Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rtracey

(2,062 posts)
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 08:52 AM Aug 2015

Elephant in the room

Has anyone else in the DU world of politics noticed one major fallacy about Donald Trumps run for President. It is not being discussed in the MSM, or in newspapers, national magazines, or even here on DU. I am talking about Trump's lack of knowledge about how the government actually works. Ok, yes I will admit, during campaigns, many politicians say things like "we will do this" and "I will promise that", but mostly the rhetoric is just that...spoken rhetoric. Trump is different, Trump truly does not understand the workings of government. Government is not a big business. Its not run by 1 guy at the top calling the shots, like Trumps businesses. What Trump is not admitting is he needs to work with Congress and Supreme Court. In his first announcement of his run, Trump basically alienated himself from all major players in congress, and yet seems to think, they are going to bend down and kiss his ring.

Why have we not seen anyone in the media address this issue?

50 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Elephant in the room (Original Post) rtracey Aug 2015 OP
It's not a bug, it's a feature n2doc Aug 2015 #1
He is a cartoon character and many Americans love him for it mucifer Aug 2015 #2
Because a lot of voters don't understand how government works, either. MADem Aug 2015 #3
+1 nt brer cat Aug 2015 #4
+1000 greenman3610 Aug 2015 #7
Lather. Rinse. Repeat. blm Aug 2015 #8
One hand washes the other, most certainly. nt MADem Aug 2015 #21
"a lot of voters" now support a wise & seasoned progressive candidate who's been IN Congress for 25 years 99th_Monkey Aug 2015 #14
"So you may as well stop riding that worn out hobby-horse." MADem Aug 2015 #20
Oh snap! 99th_Monkey Aug 2015 #22
Snap indeed--your winning ways will convince anyone of the righteousness of your cause. MADem Aug 2015 #23
Now you are repeating yourself, a bit over-much. 99th_Monkey Aug 2015 #24
Mmmmhmmmm--do go on! I'm not the one getting personal--if the shoe doesn't fit MADem Sep 2015 #36
There's always room for growing & learning 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #42
He's more into "coalition politics" and that's a trickier proposition. MADem Sep 2015 #43
The well-known fact that Bernie is drawing heavily from voters who don't usually vote Democratic 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #44
He's drawing them to listen to him--but not necessarily vote for him. MADem Sep 2015 #45
Team Bernie's still got work to do, with Blacks & Latinos, no doubt about that. 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #46
Sanders' "problem" with BLM is no better or worse than any other candidate. MADem Sep 2015 #47
Like I said, we will see. Thanks for this exchange. I'd like to end it here. -nt- 99th_Monkey Sep 2015 #48
I've never seen anyone that thinks Bernie can just wave his hand (you were referring to him,right?) Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #15
Maybe you need to read this board more carefully--Obama has spent the last two terms getting MADem Aug 2015 #19
I see just fine. Elmer S. E. Dump Aug 2015 #26
the "magic wand" meme never ends Skittles Aug 2015 #29
You've missed plenty, but it would appear that you haven't been here for most of Obama's two terms. MADem Aug 2015 #32
yeah, we know Skittles Aug 2015 #27
I don't think that's accurate either. nt MADem Aug 2015 #33
When we should accept that we can't change things.... daleanime Aug 2015 #28
Until Citizens United gets overturned--and that will have to happen in court, not via Congress MADem Aug 2015 #30
Who's snarking? daleanime Sep 2015 #35
Who would that be, who doesn't "take advantage of the benefits?" MADem Sep 2015 #37
It's always nice.... daleanime Sep 2015 #38
I've no idea what you're on about, and that's really kind of sad, I suppose. Or maybe not. MADem Sep 2015 #40
What part of... daleanime Sep 2015 #41
You're wrapping all that up with how painful and sad you are. This is a discussion board. MADem Sep 2015 #49
The media is largely ignorant of it, too. blm Aug 2015 #5
He understands enough to know that if you give politicians enough money... Smarmie Doofus Aug 2015 #6
He's probably right about D.C. 840high Aug 2015 #34
Big fucking doofus in the room. lonestarnot Aug 2015 #9
I don't think that's an issue packman Aug 2015 #10
I've mentioned it once or twice here SheilaT Aug 2015 #11
Two Words..... RR2 Aug 2015 #12
That isn't unique to Trump. jeff47 Aug 2015 #13
It's simple left-of-center2012 Aug 2015 #16
The key point is they don't want government to work as it is, they want to destroy it. Ford_Prefect Aug 2015 #17
He's just saying what those listening to him want to hear. I think he knows "HE" can't napi21 Aug 2015 #18
the media is not addressing ANY issues. spanone Aug 2015 #25
his base isn't made up of what you would call critical thinkers. Warren DeMontague Aug 2015 #31
Excellent Point WiffenPoof Sep 2015 #39
How true. . . BigDemVoter Sep 2015 #50

