Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[mattiasNYC]

Is the media against Trump?  Yes I think it is.

Yes, but for good reason. When you have a president that repeatedly blatantly lies and never, NEVER, takes responsibility for telling those lies - AND - then blames the media for being "fake", then you have  a problem.

Think about it for a second: The president of the most powerful nation on the planet keeps lying straight into the camera, and when "mainstream liberal media" like CNN points out a blatant lie, one that is without question a lie, that same president tries to discredit the media as being biased and spreading "fake" news in general.

Now, ask yourself:

- What would you expect the media to do in such a situation? Stop reporting on his lies? Not respond?

- What do you make of the fact that you are now regurgitating the "media is biased" mantra coming out of conservative spokespeople's mouths?

I watch UK sites very carefully for bias, here is an example from the BBC today  concerning Geert Wilders a Dutch populist politician.

The headline on page 1 says " Dutch populist calls Moroccans scum", which sounds like an outrageous statement.

When you click on it, it changes to  "calls some Moroccans scum".

When you read the details it says "There is a lot of Moroccan scum in Holland who make the streets unsafe,"

Then he emphasizes, "Not all  are  scum".

Now I have no preference for Dutch politicians, it's their business IMO.  But I do object to the media putting a spin on things.

Yes, that is most certainly spin, I absolutely agree. I think two things are curious here: First of all whether or not this politician in question also calls Dutch scum "scum", or if Dutch scum is called something else. I have no idea if that's the case here, but I do know that many populist xenophobic politicians do make a distinction in practice; they refer to those who are of the nations majority ethnicity in one way, yet make it a point to mention the nationality or ethnicity of others despite the crimes being exactly the same. Here in the US you can see that when people keep mentioning how some criminals are black (for example) or Muslim when they commit certain crimes, yet either don't mention people guilty of the same crimes at all when they're not in those categories, or mention them without classifying them according to race or religion.

The other interesting thing to note here is how you place importance on the distinction between a broader category, "Moroccans", versus a more narrow category, "some Moroccans". I find it interesting, because it's diametrically opposed to the argument Israel is making versus UN resolution 242 which tells it to leave areas occupied during the '67 war. Israel's argument is that the term "areas occupied" is actually not automatically including all areas, but only "some" areas. I suppose it's not that much of a contrary line of reasoning though since you think people are ultimately responsible for what their parents did.... if they're Palestinian... which is a different argument...

I have never heard so much resistance to an elected President in my entire life, I think that democracy is suffering in the US in these times.  The last time I saw a media frenzy on this scale was over Princess Diana.

I get the impression that the media are trying to whip up resistance to his administration to try and make it unworkable and his Presidency a failure, this will obviously deny his voters their choice.

The message comes over loud and clear, "you are not fit to choose your President because you don't have a college degree".  Only the Elite can choose Presidents.

I don't care that much for Trump, but I care about the people who voted for him and their democratic rights.

DaveP

Yeah, but again though, you and others keep calling it a "democracy", and then when it doesn't suit some conservatives in the US they point out that it isn't a "democracy" per se, but a republic. And so it bears reminding a couple of things;

1. The majority that voted voted for Clinton, not Trump. And so by any normal standards of the definition of "Democracy" it isn't working. Trump should not have won. Either the majority decides or it does not. That's pretty much what democracy adds up to.

2. if we instead look at the US system as not a democracy the way we Europeans think about it, then the question is what the point is of having an Electoral College. Either it is to discriminate against the masses, along partisan lines. In other words to redraw district lines to get the votes needed for a preferred candidate. Some make that argument, and I think fairly successfully. But even if that's not the case the other reason is to have a trusted minority that cast the final votes on the president, and each jurisdiction with electors get to set their own standards for their behavior. So, these electors in at least some people's eyes are there to protect the nation from a majority electing an unsuitable leader. So if 70% of the people vote for an outspoken nazi for example, the electoral college could dismiss the majority opinion for the good of the nation.

Now, on that last point, you then have to think about this a bit further: Is Trump qualified?

