Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Wall Street Journal tries and fails to find any living former member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors who supports Trump:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/25/economists-whove-advised-presidents-are-no-fans-of-donald-trump/

lol.. well, it'd be kinda hard to support Trump if one is dead (I'm sure you could insert a joke in here).

Title is misleading:

"Among 17 Republican appointees who responded to Journal inquiries, none said they supported Mr. Trump. Six said they did not support Mr. Trump and 11 declined to say either way. An additional six did not respond to repeated messages. Among the 20 Democrats who responded to the Journal, 13 said they supported Mrs. Clinton, none said they opposed her and seven declined to say either way. Two Democratic appointees didn’t respond to messages."

Some declined to comment, or hadn't commented, so hard to conclude they do or do not support Trump.

It's OK. That's why people voted Trump over 17 other candidates. They don't want all the RINOs in Washington DC, and the leftist Republicans are showing their true colors.

Keep rooting for the failed establishment.

Trump is now parroting the Obama administration's stance on immigration. Next he will adopt Obamacare and then he will turn pro-choice. Some Republican.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Wall Street Journal tries and fails to find any living former member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors who supports Trump:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/25/economists-whove-advised-presidents-are-no-fans-of-donald-trump/

lol.. well, it'd be kinda hard to support Trump if one is dead (I'm sure you could insert a joke in here).

Title is misleading:

"Among 17 Republican appointees who responded to Journal inquiries, none said they supported Mr. Trump. Six said they did not support Mr. Trump and 11 declined to say either way. An additional six did not respond to repeated messages. Among the 20 Democrats who responded to the Journal, 13 said they supported Mrs. Clinton, none said they opposed her and seven declined to say either way. Two Democratic appointees didn’t respond to messages."

Some declined to comment, or hadn't commented, so hard to conclude they do or do not support Trump.

The WSJ is a leftie rag! You heard here first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Wall Street Journal tries and fails to find any living former member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors who supports Trump:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/25/economists-whove-advised-presidents-are-no-fans-of-donald-trump/

lol.. well, it'd be kinda hard to support Trump if one is dead (I'm sure you could insert a joke in here).

Title is misleading:

"Among 17 Republican appointees who responded to Journal inquiries, none said they supported Mr. Trump. Six said they did not support Mr. Trump and 11 declined to say either way. An additional six did not respond to repeated messages. Among the 20 Democrats who responded to the Journal, 13 said they supported Mrs. Clinton, none said they opposed her and seven declined to say either way. Two Democratic appointees didn’t respond to messages."

Some declined to comment, or hadn't commented, so hard to conclude they do or do not support Trump.

It's OK. That's why people voted Trump over 17 other candidates. They don't want all the RINOs in Washington DC, and the leftist Republicans are showing their true colors.

Keep rooting for the failed establishment.

Donald Trump supports immigration reform now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Wall Street Journal tries and fails to find any living former member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors who supports Trump:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/25/economists-whove-advised-presidents-are-no-fans-of-donald-trump/

lol.. well, it'd be kinda hard to support Trump if one is dead (I'm sure you could insert a joke in here).

Title is misleading:

"Among 17 Republican appointees who responded to Journal inquiries, none said they supported Mr. Trump. Six said they did not support Mr. Trump and 11 declined to say either way. An additional six did not respond to repeated messages. Among the 20 Democrats who responded to the Journal, 13 said they supported Mrs. Clinton, none said they opposed her and seven declined to say either way. Two Democratic appointees didn’t respond to messages."

Some declined to comment, or hadn't commented, so hard to conclude they do or do not support Trump.

It's OK. That's why people voted Trump over 17 other candidates. They don't want all the RINOs in Washington DC, and the leftist Republicans are showing their true colors.

Keep rooting for the failed establishment.

W.'s commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez endorses Clinton, calls Trump a potential "economic disaster."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/14/politics/carlos-gutierrez-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-election-2016/

Anonymous wrote:The Wall Street Journal tries and fails to find any living former member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors who supports Trump:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/25/economists-whove-advised-presidents-are-no-fans-of-donald-trump/

lol.. well, it'd be kinda hard to support Trump if one is dead (I'm sure you could insert a joke in here).

Title is misleading:

"Among 17 Republican appointees who responded to Journal inquiries, none said they supported Mr. Trump. Six said they did not support Mr. Trump and 11 declined to say either way. An additional six did not respond to repeated messages. Among the 20 Democrats who responded to the Journal, 13 said they supported Mrs. Clinton, none said they opposed her and seven declined to say either way. Two Democratic appointees didn’t respond to messages."

Some declined to comment, or hadn't commented, so hard to conclude they do or do not support Trump.