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
1. It's not a bug, it's a feature
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 08:58 AM
Aug 2015

RW loons love him for his ignorance. The rest of the Repub establishment figures that he will be easy to manipulate because of his ignorance. Media just loves the circus and ratings he generates. They do not want to see him go down, not for a while anyway.

mucifer

(23,374 posts)
2. He is a cartoon character and many Americans love him for it
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 08:58 AM
Aug 2015

They don't want people who understand politics. They want a benevolent dictator. Problem is there is no such thing.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
3. Because a lot of voters don't understand how government works, either.
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 09:00 AM
Aug 2015

There are people on this board who believe their candidate will change things with the wave of a hand, and who remain angry with Obama for not having the capacity to rule by decree.

It's a failing of some voters. They need to take a civics class--or ten.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
14. "a lot of voters" now support a wise & seasoned progressive candidate who's been IN Congress for 25 years
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:32 AM
Aug 2015

and knows full well "how it works"; unlike in 2008.

And his supporters know that about him too.

Neither the candidate, nor the supporters, have ever said it would be a cake-walk.
Far from it.

So you may as well stop riding that worn out hobby-horse.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
20. "So you may as well stop riding that worn out hobby-horse."
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:23 PM
Aug 2015

Great sales technique, there!



Personal and denigrating--the winning technique to sell a candidate!

Keep up the great job--you do your favorite proud....

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
22. Oh snap!
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:34 PM
Aug 2015

There you were, teetering on the fence, undecided, and went and turned you off to Bernie
by pointing out the obvious.

my bad.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
23. Snap indeed--your winning ways will convince anyone of the righteousness of your cause.
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:45 PM
Aug 2015

I am not "teetering on the fence" at all--I am just pointing out how your positive approach to your candidate's virtues is just so apparent to anyone who comes in contact with you!

Your joy is just irrepressible--so enthusiastic!

Do keep it up--it's a winning strategy!

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
24. Now you are repeating yourself, a bit over-much.
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:08 PM
Aug 2015

Yes, I'm a Bernie enthusiast ... and damn proud of it.

You started this exchange with a patronizing post, about how you
think "some don't understand how government works ... who believe
their candidate will change things with the wave of a hand, and who
remain angry with Obama for not having the capacity to rule by decree ...
.. They need to take a civics class--or ten"

I can only assume this ^ is your idea of a "winning strategy", so excuse
me if I can't take you very seriously.

On edit: if your post I cite here was meant to refer to only Trump supporters,
and not Bernie supporter, then I retract all of my responses to it, and apologize.
Otherwise, I'll let them stand.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
36. Mmmmhmmmm--do go on! I'm not the one getting personal--if the shoe doesn't fit
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 12:37 AM
Sep 2015

YOU, don't be so eager to cram it on your foot, then!

Unless you're unclear as to the meaning of the term "SOME." See, it doesn't mean the same thing as "YOU" or "That one over there" or "That specific individual."

I'm not basing my view that "some" don't understand how our government works on the individuals they purport to support. I'm basing it on reading DU and a variety of other web commentary sites for over a decade and realizing that a lot of people who like to "opine" about politics on the internet do NOT frigging get how our government works.