- Zero experience in government
- Multiple business bankruptcies
- Multiple lawsuits, some lost
- Business interests internationally with his own investments managed by his family who is now part of the leadership
- CLEARLY harbors anti-Muslim sentiment, resulting anti-Muslim policies (attempted) in violation of the constitution
- Overtly lies repeatedly
- Accused of sexual crimes
- Bragged about what amounts to sexual crimes

And that's just before he became the president. Then you have to add what has happened since.

And so on. There's in other words a case to be made for him not being qualified to run this nation. You can call that elitism or whatever you want, but there it is nevertheless.

I'd like to add however that there's this curious intellectual disconnect with conservatives where on the one hand there's this anti-intellectual strain, where views such as yours above is espoused, yet on the other hand conservatives cheer the appointment of the elite to regulate industries, supposedly for the good of the nation. So it's great and appropriate that the financial elite regulates finance, or that business elites in general regulate government since it's all about spending, but when it comes to POTUS it's all of a sudden apparently more important that you can have a beer with the guy rather than him having objective qualifications.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Trump is not innocent of using verbal devices to suggest blame without making literal claims. I used to call it painting pictures with words but more like coloring crude pictures with verbal crayons.  :

I'm continuously amazed by the lengths you Trump-voters go to redefine what is just a plain-old lie to something else.

"alternative facts"
"verbal devices"
"coloring crude pictures with verbal crayons"

The reason "the left", "liberals" or "progressives" or whatever you want to call them are sick of conservative Trump-supporters is because of exactly the above. You don't even have the honesty to call a blatant clear lie a "lie".

What does it take for you to acknowledge it?

Heck, just this past week Trump bragged about his electoral votes.

“You said today that you had the biggest electoral margin since Ronald Reagan,” Alexander said, sitting feet from the president. He then began to list recent electoral victories bigger than Trump’s, which include both of Barack Obama’s victories, both of Bill Clinton’s victories and George H.W. Bush’s 1988 victory, all since Reagan.
Key moments from Trump's news conference

White House
Trump unleashes fury after four long weeks

By Josh Dawsey and Alex Isenstadt

“Well, I was talking about Republicans,” Trump said. George H.W. Bush, who was also a Republican, received 426 electoral votes, well above Trump’s 304.

“Why should Americans trust you?” Alexander asked.

Trump said he had just been given the information, seeming to imply he had been given incorrect information.

“It was a substantial victory, you do agree with that?” Trump asked.

“You’re the president,” Alexander responded.

Trump moved on to the next question.

When is a lie a lie? To Trump and his supporters; never.

And if it is, then "everybody lies".

About the funniest thing about the grammy's was to hear rappers and hollywood elite whining the same messages in perfect lock step.

How is that funny?

 

[micaddict]

I watch UK sites very carefully for bias, here is an example from the BBC today  concerning Geert Wilders a Dutch populist politician.

The headline on page 1 says " Dutch populist calls Moroccans scum", which sounds like an outrageous statement.

When you click on it, it changes to  "calls some Moroccans scum".

When you read the details it says "There is a lot of Moroccan scum in Holland who make the streets unsafe,"

Then he emphasizes, "Not all  are  scum".

Now I have no preference for Dutch politicians, it's their business IMO.  But I do object to the media putting a spin on things.

I happen to be Dutch and I can assure you Geert Wilders happily leaves out "some" when he puts down Moroccans in public (and with national media present).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cYhLHNYgEE
Want me to translate it?

But let's forget about him. We have more than enough on our hands here with the other clown.

 

[DaveP]

Yeah, but again though, you and others keep calling it a "democracy", and then when it doesn't suit some conservatives in the US they point out that it isn't a "democracy" per se, but a republic.

I like to keep things simple.  To me a democracy is a "system" where citizens get to vote and they expect the system to deliver.

If it's an electoral college or majority vote, then whatever system it is, must be adhered to.  The democrats lost because too many of their voters were in too few places, the East coast and the West coast, so all those surplus votes were wasted under the present system.

- Zero experience in government
- Multiple business bankruptcies
- Multiple lawsuits, some lost
- Business interests internationally with his own investments managed by his family who is now part of the leadership
- CLEARLY harbors anti-Muslim sentiment, resulting anti-Muslim policies (attempted) in violation of the constitution
- Overtly lies repeatedly
- Accused of sexual crimes
- Bragged about what amounts to sexual crimes

Even with all this undoubted baggage he still won because they hated Hillary more.  That's the message that has to be digested.

