If everyone who is pissed off in this country donated $1 dollar to Trump's campaign, he would have enough campaign funds. Those who can do more, should. We have 320 million people in the US, how many of those are poor, dis-enfranchised, individually they can do nothing, but as a group, they do have power.
If everyone who is pissed off in this country donated $1 dollar to Trump's campaign, he would have enough campaign funds. Those who can do more, should. We have 320 million people in the US, how many of those are poor, dis-enfranchised, individually they can do nothing, but as a group, they do have power.
What a waste of a $1.
Would prefer to put a dollar into a street musician's guitar case any day than to give to Trump.
If everyone who is pissed off in this country donated $1 dollar to Trump's campaign, he would have enough campaign funds. Those who can do more, should. We have 320 million people in the US, how many of those are poor, dis-enfranchised, individually they can do nothing, but as a group, they do have power.
If I fell into that category, Trump would be the last person who would get my dollar. Besides, he claims he has billions. Why would he need money from anyone? He wouldn't lie about his wealth and success, would he?
Trump's roaring success (not) in yet another business venture - this one in Scotland. Another example of his hype & rhetoric detached from reality.
He's toast when this gets out. Put fork in him.
Trump's roaring success (not) in yet another business venture - this one in Scotland. Another example of his hype & rhetoric detached from reality.
He's toast when this gets out. Put fork in him.
In other words, you got nothing and cannot defend Trump. Got it. 😛
If everyone who is pissed off in this country donated $1 dollar to Trump's campaign, he would have enough campaign funds. Those who can do more, should. We have 320 million people in the US, how many of those are poor, dis-enfranchised, individually they can do nothing, but as a group, they do have power.
If I fell into that category, Trump would be the last person who would get my dollar. Besides, he claims he has billions. Why would he need money from anyone? He wouldn't lie about his wealth and success, would he?
________________________________________________________________________
At least, unlike Hillary Clinton, he doesn't take campaign contributions from foreign governments that support Islamic Extremist Terrorism and enslave women.
Hillary has to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
Not so amazingly, many of those foreign governments got U.S. weapons deals approved by Hillary Clinton's State Department.
At least, unlike Hillary Clinton, he doesn't take campaign contributions from foreign governments that support Islamic Extremist Terrorism and enslave women.
That may be true if you don't count profits from business operations as contributions. Then again, it may not be true either way. How would you know?
The source data comes from the Clinton Foundation's financial reporting after they re-re-re filed after being caught falsifying the first two reports.
[Edited on 6/28/2016 by Muleman1994]
CNN botches proven fact about Clinton Foundation 1,100 hidden foreign donations
http://www.newstarget.com/2016-06-27-cnn-botches-proven-fact-about-clinton-foundation-1100-hidden-foreign-donations.html
EXCLUSIVE: Cryptic NY Filing Revealed Clinton Foundation Foreign Donations
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/14/exclusive-cryptic-ny-filing-revealed-clinton-foundation-foreign-donations/
Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/clinton-foundation-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations
Clinton attacks foreign government donations, ignores cash given to her foundation
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/clinton-attacks-foreign-government-donations-ignores-cash-given-to-her-foundation.html
""Risk analysts listed Donald Trump, a Donald Trump presidency, as one of the top threats facing the global economy, ahead of terrorism," Clinton said in her speech yesterday. We found this claim to be True."
Truth-o-meter comparison:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
For the math challenged...
Mostly False, False, Pants On Fire for Trump = 77%
Mostly False, False, Pants On Fire for Clinton = 27%
[Edited on 6/29/2016 by gondicar]
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.
LOL...I keep hearing Trump deserves a chance, but when was the last time anyone won a presidential election because they "deserve a chance"? That's a good reason to put the dorky kid in right field in the last inning of a little league game, but it's not much of a reason to vote for a world leader.
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.
LOL...I keep hearing Trump deserves a chance, but when was the last time anyone won a presidential election because they "deserve a chance"? That's a good reason to put the dorky kid in right field in the last inning of a little league game, but it's not much of a reason to vote for a world leader.
X2
Chances are taken at the craps table in Atlantic City at the casinos...at least for those of Trump's casinos that haven't gone bankrupt.
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.
Don't you work for a wall street bank? I understand you have to vote to protect your personal interests, and Too Big to Fail is all in with Hillary, or Jeb for that matter. I bet you were ready to stump for low energy Jebbie too.
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.
Don't you work for a wall street bank? I understand you have to vote to protect your personal interests, and Too Big to Fail is all in with Hillary, or Jeb for that matter. I bet you were ready to stump for low energy Jebbie too.