That's why "some" people whine about Obama not bringing home (insert pet legislation) while not one word is said about how CONGRESS failed to act. That's just one example. A more recent example has to do with crying about superdelegates and demanding that "the will of the people" be heard--llike it's some kind of MASSIVE abrogation for a party to pick their candidate.

Many people posting here were alive when this was what a primary season looked like:



Parties have always weighed in, and they always will--that's why they're parties. People who don't like the system are free to move on to another process with another party where things are maybe done differently, but to expect the party that does all the hard work to cede control to dilettantes who make a lot of noise but don't show up to the polls (Be Clean For Gene/Howard Dean's Orange Hats) is an unlikely expectation--to put it kindly. You want clout in the party, you've got to WORK in the party--not just be a demanding voter who might show up once at the polls to vote for someone who strikes one's fancy. And of course, in those open primaries, it NEVER (cough) happens that voters cross party lines to give weaker candidates a boost in order to put the fix in for a preferred candidate...naaah, that would NEVER happen!

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
42. There's always room for growing & learning
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 11:25 AM
Sep 2015

and I'm certainly no exception. Personally, I've gone back and forth on the issue of whether it
makes any sense to be highly active in party politics. I understand the case for it, which you
make well btw, and I even find it very convincing .. to a point. Just like with a nation, when a
party behaves in ways that are utterly antithetical to it's basic claims to legitimacy, then at that
point, authoritarian demands for slavish "party loyalty" can and should be answered with "Hell no!
First things first. We need to get our own house in order"

Ironically, the kind of dedicated sustained involvement in party politics is part of what Bernie is
strongly encouraging his supporters to consider doing: at every level. This can only help the
Democratic party with new blood, which is sorely needed judging from the Dem's shallow bench
this Primary season. And if Bernie makes it to the White House, that's exactly what it's going
to take to get anything done inside the DC bubble.

This is just one of the reasons I'm so enthusiastic about Bernie's candidacy is that, win or lose,
it can only help the Democratic party (and maybe the nation) to become truer to it's own claims
to legitimacy, and to more accurately reflect the actual best interests of We the People, rather
than a few hundred billionaires and a handful of establishment insiders and party hacks.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
43. He's more into "coalition politics" and that's a trickier proposition.
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 11:43 AM
Sep 2015

Those libertarians who are showing up at his rallies may applaud enthusiastically, but they may end up pulling the lever for Rand. They share common cause with Sanders from at least one POV, as this libertarian feller makes clear: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/is-bernie-sanders-the-rand-paul-of-the-left/

They might not show up when needed, though. They aren't reliable voters--they have no track record.

Party politics are are different kettle of fish, though--they're more about a platform than a person. The base is known, they know they'll show up with just a little GOTV, and they know that they'll vote the party line. Sure, there's identity politics in the mix, but those reliable, party line Democrats, year in, year out, even when they "hold their nose," are voting for a set of ideals, a bigger thing than the individual on the ballot.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
44. The well-known fact that Bernie is drawing heavily from voters who don't usually vote Democratic
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 02:25 PM
Sep 2015

is one of the main reasons Sanders is obviously the best Democratic nominee for the Party.

He's drawing in disaffected voters, who had totally given up on politics as usual, he's
appealing to the youth demographic who haven't ever been much interested in electoral
politics, he's getting strong support from many independents who don't vote anyone's party-line,
and yes, he's unboutedly also getting the attention of some self-identified "Libertarians" who may
vote for him in Nov, due mostly to Rand Paul's abysmal showing in the polls.

I'm glad you pointed this out, because it's just one more good reason Bernie represents a golden
opportunity for the Democratic Party to dramatically expand its base. As such, Bernie is the Dems
best shot -- by far -- at winning the WH in Nov. 2016. So thank you for the reminder.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
45. He's drawing them to listen to him--but not necessarily vote for him.
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 02:38 PM
Sep 2015

Howard Dean got big crowds too. A lot of those "young voters" either slept through election day, didn't bother registering, or "whatever, man."