DaveP

 

[DaveP]

I happen to be Dutch and I can assure you Geert Wilders happily leaves out "some" when he puts down Moroccans in public (and with national media present).

I have Dutch friends who live in Amsterdam North who keep me informed, so I know what kind of man he is.

I was not trying to defend him, I was showing how even the BBC has its own agenda about who it likes and who it doesn't.
This was never the case a few decades back, they used to be much more impartial and just reported news and facts.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

I like to keep things simple.  To me a democracy is a "system" where citizens get to vote and they expect the system to deliver.

Yeah, and when it doesn't deliver as expected they react. That's simple enough, isn't it? Yet you seem confused or surprised over the reaction.

Even with all this undoubted baggage he still won because they hated Hillary more.  That's the message that has to be digested.

DaveP

No, you're wrong. The message to be digested is that far more people voted for the losing candidate, and now you have an unsuitable person in power. At some point some entity needs to right what is wrong. that's what people like you have to digest.

Now, getting back to your (plural, and including you) rant about the media - Trump just tweeted again after his post-election campaign rally:

(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832708293516632065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!

What does it take for you conservatives to see the dangers of this???

That media is the enemy of the people???? You have GOT to be sh!tt!ng me!!!

Are you not seeing what the rhetoric out of Washington is doing here? The new standard that Trump's administration wants is for Americans to ignore media that is critical of the Trump-team. And by repeating the Trump-mantra that the press is biased and bad you're helping him accomplish that.

Look at it this way:

- Fake news is indeed the enemy of the American people. It is of all people.
- By ignoring, downplaying and re-branding actual lies by the Trump administration you allow him to call those organizations "fake news".

Therefore your stance on what is a lie and what is true and not giving it more importance has a detrimental effect far beyond making the odd liberal feel vindicated. It prepares the population for something far worse than what we're seeing already.

("you" above is sometimes the singular Dave, sometimes "one")

 

[JohnRoberts]

How is that funny?

I guess if I have to explain the joke it isn't funny but I will make allowances.

Rappers cultivate an image of being counter culture, anti-everything, while the hollywood elite think they are the literal definition of what popular culture is. Odd for those two ordinarily disparate groups to be so sympatico.

JR

PS: I will resist asking you for examples of President Trump lying  because I expect a list of factual misstatements that he is prone to make. 
=============
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#StaCon
1. Traditional Definition of Lying
There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others. The dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false statement with the intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there are numerous problems with this definition. It is both too narrow, since it requires falsity, and too broad, since it allows for lying about something other than what is being stated, and lying to someone who is believed to be listening in but who is not being addressed.

The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following: “A lie is a statement made by one who does not believe it with the intention that someone else shall be led to believe it” (Isenberg 1973, 248) (cf. “[lying is] making a statement believed to be false, with the intention of getting another to accept it as true” (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition does not specify the addressee, however. It may be restated as follows:

(L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another person with the intention that the other person believe that statement to be true.
L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there are at least four necessary conditions for lying. First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement condition). Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful (untruthfulness condition). Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to another person (addressee condition). Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to deceive the addressee condition).

These four necessary conditions need to be explained before objections to L1 can be entertained and alternative definitions can be considered.

--- and much much more....

 

[mattiasNYC]

I guess if I have to explain the joke it isn't funny but I will make allowances.

Rappers cultivate an image of being counter culture, anti-everything, while the hollywood elite think they are the literal definition of what popular culture is. Odd for those two ordinarily disparate groups to be so sympatico.

Perhaps it is your perception of them that is incorrect rather than there being this.... "oddity"

PS: I will resist asking you for examples of President Trump lying  because I expect a list of factual misstatements that he is prone to make. 
=============
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/#StaCon
1. Traditional Definition of Lying
There is no universally accepted definition of lying to others. The dictionary definition of lying is “to make a false statement with the intention to deceive” (OED 1989) but there are numerous problems with this definition. It is both too narrow, since it requires falsity, and too broad, since it allows for lying about something other than what is being stated, and lying to someone who is believed to be listening in but who is not being addressed.