No way man. I'm totally on the Trump-mobile. I mean, the guy cut his teeth in the private sector. What more could someone like me ask for? Decorum? Statesmanship? Honesty? Pfffft. Overrated.... I too am much more interested in commerce than love of country.
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.
Don't you work for a wall street bank? I understand you have to vote to protect your personal interests, and Too Big to Fail is all in with Hillary, or Jeb for that matter. I bet you were ready to stump for low energy Jebbie too.
No way man. I'm totally on the Trump-mobile. I mean, the guy cut his teeth in the private sector. What more could someone like me ask for? Decorum? Statesmanship? Honesty? Pfffft. Overrated.... I too am much more interested in commerce than love of country.
Once you realize that if we get rid of all the Mexicans and Muslims we'll all have jobs and be happy the choice becomes clear.
None of that matters. He's an outsider who has business experience. He deserves a chance. Truth, smuth.
Don't you work for a wall street bank? I understand you have to vote to protect your personal interests, and Too Big to Fail is all in with Hillary, or Jeb for that matter. I bet you were ready to stump for low energy Jebbie too.
Sorry to disappoint, but I don't work in that industry. My interests are primarily social values, and for that reason I vote for liberal candidates.
Quite frankly, Jeb was a much better candidate on policy issues as a GOP contender than Trump. Trump is a neophyte compared to Jeb on policy. But this is the year of GOP anger so Trump wins the nomination within a very divided party.
Trump is now sparring with the US Chamber of Commerce, typically a stalwart backer of GOP candidates, because they called his economic proposals "dangerous". So, here we have a pro-business lobbying group calling the economic plan of the outsider candidate with business experience "dangerous" despite the fact that our business-savvy contributors here thinks he "deserves a chance" because he supposedly knows how to run a country like a business...very interesting...
Donald Trump tangles with business leaders before Bangor rally
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump fired back at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, saying the nation’s largest business association needed to “fight harder” for American workers, after it issued a scathing criticism of his economic platform.
The Washington-based lobbying group, which represents the nation’s largest corporations and business interests, is typically a reliable backer of Republican policies. But it took issue with Trump’s vocal opposition to international trade deals, calling his proposals “dangerous” ideas that would push the United States into another recession.
Trump struck back on Wednesday, saying the organization needed to “fight harder” for American workers.
“Why would the USChamber be upset by the fact that I want to negotiate better and stronger trade deals or that I want penalties for cheaters?” the wealthy businessman wrote on Twitter.
In speeches on Tuesday, Trump called for renegotiating or scrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, which he called job killer, and reiterated his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership among 12 Pacific Rim countries. He also singled out China’s trade and currency policies for criticism.
The Chamber has consistently backed international trade deals.
The public disagreement between the presumptive Republican nominee and the business group was unusual, one of a series of reminders that Trump still struggles with uniting his party. The Republicans and many business leaders tend to share policy goals and work in lockstep. Many business leaders have also traditionally been big donors to Republican candidates.
But fighting against trade deals has proven successful for Trump among voters concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs.
Peter Navarro, a Trump trade policy adviser, defended the candidate’s position.
“Here’s the central point to understand: The White House has been utterly and completely soft on China’s illegal trade practices,” said Navarro, a professor at the University of California, Irvine. “The status quo is the worst of all possible worlds for the United States.”
Trump, who was slated to speak in Bangor, Maine, later on Wednesday, took criticism for his trade speech from both sides of the political aisle.
In a call organized by Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign, U.S. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, a former businessman and tech entrepreneur, said that while the country needed to do a better job protecting workers, more resources should be put into training them for a new economy.
The Democratic lawmaker criticized Trump’s remarks supporting the British decision to leave the European Union.
“The truth is if you are entrusted with positions of responsibility, words matter, your tone matters, your confidence matters and on all of those indicators Donald Trump has failed the test of tone or tenor for leadership,” Warner said.
Clinton held no public campaign events on Wednesday but did announce she would campaign next week with President Barack Obama for the first time this year.
The presumptive Democratic nominee and Trump are almost certain to face off in the Nov. 8 general election.
(now waiting for muleman aka liar-in-chief to chime in and tell us that the US Chamber of Commerce is a left wing blog in 3, 2, 1...)
[Edited on 6/29/2016 by gondicar]
More on the US Chamber's reaction to the presumptive GOP nominee's speech on trade the other day...
Chamber of Commerce rips Trump's trade speech in real time
As Trump spoke, the organization posted a point-by-point rebuttal on social media.
By Nick Gass
06/28/16 03:18 PM EDT
Updated 06/28/16 04:59 PM EDT
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce answered Donald Trump's trade policy speech on Tuesday by attempting to pick apart the presumptive Republican nominee's policies point by point, engaging in a rapid-fire succession of social media posts hitting him for his opposition to international trade deals.