The Wall Street Journal tries and fails to find any living former member of the White House Council of Economic Advisors who supports Trump:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/08/25/economists-whove-advised-presidents-are-no-fans-of-donald-trump/

Former chairman and CEO of GM, who has always voted Republican:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ive-always-voted-republican-until-now/2016/08/17/03a1b970-622d-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html?utm_term=.680bac07cb8c

Ivanka's BIL is voting for Hillary Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/josh-kushner-voting-for-clinton-227148

No, the reason I have cancelled my Republican registration is that the vast majority of the party’s leaders and elected officials have embraced Trump as their candidate (even if while holding their noses). They have embraced him notwithstanding his indiscriminate and unacceptable derision of other human beings and his ignorance of the core principles of American constitutionalism. A party with leadership that endorses, even implicitly, a man of Trump’s demeanor and witlessness is a party to which no self-respecting individual should lend support.
- Jim Huffman, who ran for Senate from Oregon six years ago

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/16/i-ran-for-senate-as-a-republican-now-ive-left-the-party/#ixzz4Hk6DEigD

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guy who wrote Patricia Smith's GOP convention speech!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-e...republican-20160817-story.html

"Growing up, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were my icons. My sense of party fealty is such that I worked on the paid GOP convention staff in Philadelphia in 2000, and again, just recently, as a professional volunteer on the speechwriting staff in Cleveland.

In fact, I personally drafted the speech of the "Benghazi mom," Patricia Smith. In that speech, I concluded with the following line: "If Hillary Clinton can't give us the truth, why should we give her the presidency?" As a political speechwriter, that was something of a home run moment for me. The New Yorker called the speech "the weaponization of grief."

"I believe this is a citizenship election similar to others we have had in our history. This is a time to stand up and be counted — just like supporters of the civil rights movement once chose to do."

"Still, the prospect of voting for Hillary Clinton is uncomfortable to me, as if Dr. Van Helsing were compelled to vote for Dracula.

But the only prospect more terrifying than voting for Hillary Clinton is not voting for her."

wow, that's pretty damning. So, I guess this guy had a change of heart after the convention? I always that Smith wrote her own speech and that speech writers were really only used for politicians and their spouses. Hm.

I do not think he had a change of heart. The way I read it is he wrote the speech because it is a job, but when he weighed the perspective of voting for the presidency Trump is simply unacceptable. Hence he feels in spite of Clinton's limitation he would vote for her.

Yeah, that's a good get for Clinton.

Mr. Khan wrote his own speech. Even memorized it.

Anonymous wrote:Guy who wrote Patricia Smith's GOP convention speech!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-e...republican-20160817-story.html

"Growing up, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were my icons. My sense of party fealty is such that I worked on the paid GOP convention staff in Philadelphia in 2000, and again, just recently, as a professional volunteer on the speechwriting staff in Cleveland.

In fact, I personally drafted the speech of the "Benghazi mom," Patricia Smith. In that speech, I concluded with the following line: "If Hillary Clinton can't give us the truth, why should we give her the presidency?" As a political speechwriter, that was something of a home run moment for me. The New Yorker called the speech "the weaponization of grief."

"I believe this is a citizenship election similar to others we have had in our history. This is a time to stand up and be counted — just like supporters of the civil rights movement once chose to do."

"Still, the prospect of voting for Hillary Clinton is uncomfortable to me, as if Dr. Van Helsing were compelled to vote for Dracula.

But the only prospect more terrifying than voting for Hillary Clinton is not voting for her."

wow, that's pretty damning. So, I guess this guy had a change of heart after the convention? I always that Smith wrote her own speech and that speech writers were really only used for politicians and their spouses. Hm.

Guy who wrote Patricia Smith's GOP convention speech!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-e...republican-20160817-story.html

"Growing up, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were my icons. My sense of party fealty is such that I worked on the paid GOP convention staff in Philadelphia in 2000, and again, just recently, as a professional volunteer on the speechwriting staff in Cleveland.

In fact, I personally drafted the speech of the "Benghazi mom," Patricia Smith. In that speech, I concluded with the following line: "If Hillary Clinton can't give us the truth, why should we give her the presidency?" As a political speechwriter, that was something of a home run moment for me. The New Yorker called the speech "the weaponization of grief."

"I believe this is a citizenship election similar to others we have had in our history. This is a time to stand up and be counted — just like supporters of the civil rights movement once chose to do."

"Still, the prospect of voting for Hillary Clinton is uncomfortable to me, as if Dr. Van Helsing were compelled to vote for Dracula.

But the only prospect more terrifying than voting for Hillary Clinton is not voting for her."

Bush's Treasury Secretary, Rosario Marin endorses Clinton.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/08/17/bush-treasury-secretary-rosario-marin-endorses-clinton-over-trump-for-president/