The most widely accepted definition of lying is the following: “A lie is a statement made by one who does not believe it with the intention that someone else shall be led to believe it” (Isenberg 1973, 248) (cf. “[lying is] making a statement believed to be false, with the intention of getting another to accept it as true” (Primoratz 1984, 54n2)). This definition does not specify the addressee, however. It may be restated as follows:

(L1) To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another person with the intention that the other person believe that statement to be true.
L1 is the traditional definition of lying. According to L1, there are at least four necessary conditions for lying. First, lying requires that a person make a statement (statement condition). Second, lying requires that the person believe the statement to be false; that is, lying requires that the statement be untruthful (untruthfulness condition). Third, lying requires that the untruthful statement be made to another person (addressee condition). Fourth, lying requires that the person intend that that other person believe the untruthful statement to be true (intention to deceive the addressee condition).

These four necessary conditions need to be explained before objections to L1 can be entertained and alternative definitions can be considered.

--- and much much more....

Remember how you insisted Hillary Clinton was a liar in front of... Congress I believe it was... remember?  I don't recall you parsing things this finely back then. Do you?

And do you realize that as long as you perceive Trump as being both inept and clueless you'll always have this excuse. Regardless of what he says he might not really have had the intent of lying. This will always be true, if you choose for it to be.

And you do choose that. For Trump. For Hillary, not so much.

So much for being non-partisan....

Let's all blame the media instead.

 

[tands]

If it's an electoral college or majority vote, then whatever system it is, must be adhered to.  The democrats lost because too many of their voters were in too few places, the East coast and the West coast, so all those surplus votes were wasted under the present system.

Even with all this undoubted baggage he still won because they hated Hillary more.  That's the message that has to be digested.

No, you're wrong. The message to be digested is that far more people voted for the losing candidate, and now you have an unsuitable person in power. At some point some entity needs to right what is wrong. that's what people like you have to digest.

He's right, it was a fair presidential election, your favored candidate just lost it. You don't get a do over. Serves her right, imo. Poetic justice.

"In some places, the changes were more concentrated. Just three counties flipped from Obama to Trump in the Keystone State — Erie County along the Ohio border, Northampton County in the Allentown suburbs and Luzerne County, where the Wilkes-Barre suburbs. Luzerne saw a 25-point swing from Obama to Trump. Traditionally red counties in Pennsylvania, in particular, saw a massive shift in the margins toward Trump, as well.

But in Wisconsin — the state that ended up putting Trump over the top in the electoral vote early Wednesday morning — 22 counties that had once voted for Obama switched to Trump. Some of those counties — such as Sawyer, Forest and Adams — have some of the highest unemployment rates in the state.

Michigan had 12 counties that went from blue to red, including critical Macomb in the Detroit suburbs and the swing counties of Calhoun and Monroe.

Iowa had a whopping 31 of its 99 counties that went from the Obama column to Trump's. The bellwether county of Cedar, which has picked the winner of every presidential race since 1992, again got it right. Even though Obama carried it by 4 points in 2012, Trump won it by 18 this year."

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502032052/lots-of-people-voted-for-obama-and-trump-heres-where-in-3-charts

 

[mattiasNYC]

He's right, it was a fair presidential election, your favored candidate just lost it. You don't get a do over. Serves her right, imo. Poetic justice.

No he's not right, and neither are you. You're now arguing whether or not it was a fair election according to the rules, and I was disputing something else. Go back and re-read the post.

 

[mattiasNYC]

From Trump's speech in Florida, on the topic of Muslims:

"Here's the bottom line. We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening. We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible. "

Swedish media today is wondering just what happened there that wasn't reported. Apparently Don knows something we Swedes don't.

Or is he misinformed? Again.....