In a post published before Trump took to the stage at a raw aluminum producer in Monessen, Pennsylvania, the chamber laid out the stakes for trade in both Pennsylvania and in Ohio. (The Republican is set to hold a rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio later Tuesday evening.)
"Trade is no panacea. Some workers lose their jobs to international competition, just as technological change and shifting consumer tastes regularly put some manufacturers out of business," wrote John G. Murphy, the chamber's senior vice president for international policy. "It’s appropriate for the federal government to provide these workers with training and transition assistance — and of a better quality than current federal programs."
"But contrary to rumor, the benefits of trade greatly outweigh the costs," Murphy wrote. "In fact, trade has been a lifeline for many more workers in Pennsylvania and Ohio — especially in the wake of the recession."
During Trump's address, Murphy tweeted, "US companies invest abroad to tap cheap labor? Actually ... " sharing a link to a Chamber LinkedIn article headlined "The 10 Most Overlooked Facts About International Investment."
The Chamber then shared another one of Murphy's articles from May, titled "The NAFTA the Candidates Haven't Met," following up with multiple tweets touting the benefits of the trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.
[Edited on 6/29/2016 by gondicar]
http://www.vice.com/read/trump-economic-plan-is-wrong
Donald Trump Is an Incoherent Leftist When It Comes to Free Trade
By Harry Cheadle
Senior Editor
June 29, 2016
On Tuesday, Donald Trump stood before a backdrop of compacted aluminum in Monessen, Pennsylvania, and did what he does best: explain to people why they should be mad as hell.
"The legacy of Pennsylvania steelworkers lives in the bridges, railways and skyscrapers that make up our great American landscape," he told the crowd, mostly reading from prepared remarks. "But our workers' loyalty was repaid with betrayal. Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization—moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas. Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy—I hate to say it, but I used to be one. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache."
Trump's xenophobic immigration policies, hawkish bluster, and healthcare "reforms" are mostly in line with traditional GOP thinking. But on economic issues, the subject of his latest speech, he's impossible to pin down, speaking about left-wing ideas in the language of the right, pushing back on the free trade consensus that has dominated both parties for years.
His basic narrative, repeated Tuesday, is that America is losing because countries like China engage in "unfair" trade practices like currency manipulation and subsidized goods, saddling the US with an $800 billion trade deficit (in other words, America imports $800 billion more in goods than it exports). Trump's answer involves threatening China, imposing tariffs, and renegotiating—and potentially withdrawing from—NAFTA.
Economics is a notoriously contentious field, but there's one blanket statement few economists would object to: Trump is very, very wrong about a lot of stuff. Rob Scott, the director of trade and manufacturing at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank whose work Trump cited on Tuesday, agrees that globalization has caused problems for workers, but doesn't concur with the candidate's solutions.
"Like a drive-by shooting, he fires enough bullets, he's going to hit some things that might look like a policy that works," Scott told VICE. "But it doesn't have a coherence."
"The problem with NAFTA is that we failed to effectively help Mexico develop as part of the agreement," Scott continued. A good model, he said, was what wealthier European nations did for their neighbors like Greece and Spain decades ago, pumping money into their economies to create new markets for goods, thus making a pan-European economy possible.
"We could create such a vision and implement a truly united North American economy that worked for everybody but nobody's put that on the table," he said. "Certainly Trump is not talking about that—he's talking about building walls."
Joshua Meltzer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, had other problems with Trump's speech. For one, Trump "completely misunderstands what the trade deficit means for the US economy." Exporting more than you import isn't a sign of economic health—for instance, Japan has a trade surplus, and "no one would say Japan has a strong economy."
Meltzer and Scott disagree about many topics that Trump touched on, including the benefits of globalization—but neither of them thought much of the politician's plans.
Meltzer thinks that on a basic level, Trump doesn't understand how trade deals like the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) work. "He's got this very simple, zero-sum game of trade," he said. "His view is that some countries have to win and some countries have to lose. He's incapable of understanding that trade negotiations are a win-win for all parties, that the US is better off if these other countries are also doing well."
Trump seems oddly fixated on trade negotiations as a way to improve the economy, which doesn't really make sense according to Scott, and the Republican candidate's preference for bilateral trade deals over multi-country arrangements like TPP is similarly confusing.
"I have to intuit what he's trying to say there," said Scott, "but my guess is that he thinks that somehow he as a person, as a negotiator, could have more leverage dealing one-on-one with individual countries and could get more out of them than if he had to deal with 11 countries at once."
