our standard of living in the past 30 years or so as these ideas have been instituted. If you believe that our sluggishness in not due to these policies, then state why you believe we are in such a predicament at this time.

Mark

we already know the only loser is US American jobs. Cheaper workers and no regulations creates a loss of jobs. Period.

Correct. And bringing in H1B workers and immigrants hurts us even more.

Mark

Nonsense, trained workers are not the problems, illegal immigrants who tax our system are the problem. Trained workers grow the economy. There are plenty of jobs in this country for skilled workers, and they grow as you add skilled workers

There have been stories where our own trained workers were replaced wholesale by companies that wanted to pay less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/u...t-disney-train-foreign-replacements.html?_r=0

If there are too many trained workers for the jobs available, they certainly are a problem. Do you deny this?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I don't, but those republicans not supporting him are garbage mostly. They use the same tactics liberals do, and I can't stand them. Meg Whitman will never endorse a candidate I vote for.

If THAT isn't the pot calling the kettle black. Trumpettes are indistinguishable from leftists in every single attitude and behavior EXCEPT they want Trump to be their Big Government Goodie Distributor instead of Hillary. You need only look at your own charming post about "garbage" to see the standard leftist tactic of demonizing those who disagree with you in order to avoid ever having to address their concerns seriously.

But hey, I guess that means you don't need our "garbage" votes to win the election, so good luck on that "yuuuuuge win" without us. And don't even consider trying that bullying, horseshit hypocrisy of, "Well, if you don't decide Trump is wonderful, you want Hillary, but he doesn't need your vote, but you have to get on board to beat Hillary, but you're garbage". If you ever connect with reality enough to recognize how badly your Idiot Boy candidate is botching the election and start to wonder why, look no further than your own reflection of his utterly repellent attitudes.

no we want businesses to run their shops and the government stay out. it's quite simple bubba.

What the ****? That's not what Trump says that you keep defending

Well he wants lower taxes and.less regulation...standard free market stuff.

How is proposing charging Carrier $1,500 a unit for building them in Mexico "less regulation?" How is ending Nafta less regulation if he can't get a deal he wants?

Government deciding what is "fair" is no solution ... to anything.

And where has he talked about taxes and regulations artificially driving corporations offshore? That I oppose. What I support is when they do it for economic efficiency

If all countries played on a level field, you would have a point. America simply cannot compete with countries that pay a dollar a day in wages.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

That isn't where I said you contradicted economics. It was that forcing manufacturing to stay here would provide a net increase in jobs

Will allowing them to leave provide a net increase in jobs? If so, where? That is my point about creating winners and losers. While economic theory is correct that free trade will provide an increase worldwide, it will DEFINITELY hurt some players. Do you deny this?

As an economist, you MUST SEE what has happened to our earning power, our economic growth, and our standard of living in the past 30 years or so as these ideas have been instituted. If you believe that our sluggishness in not due to these policies, then state why you believe we are in such a predicament at this time.

Mark

we already know the only loser is US American jobs. Cheaper workers and no regulations creates a loss of jobs. Period.

What if we start by addressing the oppressive regulations and taxes that are pushing companies offshore first and see where we stand?

This is why I'm confused because he talks about this stuff alot. He's gonna put a moratorium In regulation and just stated 25% of the cost of a house is regulation.
He talks about Low corporate and income taxes and reducing regulation. He even mentioned removing the dep of education and.the epa.

And then trade....what I don't get is if we have such a benefit of free trade, then why are the deficits so high...China sells 500 billion more to us the we to them......shouldn't it be just a few billion at most?

I don't know enough specifically about the China deficit to answer that, but trade balances are a completely screwed statistic. Do you know if you buy a Ford it was probably imported and if you buy a Toyota it probably wasn't?

US corporations doing business overseas is also great for our economy but may not show up in import/export at all. Those numbers are just very misleading, you really have to dig into them to understand them.

And again, low costs for consumers benefits us. China provides us with massive amounts of cheap crap. Building the same thing here does not make us richer.

Why not? Does it make sense to have people on welfare when we could have them working?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

And so far the loser has been american workers.

And you want to **** them again by crushing the economy

We have no economy. We have NAFTA and the ASIAN connection. Thank you Democrats. Trump wants us back to work. Hillary wants us to get Asia up and running at our expense. Again.
Trump 2016.

Sure, Trump wants that. It's his goal. The problem is his plan to accomplish that won't. His anti-capitalist policies are going to make the economy worse, not better

He IS a capitalist. He knows how the system works, and wants to bring it back to America. Piss on Asia.
Outsourcing is what doesn't work. Redistributing our wealth and resources is what doesn't work. Replacing American workers with illegals makes the economy worse. The Obama/Clinton regime gives a 3,000 dollar break per employee if the Company fires an American and hires an illegal in his place. That is what isn't working.
America FIRST this time.
Vote for America benefiting America for a change.

Free markets are what works. Government should neither harm nor "help" business.