And Libertarians and Rand Paul fans do attend Sanders' speeches, in appreciable numbers. I don't think he should count on their votes.

And more to the point, look who he's NOT drawing. You don't go into a community that is thirty percent black and think you're resonating when your audience isn't even ONE percent black. No black people in Greenville could be bothered to show up, even though they're almost a third of the population? They're not interested? Or, the most scurrilous yet oft-repeated charge I've read here--they're "low information voters?" I don't think that's the case--I think he's JUST not resonating, despite the new spokeswoman.

And no one's gonna win without the black and latino vote. That combined demographic holds the keys to the treasure house.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
46. Team Bernie's still got work to do, with Blacks & Latinos, no doubt about that.
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 03:00 PM
Sep 2015

It's happening. Being attacked by BLM on M$M, creating clips to re-run 24/7 on
the evening nooz, certainly didn't help matters, but Bernie & supporters are mostly
undaunted, doing the work needed to get the word out despite that.

We just don't know yet, if it will happen fast enough. Guess we will see.

BTW - Bernie Sanders is no Howard Dean, as others have noticed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/us/politics/similarities-aside-bernie-sanders-isnt-rerunning-howard-deans-2004-race.html

MADem

(135,425 posts)
47. Sanders' "problem" with BLM is no better or worse than any other candidate.
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 04:12 PM
Sep 2015

BLM is not Sanders' "black problem." BLM is the LEAST of his worries.

That's just the element his supporters keep pointing to--angrily--as though a couple of girls in Seattle somehow 'ruined it' for him with the black people.

Bravenak tried to tell people here what his problem was, back when she was a Sanders supporter. The "crew" here would not tolerate any criticism, and they alerted on her until they got rid of her, and they lost her voice and her support, too. Talk about stupid.

Sanders, with all his working man economic policy cure-all/refusal to acknowledge institutional racism is the problem--all by himself. He doesn't resonate with people who KNOW better than he does about the reality of living in non-white skin every moment of their lives. He just doesn't get it, and he doesn't really know how to back up and tack in a new direction. He's stubborn, maybe--doesn't want to admit he's wrong or something. I don't know and I don't really care. The "supporters" of Bernie here are so sure of themselves that there's no point trying to have an intelligent conversation with them about why POC will never migrate to the guy--he just doesn't have it. And without that "it," he's not getting them out to wait in line for four to six hours just to vote.

 

Elmer S. E. Dump

(5,751 posts)
15. I've never seen anyone that thinks Bernie can just wave his hand (you were referring to him,right?)
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:34 AM
Aug 2015

No, no DUer would want or expect that Obama could rule by decree. Silly.

Maybe you need to get reading glasses, in lieu of a civics class.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
19. Maybe you need to read this board more carefully--Obama has spent the last two terms getting
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 10:14 PM
Aug 2015

"the business" here from people who think he should be able to wave his hand and give them things like single payer and a D majority on the Hill.

I can read just fine, I'm not the one who needs glasses.

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
28. When we should accept that we can't change things....
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:29 PM
Aug 2015

we would be so much happier that way.

But I know we aren't going to change either of our minds, so have a great night.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
30. Until Citizens United gets overturned--and that will have to happen in court, not via Congress
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:40 PM
Aug 2015

(they feed at the trough) nothing will change. Pointing out this reality--and not some pipe dreaming shoulda/coulda/woulda stuff-- doesn't merit snark in response.

The next President needs to appoint justices who will push for inclusivity, who will recognize that money is NOT speech (because that means that the poor are muzzled) and then the process may eventually right itself.

I say "MAY" because they'll find another trick, another loophole, to buy elections/gain advantage, and that will have to be closed as well, as well as the next one they dream up....because that's how they play the game.

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
35. Who's snarking?
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 12:27 AM
Sep 2015

If you think that CU, which I view as being the last nail in the coffin of our Democracy, will be over turned before we show that we can over come it... Well, I don't think that you're being very honest with yourself.