Some things Trump says are just flat wrong, like his contention that the US is "one of the most highest-taxed nations in the world" or the notion that politicians have done "nothing" about cheap steel being dumped on US markets (in fact, Chinese steelmakers have been punished with tariffs). Maybe strangest of all, Trump insisted that "the TPP creates a new international commission that makes decisions the American people can't veto."
"The TPP would not establish any kind of organization," Meltzer said.
But voters, unlike economists, don't pay attention to the wonkish details of speeches. Trump isn't a brainy candidate—you have to go a couple feet down to find the body parts he appeals to—and on a basic level, it's not exactly wrong to say that elites have gotten rich as the manufacturing middle class that sustained American cities died off. It's just weird that a Republican is saying it.
Since Bill Clinton decided to support NAFTA, which had already been endorsed by the GOP, after taking office in 1993, the two parties have mostly agreed that free trade is good, with most of the opposition to it coming from the left. But Trump's success shows that the Republican blue-collar base is open to his kind of anti-globalization talk—even as pro-business GOP pillars like the Chamber of Commerce publicly denounce it.
Trump's ideas are echoed in plenty of other places. Bernie Sanders sounded some of the same notes in a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday, writing that, "We need to fundamentally reject our 'free trade' policies and move to fair trade." Even Hillary Clinton, maybe pressured by Sanders's strong support among liberal voters, has seemingly abandoned the TPP, though it remains to be seen what she'll actually do if and when she becomes president.
For that matter, it's unclear what Trump would be willing or able to do if he were sitting in the Oval Office, especially since a lot of what he proposes, including tariffs, would have to be passed by Congress. The white men Trump was appealing to in Pennsylvania may like what he said, but what about the white men in Congress?
"In the 2012 election, Romney complained about currency manipulation from China. And Obama complained about currency manipulation," Scott said. "The problem is that when they get in office, we've not had leaders of either party who have been able or willing to put together effective trade and manufacturing policies to rebuild the manufacturing sector."
Billionaire GOP Donor Says Trump Could Create ‘Widespread Global Depression’
The Never Trump movement is still going strong.
Shane Ferro
Business Reporter, The Huffington Post
06/29/2016 04:11 pm ET
A Wall Street billionaire thinks a Donald Trump presidency could spell doom for the global economy.
Paul Singer, who runs the hedge fund Elliott Management and has been a big GOP donor in the past, told a crowd at the Aspen Ideas Festival that he wasn’t very impressed with Trump’s economic policy positions, according to CNBC.
“The most impactful of the economic policies that I recall him coming out for are these anti-trade policies. And I think if he actually stuck to those policies and gets elected president, it’s close to a guarantee of a global depression, widespread global depression,” he said.
Trump laid out his economic policy plans in a speech in Pennsylvania on Tuesday. He said he would renegotiate all the country’s trade deals, and hinted at a trade war with China.
Singer has been a big supporter of the “Never Trump” movement, and was a big supporter of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio before Rubio dropped out of the Republican primary race. Singer and Trump have been slinging insults at each other throughout the campaign.
Don’t mistake Singer for a Hillary Clinton supporter, though. Apparently he told the room he is considering voting for himself as a write-in. (While he is not a politician, he does have some foreign policy experience: his hedge fund once seized one of Argentina’s naval vessels.)
Some buyers remorse setting in already, or has it always been this way?
2 Months After Donald Trump Clinched the Nomination, Half of Republicans Want Someone Else
There was little positive news for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in a Fox News poll released Wednesday night.
Not only is the bombastic billionaire trailing presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, 38% to 44% — a 7-point drop since the last Fox News poll in May, but more than half of GOP primary voters would rather have someone else as their nominee.
Trump's support among Republicans has also dropped since May, with 74% of Republicans saying they support him over Clinton. That figure is down from 82% last month, after he wrapped up the Republican nomination on May 3.
A whopping 83% of voters also described Trump as "obnoxious," while 89% said he is "hot headed" — two attributes not usually associated with a commander in chief.
Clinton, on the other hand, has the support of 83% of Democrats. But the poll showed she has work to do to win over supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders — only 66% of whom said they are backing Clinton.
Eighty-two percent of voters view Clinton as "intelligent," while 77% describe her as "experienced."
But Clinton is struggling to earn voters' trust, with only 30% saying she's "honest and trustworthy."
"While our polling shows a clear positive trend for Clinton, her 6-point lead is notably small considering voters almost universally think Trump is hot-headed and obnoxious, and most think he's inexperienced," Chris Anderson, one of the conductors of the poll, told Fox News.