And capitalism is just a term for economic freedom. Decisions are driven by the market. That Trump is going to control markets and make our decisions for us is free markets because he's smarter than everyone is just ridiculous

I doubt that anything Trump would do would be worse than what we have today. Today, the liberals are dictating the market. If you are happier with them doing so than Trump, then vote for them again.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

I'll watch it. You realize I'm constantly defending Trump against the idiocy of the left and I do listen to what he's saying. That's how I know he didn't insult Khan, that he didn't call on Russia to hack and the other lies the Democrats tell. To say I'm just believing the press is pretty ridiculous.

And my views on him for capitalism are what he says. I found the $1,500 Carrier proposal to be an abomination to freedom and liberty, and he said it, not the press.

I do agree listening to a whole speech is a reasonable request. I will attempt to do it over the weekend if I don't get to it first.

Carrier proposal?

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico

This doesn't say the amount, but I heard him propose "$1,500." It wasn't through the media, I heard him say it.

That is just an abomination to free markets and capitalism that government would do that. It's a big reason I don't give him any trust when he talks about "renegotiating" Nafta or pulling out of TPP. I want free markets.

Government shouldn't have any trade deals. We should just:

1) Open our markets

2) Threaten countries we prop up with "foreign aid" and with our military we are stopping if they don't open their markets to us.

That's it, end of proposal

Trump would tax Carrier air conditioning units for moving to Mexico

""I'm going to tell them, 'Now I'm going to get consensus from Congress and we're going to tax you,'" Trump said. "'So stay where you are [in Mexico] or build in the United States.' Because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers.""

That would happen if renegotiation fails..it wouldnt..Mexico need us.more than we.need.them

I don't even know what the goal of "renegotiation" is, can you clarify? Is this another we need government to tell us what's "fair" again? How's that worked out for you in the past?

What is "free trade"? I understand you want it, as do I, but I also understand that other countries have been manipulating both their currency and products to get a "leg up" on their competition. I understand that, since we do not control other countries, that all we can control is how we react to that manipulation.

There is no "free trade", and there NEVER has been.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

For who? Free trade kills mature economies.

False.

And debunked in economics.

Sorry you hate capitalism so much.

Lol. There is NOTHING that has even been "debunked" in economics. The proof is when all the experts are so wrong so often.

They don't have a clue, and their "economics" proves it. Hell, they are probably wrong more than weathermen, and thats quite a feat.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Are you now telling me there aren't winners and losers in any economic system? That is what I stated. Your economic statement was correct, I never denied that.

There are winners and losers in capitalism. Socialists are very concerned about the losers in capitalism. Trump, like the socialists, is addressing the losers of capitalism.

America was founded on freedom and individual liberty. Capitalism is freedom and individual liberty. And there are losers in capitalism.

BTW, if we need a formal education or career in a field to have an opinion, then, since you are talking politics, you should be immediately excluded from this thread, assuming you have never held office, of course.

Of course you can have an opinion. But that doesn't make your opinion valid.

You can have an opinion that leeches are better than medicine, but that doesn't make it better than the opinion of doctors.

Based on the opinions of economic "experts", I would say my opinion is as valid as theirs. Based on their track record, probably more so.

I am a realist. I look around and notice the state of our nation after all these "advances" are implemented. I see a change for the worse.

If you don't, maybe you can use your "economic expertise" to enlighten me as to why the common man in America is better off today that he was 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

Because I ain't seeing it.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Hard conservatives tend to be binary thinkers, to them there is only two kinds of anything, things they like and things they really ******* hate. They are really big on the "are you with us or against us" trope.

Interetsing, as that is so often the liberal interpretation behind the cry of racism - when conservatives or their candidates are not willing to agree to (abide by) the liberal interpreted view for the role of government.

Once you realize that conservatives get highly agitated by ambiguous things that cannot be easily pigeonholed into good/bad, black/white, left/right, dog/cat, etc. it makes it remarkably easy for conservative leaders to predict your reactions to anything and control your opinions by simply supplying you with the dividing line.

From the monolithic party who agree on every issue and for the same reasons. Classic

What party are you looking at? There is much more variation among democrats but the main difference is that we do not eat our own when they fail to adhere to the letter of party dogma. Look at all the former republican heroes who have been branded heretic RINOs just because they have the gall to criticize Trump. You people do not know how to handle complex, ambiguous situations such as a republican who does not like the republican candidate.

Lol. So Republican infighting is proof that they think monolithic-ally?

Better bone up on your debate skills.

Mark

 

[Faun]

Does he also plan on taxing himself for moving the manufacture of his ties, hats & etc. to China?

No, he'll (and by that I mean company Trump)move the manufacture back to the states because tariffs will make manufacturing more expensive in China than doing it here in the states.

We'll have more factory jobs, but this will kick off tariff wars against our exports and what those jobs produce will be more expensive to the American consumers (and the rest of world as economies of scale get cut down while everyone is tarrifing each other). So WHY the **** would we want to introduce these distortions today while we have low unemployment and so many jobs unfilled?