And that can only happen if we elect some one who doesn't take advantage of the 'benefits' available to them. But we are going to disagree, aren't we?

MADem

(135,425 posts)
37. Who would that be, who doesn't "take advantage of the benefits?"
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 12:52 AM
Sep 2015

If people want to fire up a SUPER PAC in support of a candidate, that candidate can't do diddly about it. In fact, the key is that there be NO coordination between the super PAC and the candidate.

You don't think there are people at Lockheed who won't "reward" Sanders for backing a piece of shit military aviation platform that explodes on the runway?

This whole "I'm purer than thou" game is just that--a game. The money will still come, even if the "pure" candidate says "Well, 'i' don't authorize that..." Of course they don't. They keep their distance, and someone ELSE authorizes it....but the result is the same.

And if he doesn't take the money? He'll get CRUSHED. Money talks. That's assuming by some miracle he got the nomination, mind you--I don't see that as a likely outcome at all but I discuss it for the sake of argument.

daleanime

(17,796 posts)
38. It's always nice....
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 05:09 AM
Sep 2015

when people answer their own questions.

Leaving me to say for the third time that we are not going to agree, right? Or would agreeing on even that with me be too painful for you?

That's really kind of sad.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
40. I've no idea what you're on about, and that's really kind of sad, I suppose. Or maybe not.
Tue Sep 1, 2015, 11:10 AM
Sep 2015

Seems a bit pointless to go on, in any event.

MADem

(135,425 posts)
49. You're wrapping all that up with how painful and sad you are. This is a discussion board.
Wed Sep 2, 2015, 10:52 PM
Sep 2015

I don't quite grasp the over-investment.

In any event, have a nice day.

blm

(112,920 posts)
5. The media is largely ignorant of it, too.
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 09:26 AM
Aug 2015

Remember how they all acted mystified at Kerry's, "I voted for it before I voted for against it." statement? Well, that was about the standard process.

Yes, he DID first vote FOR a version of the 87b Iraq defense spending bill that was PAID for by canceling the tax cuts for the richest. When the next version of the bill was for 87b in spending that was NOT offset, but, added to the nation's debt, he voted against THAT.

EVERY senator voted for/against the one version or voted for both if they felt it was important to do so.

Lawmakers vote nearly EVERYDAY for or against the first version of a bill. The media chose to run with the GOP narrative that pandered to the ignorance of the everyday citizen.

Sadly, some here at DU jumped on the GOP's media bandwagon and mocked him for it, too. Some still do.

 

Smarmie Doofus

(14,498 posts)
6. He understands enough to know that if you give politicians enough money...
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 09:44 AM
Aug 2015

... they will generally do as they're told.

That's how it always worked for him in NYC and that's how he anticipates it will work in DC.

 

packman

(16,296 posts)
10. I don't think that's an issue
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:16 AM
Aug 2015

What is Congress' rating - last time I checked the integrity and trust rating was lower than a used car salesman. Wouldn't surprise me if Trump and his supporters WANT someone to become a dictator and run roughshod over that inept body . There is no love or trust, I believe , in that branch of the government. He's preaching to the choir who wants change - that is the difference. Reminds one of Rome with the rise of the tyrant and the dictator and the death of the Republic.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
11. I've mentioned it once or twice here
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:24 AM
Aug 2015

as well as to a friend when discussing Trump. It's really frightening. Perhaps the more important thing that's not being brought up is that if he were to be elected President, he would need to work with Congress, regardless of who controls it.

People here have disingenuously pointed to that (the need to work with Congress) as a supposed flaw of Bernie Sanders, because he's been a registered Independent, totally overlooking the fact that he always caucused with the Democrats. If he is elected, along with a very Republican controlled Congress, there are enough Tea Party nutcases who would happily work with him to destroy everything possible. But a lot of what might get passed would be challenged, and the Supreme Court would probably spend most of its time on fast-tracked cases.