 

[tands]

Yeah, I read that part too, and we're still right, and you're still wrong. The elector system is to equalize the influence of the less populous states with the more populous ones, not to give us an unaccountable elite to change our votes if they don't like the outcome. Without it, the president would be decided by three states, California, New York, and Florida. Hardly democratic, this isn't the (3) united states of america. Are you going to claim less democracy is better some more? Maybe better for you?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Perhaps it is your perception of them that is incorrect rather than there being this.... "oddity"

Remember how you insisted Hillary Clinton was a liar in front of... Congress I believe it was... remember?  I don't recall you parsing things this finely back then. Do you?

After reviewing her testimony I conceded that she didn't blatantly lie. In my judgement she did in fact intend to deceive the public (Benghazi, private server, etc). She just did it very skillfully (as a lawyer and career politician she avoided direct answers to incriminating questioning)... 

Since you brought up that subject again, a recent FOIA document dump from judicial watch found evidence that showed a former administration official admitting the deadly 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack was a "direct breaching attack" and not "under cover of protest." Despite knowing this they continued to push the political cover story to we the people in the (friendly) press that it was a spontaneous demonstration over a hateful video.  Now that is "lying" as I understand the meaning of word, deceiving the public for political advantage. The lowest example was continuing the narrative to the mother of a fallen defender days after the proofs shows they knew better (while Hillary claimed the mother must have "mis-remembered" and the friendly press gave her another pass.   
=======
Trump OTOH is communicating more symbolically (figuratively) than career politicians/lawyers who tend to be more precise and careful with language. While opinions surely vary I do not think the Trump intends to deceive while his puffery can distort numbers and statistics leading to inaccuracy that his detractors leap to characterize as lies. 

And do you realize that as long as you perceive Trump as being both inept and clueless you'll always have this excuse. Regardless of what he says he might not really have had the intent of lying. This will always be true, if you choose for it to be.

And you do choose that. For Trump. For Hillary, not so much.

So much for being non-partisan....

Let's all blame the media instead.

As I tried to explain the pivot to fight with the media is a device to make the democrats less relevant and put media on the defensive.

Trump is far from incompetent but keep underestimating him as he fulfills more of his campaign promises.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

So now it's "symbolism" when Trump says things that aren't true. Trump just said that something terrorism-related just happened in Sweden, and used that to prove how the media isn't reporting events of terrorism. So his evidence that the media isn't reporting what is happening is the media not reporting what is NOT happening.

And this is "symbolism" to you, and not lying?

Do you Trump-supporters have a Thesaurus you peruse to redefine "lie"?

Just admit it: When Trump says something that isn't true you don't have a problem with it. When "they" do the same it's a big big issue, big enough to vote for Trump instead.

And the argument that people who don't like Trump think he is incompetent while ignoring what he is carrying out is a red herring. People are calling him a liar because he is one, and people are also concerned about him carrying out what he said he'd carry out, because he appears to be.

What you people appear to ignore however is how he attempted to ban Muslims (period) in violation of the US constitution, in addition to how you ignore the fact that he's lying continuously, in conjunction with ignoring how he's trying to undermine the media pointing out his lies.

If you don't think it's a potentially huge problem with the media being de-legitimized, the media which has helped us so much in uncovering all the crap that governments have carried out in secret, then you have an issue. We all have. And it starts with accepting that some statements are true and others are lies.

If this keeps up you'll get exactly the society you deserve. One where at best the American people is deeply divided into two camps: The "low-information voters" who support Trump and who dismiss any truths if they don't support Trump, and thus remain ignorant of reality, and the "intellectuals" who actually question the president and the administration exactly because it keeps on lying.

 

[JohnRoberts]

So now it's "symbolism" when Trump says things that aren't true. Trump just said that something terrorism-related just happened in Sweden, and used that to prove how the media isn't reporting events of terrorism. So his evidence that the media isn't reporting what is happening is the media not reporting what is NOT happening.

And this is "symbolism" to you, and not lying?

Do you Trump-supporters have a Thesaurus you peruse to redefine "lie"?

Just admit it: When Trump says something that isn't true you don't have a problem with it. When "they" do the same it's a big big issue, big enough to vote for Trump instead.

And the argument that people who don't like Trump think he is incompetent while ignoring what he is carrying out is a red herring. People are calling him a liar because he is one, and people are also concerned about him carrying out what he said he'd carry out, because he appears to be.

What you people appear to ignore however is how he attempted to ban Muslims (period) in violation of the US constitution, in addition to how you ignore the fact that he's lying continuously, in conjunction with ignoring how he's trying to undermine the media pointing out his lies.

If you don't think it's a potentially huge problem with the media being de-legitimized, the media which has helped us so much in uncovering all the crap that governments have carried out in secret, then you have an issue. We all have. And it starts with accepting that some statements are true and others are lies.

If this keeps up you'll get exactly the society you deserve. One where at best the American people is deeply divided into two camps: The "low-information voters" who support Trump and who dismiss any truths if they don't support Trump, and thus remain ignorant of reality, and the "intellectuals" who actually question the president and the administration exactly because it keeps on lying.

I do not enjoy arguing for sport or entertainment. If you do not understand what I said, I can live with that. If you do not accept what I believe, I can live with that too (in fact I am used to that). 

We have covered this ground before and I have better things to do with my time than respond to "you people" barely veiled ad hominem. .

JR

PS will somebody please argue with mattias so he can rant away and might stop trying to provoke me.

 

[Script]

Watched Don’s (I like that ) first-ever press conference after I had read about it in an article which made me suspect it to have been a total disaster. So I watched it on youtube. Well, much to my surprise, it was not in any way like what the article had ‘promised’. Trump would sure benefit from a crash course in diplomacy though. A course in eloquence, however, would rather be a waste of time cos it's businessman's pride  versus political circus. Anyway, concerning the entire press conference, I had the feeling that overall there was not much content in both the speech and the media questions part.

Trump a Narcissist? I tend to believe so, but so are the majority of musicians, actors, entertainers, you-name-it -- and many of us know how to deal with them. The biggest problem in dealing with Narcissists is that there are constant glitches in communication and even behaviour (the hard cases). So it's not each and every single word and its literal meaning (normative communication works only on paper, if at all), but the 'underlying emotional composition' (for lack of better expressions here). Is that good? Good for a president? So far it doesn't look like it.

Anyway, I'm not referring to political views and an agenda here. But let me add that I'm not a huge fan of Mr. Trumps musical repertoire. Still I am eager to watch this gig.

As for the 'Trump effect' on the markets -- typical trajectory in US presidential election years.
As for 'Trumpenomics' -- well, ask the Japanese how their Abenomics are coming along.
But I sense there is more to come. Will be interesting to also observe the downsides.

 

[JohnRoberts]

As for the 'Trump effect' on the markets -- typical trajectory in US presidential election years.
As for 'Trumpenomics' -- well, ask the Japanese how their Abenomics are coming along.
But I sense there is more to come. Will be interesting to also observe the downsides.

The market feels a little ahead of itself. Coming up with a revenue neutral tax reform may be near impossible.  The border adjustment tax being floated will be painful for entire industries and cost consumers at retail. The theory that the dollar exchange rate will adjust to negate much of it is hard for me to bank on...(it's a theory).

I still have a significant cash position because I expect some market retracement in the near future and want some dry powder to buy low with. Banks and a few others that are interest rate and regulation sensitive have nowhere to go but up so I'm already long and riding this wave of animal spirits cautiously.  I still need to buy some more gold to reach 5% but every time I buy it, it goes down.  ???

It is interesting to see some hedge funds and big dogs (like george soros) taking huge losses from betting that the market would go down (lost $Billions). They could eventually be right but bad timing can be brutal when making leveraged investments (options). I'm not smart enough to run with the big dogs like that.  8) I can't even predict election outcomes.  ;D

JR 

 

[mattiasNYC]

Sorry John, I do not respond to trolling.

If you want to be taken seriously please behave appropriately.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Sorry John, I do not respond to trolling.

If you want to be taken seriously please behave appropriately.

And I thought you didn't have a sense of humor....  ;D ;D

JR

 

[micaddict]

In that last speech I saw a different Trump. Not playing the cool guy. Shouting and sweating, rather. Are Florida winters that hot?
And then he suggests something big and terrible took place in Sweden. But nothing of the sort happened. And he should know.

It's either lunacy or part of some strange "plan". Either way, the really painful aspect is that his supporters keep ignoring or even defending this crap.