Our problems are better solved not by relocating back crappy conveyor belt jobs, but by concentrating on better training and re-locating workforce to fill the jobs ALREADY available.

You need to understand that close to 90 million would want those jobs. Educate yourself on how unemployment works. If your benefits expire you come off the count. Get that?

I understand what you just said is counter-factual bullshit.

No, 16 year old in school do not need a job, they need school and no, old people do not need a job, they need retirement, disabled can't have a job. And further yet, not everyone even wants a job, yes some people would rather stay home and raise kids (or do whatever it is thief heart desires and means sustain)

Plus, there are millions of people working in the shadow economy who don't report their income, so don't show up in the BLS's establishment data; and they [likely] don't confess they work in the BLS's household survey data.

The shadow economy grosses an estimated $2 trillion a year. That could amount to tens of millions of people who show up in the not in labor force pool, when in fact, they are working.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Nah....we just have people who don't know trump.....they think he's a eastern liberal establishment republican...
He's not....I saw how the establishment hates him and listening to his speeches, he has great economic plans, and I think
Govt do ....how do you think we open markets....I mean Nafta was a govt law. We embargord cuba and the ussr. They can push for China to take our goods or we slap them....I have no.problem with that.....

Free trade has to.do with tarriffs....hence Nafta or tpp

What if we just don't charge tariffs?

That's great in theory...but what about countries that do or don't even let us export to.them?
You can't just let everyone dump theor products here...it kills our industries...Chinese steel is.one example......

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

UK and EU urged to act on Chinese steel dumping after US raises duty on imports

This just repeats the accusation they are "dumping." My question was "how do you know China is 'dumping'"? An article making the accusation again doesn't answer that.

Dumping has a meaning. Being cheaper isn't it. So again, how do you know the Chinese are "dumping?"

Nah....we just have people who don't know trump.....they think he's a eastern liberal establishment republican...
He's not....I saw how the establishment hates him and listening to his speeches, he has great economic plans, and I think
Govt do ....how do you think we open markets....I mean Nafta was a govt law. We embargord cuba and the ussr. They can push for China to take our goods or we slap them....I have no.problem with that.....

Free trade has to.do with tarriffs....hence Nafta or tpp

What if we just don't charge tariffs?

That's great in theory...but what about countries that do or don't even let us export to.them?
You can't just let everyone dump theor products here...it kills our industries...Chinese steel is.one example......

Do you know what "dumping" means? How do you know China is "dumping?" There isn't much dumping in the world.

Hint, being more cost competitive isn't "dumping."

Economically, one way free trade is better than no free trade. If you know calculus and take an econ course, it's pretty intuitive. Two way free trade is certainly ideal.

And again, your whole scheme is based on government deciding what is "fair." When has that ever worked out for you? Government making life fair?

Our companies have rules others don't need to follow....so.they will produce it cheaper....but then we have no.jobs and no middle class

Nafta was supposed to make Mexico come up in living standards, it didn't work.
I mean if you want no tarriffs on our imports while others deny us access to markets or put tarriffs on our goods....not much I can say

You effectively want Hughe trade deficits and no mfg in the us.

I see your point. Thank God we have government to make life fair. They recognize challenges and damn it, they just love us to death and want to help us. All hail government.

So, when has that worked out for you? When has government actually made life "fair" for you?

In a choice of freedom or government making life fair for me? I'll take the former every time

Look Kaz, trading is not just Mattel sending Barbies to other countries....trade agreements have and always will be used by governments....it's the only way we can make sure it's a level playing field.
China does not have the min wage we do, they do not have the regulations (yes we should eliminate most of ours), but if they have access to our markets, we need access to theirs, if not.....then denied.....

I'm sorry, but there are very few but some regulations I'm ok with.....like meat inspection, aircraft inspections......shit like that

 

[EatMorChikin]

You won the Republican party with 40% of the vote. You turned around and said **** you to the other 60%. And there are more Democrats than Republicans in this country. Then you said **** you to libertarians and anyone else who while being pretty unhappy with your party wanted you to step up and be worth a vote.

Trump's statement he prefers soldiers who aren't captured was an embarrassment. Sure, the press is leftist and warped his statement on Khan and Putin getting Hillary's e-mails, but welcome to being a Republican. So after saying the Supreme Court is the prize, you're about to hand it to Hillary.

Proud of yourselves?

How do you know the 40 / breakdown? Do you think everyone votes in primaries? He received more votes than anyone ever has. Did Killary get 100% of the votes? Trump has far more support than you think.

Uh, by doing math? What does "everyone doesn't vote" have to do with the percentage of votes cast that he got? Ditto "more votes than anyone ever has"? And what the **** is this "100%" straw man have to do with ANYTHING?

Trump has about the support we think he does, and it's far less than you want to pretend it is.

That's no more than your opinion. I have seen evidence to the contrary.