And the first time he had a chance to nominate someone to the Supreme Court would be the most amazing circus ever. He wouldn't look for someone with some sort of a reasonable track record and career in law. He'd go for some genuine nut-case, and possibly not even anyone with a law degree.

If it weren't that we'd all have to live with his craziness, it could be fun to watch.

RR2

(87 posts)
12. Two Words.....
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:28 AM
Aug 2015

pRick Scott....Florida, ok so that's three.



Gov. Rick Scott agrees to pay $700,000 to end public records lawsuit

TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Rick Scott has agreed to pay a Tallahassee lawyer $700,000 in taxpayer money to settle seven public records lawsuits alleging he and members of his staff violated state law when they created email accounts to shield their communications from state public records laws and then withheld the documents.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/gov-rick-scott-agrees-to-pay-700000-to-end-public-records-lawsuit/2240461


Gov. Rick Scott vetoes $461M in budget, angering Republicans

"I go through the budget and I try to find out what's best for citizens. This is their money. It's not government money," Scott said. "They're paying taxes, and I'm going to do my best to make sure that money is spent wisely."

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/gov-rick-scott-signs-state-budget-in-private-with-little-notice/2234704

?w=546&h=546

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
13. That isn't unique to Trump.
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:28 AM
Aug 2015

There's tons of promises coming from Republican candidates demonstrating they don't know how the government works either.

Their voters like it, because "manly" or something.

Ford_Prefect

(7,822 posts)
17. The key point is they don't want government to work as it is, they want to destroy it.
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 12:09 PM
Aug 2015

The important assumption here is the Republican trope that the present government is a bad thing and needs to go away. Therefore the better a candidate does attacking "broken" government and institutions, the louder and more incoherent he sings Tea Party anthems, the more passionately he demands that it all be pulled down, the more credible he appears to that extremist movement on the right wing referred to as the Republican Party by MSM talking heads.

Trump is running as the idiocracy candidate and captures that ethos perfectly. If he seemed to know how government actually works he would appear to be enough of an insider that "they" would not believe he can fix what is wrong (whatever that is). He exists in a kind of media made bubble where nothing he says has the context of reality to interfere with how it sounds. He's never been elected to anything and never served under the responsibility to tax payers and voters so he has no past, only the idealized future he keeps promising. He can say almost anything at all without fear his past will compromise him.

One section of the media expects he will run out of steam to be superseded by a more conventional candidate. They can't get enough out of egging him on and don't really care about the potential outcome. We have seen how Palin ran much the same as a candidate.

I don't see how in the larger scheme of things Trump gets from where he is now to the White House. But stranger things have already happened. In 2000 many voted for a village idiot. If the same fools now voted for a full on jack-ass out of spite for the status quo it would not surprise me. The bullshit that true believers profess as faith has never surprised me. My prayer for them is may god bless and keep them far away from all of the rest of us.

napi21

(45,806 posts)
18. He's just saying what those listening to him want to hear. I think he knows "HE" can't
Mon Aug 31, 2015, 12:22 PM
Aug 2015

change the constitution, or force Mexico to pay for a fence, but it SOUNDS GOOD!

I know, I live in Red Georgia, but I was really surprised at how many people support Trump! My neighbor said "I hope he wins! I think he'd make a good Prez." Many of my very educated friends (some engineers & MBAs) support Trump. I don't want to fight with my friends so when they say they really like what he's saying I usually respond "REALLY?"

I'm convinced most voters don't THINK about the logic or mechanics of what promises are made on the campaign trail. The support Trump is getting proves that.

BigDemVoter

(4,149 posts)
50. How true. . .
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:16 AM
Sep 2015

And the idea that we need somebody with an MBA to "run the country like a business" needs to be completely debunked. The country is NOT a business and doesn't operate as such.

Furthermore, I am reminded more and more of how the media coddled that sorry Fuck Bucket, GWB, with ridiculous questions and how they accepted even more asinine responses.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Elephant in the room