[Edited on 6/30/2016 by gondicar]
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
Thursday, June 30, 2016
The tables have turned in this week’s White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Thursday, June 30, 2016
The tables have turned in this week’s White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Rasmussen has a poor track record in presidential polls. They ranked 20th out of 23 pollsters in 2012 with a heavy bias towards Republicans.
Just sayin'
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch Thursday, June 30, 2016
The tables have turned in this week’s White House Watch. After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Rasmussen has a poor track record in presidential polls. They ranked 20th out of 23 pollsters in 2012 with a heavy bias towards Republicans.
Just sayin'
It is also the only organization that has Trump ahead in a national poll...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Column: On trade, Donald Trump is an encyclopedia of error
By Steve Chapman•Contact Reporter
June 29, 2016, 4:02 PM
Donald Trump is not a professor, but for years he will be yielding insights to every student of economics. His Tuesday address on trade did a masterful job of combining antiquated fallacies with misinformation and ignorance to create an encyclopedia of error. Instructors have never had so much free help constructing their lesson plans.
The vision Trump conjures is one of alluring simplicity. He promises to achieve "economic independence" by abandoning globalization, instead using American workers to produce American goods. This change, he said, would "create massive numbers of jobs" and "make America wealthy again."
It's a scam, skillfully pitched to fool the gullible. His framework is a house of cards built on sand in a wind tunnel. Its most noticeable feature is a total divorce from basic economic realities.
He scoffs at those who warn he would start a trade war. "We already have a trade war, and we're losing, badly," he said. But what he objects to is everyday global commerce, which is not a form of war. It's a form of peaceful cooperation for mutual advantage.
In a war, the Japanese drop bombs on Pearl Harbor that we don't want. In trade, they sell us TV sets and cars that we do want. See the difference?
In war, both sides lose, because their people get killed. In trade, buyers and sellers in each country win — which is why they trade with each other. What's true of individual consumers and producers is also true of nations.
Trump, however, thinks our economic troubles stem from the destruction of manufacturing production and employment, which he blames on foreign competitors. He's wrong on every point of this addled argument.
In the first place, the expansion of manufacturing jobs is not synonymous with prosperity. As countries grow richer, manufacturing's share of employment declines. South Korea, singled out by Trump for killing American jobs, has seen it shrink by nearly half since 1991. Japan and Germany have followed a similar path.
But U.S. manufacturing output is 54 percent higher today than in 1994 and 27 percent higher than in 2001. Those years are pertinent because 1994 was the year NAFTA took effect and 2001 is the year China gained entry to the World Trade Organization — events Trump portrays as catastrophic for American industry.
Manufacturing jobs have vanished not because we don't manufacture anything but because companies have learned to produce more goods with fewer people. Higher productivity is what eliminated most of the jobs Trump mourns. He's no more capable of restoring them than he is of bringing back the dodo.
"NAFTA was the worst trade deal in the history of this country," he exclaimed. But he gives no sign of knowing what it actually did.
The main provision was removing import duties among the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Before, the average tariff on Mexican goods coming here was 4.3 percent — while the average tariff on U.S. goods going there was 12.4 percent.
So under NAFTA, Mexico had to cut its import duties much more than we cut ours. Even by Trump's logic, how could that have been bad for Americans?
Trump would have us believe that producers abroad succeed only because they have a free hand to cheat. "When subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the politicians have proven ... they do nothing," he charged.
Wrong again. At the moment, the U.S. government is punishing allegedly unfair trade practices with special duties on 338 different imports — nearly half of them steel products.
Blaming Mexico and China for the fate of our steel industry is like blaming email for the decline of telegrams. The biggest reduction in steel jobs came before the globalization of the past two decades. The number fell from 450,000 to 210,000 in the 1980s.
The total today is about 150,000. Even if Trump could manage the impossible feat of doubling the number of steelmaking jobs, it would be a blip in the overall economy — which adds more jobs than that every month.
All he would achieve by putting up trade barriers, imposing tariffs and treating our trading partners as enemies is to inflate the cost of imported goods — which would lower the living standard of every American household.
A Trump presidency would be useful for economists because it would serve to refute his misconceptions about trade — just as a massive mudslide in Los Angeles is useful to physicists in dramatizing the power of gravity. But everyone else is advised to flee.
Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board
None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world. The connection is null and void but folks just won't let go of it even though it's intellectually lazy nonsense.
None of that matters. He's an outsider with business experience. He deserves a chance to be the leader of the free world despite his woeful ignorance of the world. The connection is null and void but folks just won't let go of it even though it's intellectually lazy nonsense.
That should have been Trump's campaign slogan: "He deserves a chance." Almost as good as Kinky's slogan:
