Tag Archives: trump

Why the Electoral College is Relevant Today


Ms. Ginny Stroud

No one cares one bit about the electoral college until they suddenly pivot to extremely caring about the electoral college. That happens around the time a close election teases out the distinction between popular election and the buffer against the masses we call the electoral college.


A common argument against the current system is straightforward: it is in place to prevent the will of the people from overriding the will of the elite. That’s not very democratic now is it? The electoral college  is the inverse of universal suffrage, which is the direction the United States has been heading for most of its existence (slowly). On the one hand, ‘No taxation without representation’ was part of the rationale for the revolution against the English Crown (I know what you’re thinking D.C., sit down and be quiet).

The 15th amendment in 1869 prohibited the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The 19th amendment in 1919 prohibited the denial of the right to vote based on sex. In 1971, the 26th amendment reduced the voting age from 21 to 18, in large part to ensure that draft age men could have a voice.

Yet, don’t forget what Ms. Ginny Stroud, the Civics teacher in Dazed and Confused, reminded her students about July 4th as they finished their last days of school before Summer:

Don’t forget what you’re celebrating and that’s the fact that a bunch of slave-owning aristocratic white males didn’t want to pay their taxes.

And if there’s one thing that slave-owning aristocratic white males wanted, it was to keep their position of being slave-owning aristocratic white males safe. Hence, the electoral college. Or, to put it in a more Hamiltonian manner (from The Mode of Electing the President. From the New York Packet. Friday, March 14, 1788.):

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.

That’s right, don’t convulse the community with extraordinary or violent movements. That’s been one of my primary reasons for being a supporter of Hillary this whole election cycle, because the older I get, the more unsettlingScreen Shot 2016-05-07 at 9.27.53 PM.png a revolution sounds. And this is not because I don’t think that the country could be better. It’s because I also think that it could be a lot worse.

A little taste of what convulsing the community will get you can be had in reading The Economist‘s article ‘Tethered by History’ recounting the failings of the Arab Spring in bringing about change in the middle east. Maybe I’m over-reacting, but the last time I looked, the world economy has yet to find its footing again after the recession beginning in 2008. Fortunately, many of the aftershocks of that quake were dulled by the stabilizing influence of the EU in keeping countries like Greece and Portugal from becoming failed states. After all, nothing puts pressure on a marriage like financial problems.

That all said, the Presidential primaries have been a good, safe place for the parties to work out their own problems and figure out what they believe in.

With that in mind, the greatest good I see coming from the Bernie Sanders Campaign is that it has shown that a substantial portion of Democratic voters are further to the Left than where the Democratic Party has drifted in recent decades. Sanders is a sign to Hillary that moving to the Right, as many Democratic Nominees have done, is not the only way to garner more votes.

The good that I see coming from the Donald Trump Campaign is much the same. The Republican have been moving to the Right and building grassroots support especially amongst social conservatives since the time of Ralph Reed. Ted Cruz was an excellent example of this in the current election cycle, which had nothing but party non-conformists for Republicans to choose from with the exceptions of Rubio and Bush.

The harm of these candidates is that the only way to move the parties was to unmoor the safety lines and push. My only hope is that if either of these outsiders gets into office,  the governmental ground game that has resembled trench warfare for the past decade will continue to spend time doing nothing until we can put saner minds in control again.

Which brings me back to my initial position, that separating the fickle will of the people from the actual reigns of power may be the only thing that keeps the US from turning directly into the tempest. I’ve been accused before of being an elitist when it comes to government, but frankly, it’s because I would much rather have the best person in office than the loudest. Isn’t that what being an elite is about? Not being subject to the wind, but still sensing its influence and understanding what it means?

Just like so many other multiple choice questions, when none of the answers look correct, select the best from what you have. And if you can’t see which is the best available, don’t vote.Cthulhu 2016.jpg


Leave a comment

Posted by on May 7, 2016 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Dunning-Kruger and The Donald: torn between two topics

Like many other things in my life, I was made aware of the Dunning-Kruger Effect from listening to NPR. This time, it was my longest running favorite show, This American Life, that clued me in.

Briefly, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is. The effect gets its name from the authors of the 199 paper, “Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments” by Kruger, Justin; Dunning, David. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 77(6), Dec 1999, 1121-1134

One of the things that Dunning (who was interviewed for the show) said was that the effect had become a ‘meme’ that was often mentioned on twitter. To test this, the show’s producer immediately went online, entered the name of the two authors, and came up with a tweet calling Donald Trump a perfect example of the effect.

Ha! this is gunna be huge!! I can see myself gliding off the rails…

It’s hard to not see Trump as an example of any number of  psychological conditions. In fact, I think that it might be this more than anything that has all of us (even the ones who don’t admit it) fascinated by the Trump spectacle.

And the pool answered,
‘But I loved Narcissus because,
as he lay on my banks and looked down at me,
in the mirror of his eyes I saw ever my own beauty mirrored.’

Of course, merely by saying this, we are all sharing the tongue-in-cheek agreement that we know, for a fact, that The Donald is not at all intelligent. The assumption is not just that he is no better than average, but that he is significantly below average. Which might be going a bit too far. A total moron would have lost all the money he ever got from dad, wouldn’t he? I suspect that we’re all just over compensating for Trump’s own excesses in regard to self-opinion.We react to the narcissist by knocking them down – all the way down.

Again, I’m losing control

The problem is not whether the man is smart or dumb, ignorant or wise. The problem is that we are about to hand the reigns of what is arguably the world’s most powerful country over to an amateur out of frustration that things aren’t going better than they are. Imagine using that same logic in hiring a plumber or electrician for your home. “I’m so sick of all the electrical problems this place is having, I think I’ll hire Brittany Spears to wire my house! She’s rich; she must know what she’s doing.”

While Brittany probably is willing to admit that she doesn’t know anything about electrical work (I’m assuming this is true, but I don’t know), the narcissist finds nothing outside of his ken. See this great article in Vanity Fair where physcologists participate in some armchair sport and analyze Trump’s mind.


From the 1999 paper

Getting back to the Dunning-Kruger effect, I think it’s worth noting that all groups in the data shown here believe that they’ve performed similarly. Dunning seemed to think that this was because the highest quarter was either modest or over estimating of others’ abilities, while the lowest two quarters were simply suffering from the using the same poor analytical skills in assessing themselves as they did in solving text questions.  How much is this just hand-waving to explain why we feel like the children of lake woebegone, all of us: above average?


The Figure 3 data above shows the Effect following examination of grammar ability. Nearly identical data resulted from similar examinations of logic and … humor? Apparently jokes were rated by commedians (in order to establish factual data on humor?) and then the participants were examined as with the other subjects.

Really though. How can you say that someone is incorrect on their ability to recognize funny. The problem I see with that data is that everyone – absolutely everyone, should have said that they scored 100% on that test.


Leave a comment

Posted by on April 28, 2016 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , ,

Why is torture so bad anyway?

Apparently Donald Trump does speak for most Americans, or at least the folks at Unfiltered Patriot would have you think so. The Donald has been taking some heat for expressing his opinions on Torture. “We have to play the game the way they’re playing the game. You’re not going to win if we’re soft and they’re, they have no rules.” He has repeatedly stated that waterboarding is the least of the measures that he would use to extract information from terrorists / enemy combatants. Here Trump is following advice often attributed to Sun Tzu: “To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” However, this quote is a misattribution, appearing nowhere in The Art of War. Probably because it’s a bad idea. Michael Prescott explains why this is so very clearly in his short essay, Becoming your Enemy, where he explains that, “fighting the enemy is what the enemy wants.”

Vladmir Lenin knew this. He is quoted as saying that, “the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.”The blogger, Gowdey, succinctly describes this purpose, and how it realizes the flaw of the ‘Become your Enemy’ quote, in this 2007 Common Sense essay as…

Although terrorism employs violent means, and often uses military weaponry to execute attacks and massacres – the objective of a terrorist act isn’t military victory. In fact, military forces are almost never the target of terrorist attacks. The objective of a terrorist attack is political reaction. The strategy behind such attacks is for them to be the catalyst, direct or indirect, for political change that weakens the enemy.

In classic political/strategic theory, the purpose of terrorism is to create a political psychology of fear and anger that persuades a government to undertake repressive and violent activities against its own populace, gradually losing their support, and eventually causing its own demise.

In the aftermath of the terrible events of terrorism committed on September 11th 2001, President Bush addressed America in a joint session of congress nine days later to voice a response to the attacks. In this response, the President outlined what we knew about Al Qaeda at the time. We knew it was led by Osama bin Laden and that it had been responsible for previous attacks on western targets including, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center, a suicide attack on the USS Cole, and a number of Embassy bombings. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

Then, as if to assure us that the U.S. would not stumble blindly into becoming our enemy, he explained the motive of the terrorists. “They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” He also attempted to quell any potential anti-Islam reactionary response by clarifying that these terrorists, “practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.”

However, three days later, on 14 September 2001, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force, stating:Screen Shot 2016-04-04 at 10.56.40 PM.png

Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

This gave the President what one might arguably call unrestricted right to do anything he (or she) pleases. Furthermore, the only time restriction mentioned is ‘future,’ so, for as long as there exists time, the President maintains these powers.

On 26 October 2001, the President signed the USA Patriot Act, which made a number of changes to U.S. law. Changes were made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978  (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, all for the purpose of loosening restrictions on government agencies that had prevented them from spying on, well, everyone. America had changed. With one (rather large) Act, we ensured that the freedoms that Al Qaeda hated us for were much fewer in number.

Soon came the realization that by fighting a non-governmental, terrorist group, we were in untested waters, and we changed again. This time, we abandoned our position of moral superiority by opening the prison in Guantanamo Bay to house ‘enemy combatants.’

The 1949 Geneva Conventions defined ‘enemy combatants‘ as

Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war.” In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term “enemy state” may be replaced by the more general term “Party to the conflict.”

Of course, it’s hard to say what goes on in Gitmo. However, it was learned that one strategy involved the use of what came to be known as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’ The BBC provides an excellent look into how the US government distinguishes between torture (which it says it does not engage in) and enhanced interrogation (which is just fine).

The exemplar of enhanced interrogation is waterboarding (also see the BBC article above). Arguments about whether waterboarding represents torture or not have gone on for several years now.

On Saturday, 5 March 2016, Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump revisited the discussion saying repeatedly that, as President, he would seek to “broaden” U.S. laws to allow torture, including but not limited to waterboarding. In justification, Trump vowed to “strengthen the laws so that we can better compete” with ISIS‘ brutal tactics. “Did somebody tell ISIS, ‘Look, we’re going to treat your guys well. Will you please do us a favor and treat our guys well?’ They don’t do that. We’re not playing by — we are playing by rules, but they have no rules. It’s very hard to win when that’s the case,” Trump said, adding that the United States’ ban on waterboarding is a sign of weakness.

Providing some clarity, Trump returned to his win/lose view of world politics:

Did somebody tell ISIS, ‘Look, we’re going to treat your guys well. Will you please do us a favor and treat our guys well?’ They don’t do that. We’re not playing by — we are playing by rules, but they have no rules. It’s very hard to win when that’s the case,”

“I think we’ve become very weak and ineffective. I think that’s why we’re not beating ISIS. It’s that mentality… [ISIS] must think we are a little bit on the weak side.”
This brings me back to the Unfiltered Patriot. In reporting the results of a Reuters survey, they find that Americans are actually quite comfortable with the use of torture.
[T]he poll asked respondents if they could justify torture “against suspected terrorists to obtain information about terrorism.” 25% said that such torture was “often” acceptable and another 38% said it was “sometimes” justified. Only 15% of respondents said it was never okay.
More scientific polling on the question by Gallup has found that Americans are not as eager to support torture when they are asked at times other than immediately following an attack.
Screen Shot 2016-04-04 at 11.22.22 PM.png
For a more comprehensive look into how Americans feel about specific acts of torture (relevant to Islamic enemy combatants):
Screen Shot 2016-04-04 at 11.26.17 PM.png
Further, a majority of Americans believe that the U.S. government should abide by the Geneva Conventions – although, at 57%, I find this to be a much smaller majority than I would have hoped for.
Going beyond just the terrorists, Trump has also suggested, “I would be very, very firm with families … Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.”
One last thought (again, from Gallup 2011):
Of 2,482 Americans asked whether violence resulting in the death of civilians is never justified…
Results were broken down by religious affiliations including Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, and atheists.
Screen Shot 2016-04-04 at 11.40.40 PM.png
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 4, 2016 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

OK, let me just say it…

e40c814f113f4d605cef62c3d26f03fa.jpgI would no sooner vote for Donald Trump to be President of the United States than I would the world’s best actor, Keanu Reeves. Sorry, Keanu, you’re just not Presidential material. But I did think you did a good job in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure.

However, tonight, I heard Ted Cruz , in his victory (in Texas) speech, make The Donald sound like a perfectly reasonable candidate. One who pledged to work across the aisle to lead through compromise (by engaging Democrats over appointing Supreme Court Justices), leave the door open to making allies out of long-time enemies (by maintaining the Nuclear Treaty with Iran), who would socialize healthcare in the United States (by making it a single payer system run by the government), and who was just kidding about deporting millions and millions of illegal immigrants (as divulged in a conference with editors of the New York Times).

I was wondering who Cruz was working for. His speech sounded more like an appeal to Democrats to consider voting Republican in order to secure a socially liberal president who was open to negotiation. As the fire began to rage in Teddy’s viscera, he portrayed himself as so far to the right that John Birch might wonder if this guy’s gone too far. He’s socially conservative, religiously conservative, and fiscally conservative. The only thing Ted Cruz doesn’t conserve is fabric in his signature, ‘I’m wearing daddy’s clothes’ fashion statement.

wkxmqf74sxup1efgqjmh.jpgI have to admit that I was shocked when I heard him repeating his oath to put 82,000 government employees out of work ASAP. I’m sure it would save the government money to not have all those extra employees, which might be why he thinks his ‘flat tax’ solution wouldn’t bankrupt the country. Although, I have to wonder if he’s also considering the impact that 1.2 million out of work tax preparers who won’t be paying any personal income tax might have. (IBISWorld estimates a much smaller industry in its report saying that only 290,000 employees work in tax prep). On March 15 of 2015, Cruz suggested that we deport the 82,000 IRS employees to Mexico. Perhaps including the 1.2 million tax preparers might help offset the rise in unemployment and the $10,000,000,000 hole in the GDP.

I didn’t mean to rant about this, but the more I think about what ideas Cruz holds dear, the more I think that he’s an even greater threat to America than The Donald. At least Donald will be creating jobs when his bluster puts the US into open war.

Who am I kidding. The Donald would never take us to war. After all, he was just nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Maybe I can get a job as a riveter.GTY_willow_run_plant_riveter_tk_130731_33x16_1600.jpg


Posted by on March 2, 2016 in Uncategorized


Tags: , ,

A Nasty Spin on the Prisoner’s Dilemma

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have found their way into a sticky position. Each one has the same goal and the same major obstacles. Both men want to be their party’s nominee. Neither one is particularly fond of the other’s politics. And neither of them would be happy with Trump clinching the GOP nomination.

Each one truly sees themselves as a true Republican and wants to steer it in their preferred direction.

For Rubio, that direction is more of a ‘steady-as-she-goes’ course, in line with the ideals of the party leadership, which are consistent with of the party’s past – one might even say, this is a conservative view.

A summary of Rubio’s positions from the PBS Newshour website:

The budget: Balance it. Prioritize defense.

Climate change: It is real. It is not caused by man.

Obamacare: Repeal it. Replace it with tax credits and fewer regulations.

The Internet: Oppose net neutrality.

Immigration: Secure the border, then work towards a legal status and possible path to citizenship. More vetting for refugees.

Social issues: The Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is the law of the land. Ban abortion after 20 weeks. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Taxes: Cut corporate taxes to 25 percent. Reform the tax code. Cap economic regulations.

Cuba: Block the Obama administration’s “normalization”

Iran: Toughen sanctions. Scrap proposed nuclear deal.

Islamic State: Aid local forces in Syria and Iraq.

Cruz points in the direction that the party has been tacking toward for some time, an evangelical christian direction with extreme limits on government.

A summary of Cruz’s positions from the PBS Newshour website:

The Budget and debt: Mandate a balanced budget.

Corporations: End corporate income tax. End some programs like the Export-Import bank and federal subsidies for renewable fuels.

Common Core: End it.

Immigration: Block any current effort that lets undocumented immigrants legally remain in the U.S.

The Internet: Do not tax access to the Internet and block “net neutrality.”

Obamacare: Repeal it.

Social Issues: Only the four states specifically named in the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage must abide by the ruling. In general, states should be allowed to define “marriage.” There should be strict limits on abortion.

Taxes and the IRS: Move toward a flat tax and abolish the IRS.

Iran: Increase and toughen sanctions. End current nuclear talks until Congress approves the outlines of a deal.

Islamic State: Don’t send U.S. ground troops, yet. But use overpowering force otherwise, including “carpet-bombing.”

However, what stares both men in the face is the elephant in the room, Donald Trump. Oddly though, this elephant is only questionably an elephant (i.e. a Republican). What he really is is hard to say. His views don’t exactly put him in the Democratic camp. Because he essentially grew up and lives in a world that is completely unfamiliar to the vast majority of of Americans, his issues really are his own. He simply doesn’t want government to get in the way of his businesses, but recognizes the value of social services.

More importantly that beliefs are the numbers. There’s a lot of unknown there too, but regardless of the details, it is certain that either Rubio or Cruz would be doing better in the polls without the other. Which sets up an interesting take on the prisoner’s dilemma. One in which the decision to be made is, “stay in the race, or drop out?”

Well, you don’t get to be president by dropping out. But, the way things stand now, neither of them is going to get that chance at being president is they both stay in.

So, it’s a prisoner’s dilemma without the possibility of co-operating so both men get what they want.

Their version of the dilemma looks more like this:Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 10.57.43 PM.png


Presumably Super Tuesday will be the day that someone drops out, unfortunately, by waiting for those results, the window of opportunity may already be closed. So, by staying in, they may be ensuring that they both drop out.

To be honest, though, even if Cruz and Rubio can make some sort of deal for the good of their party, Trump would probably come back as a third party candidate  anyway. After all, it’s not really his party anyway.

In the interest of at least some disclosure, my major interest here is just to see the political system work better than it is presently, and even though I’m not a Republican and have never voted for one, I don’t think undermining their party in a possibly existential way is very helpful to the country. And I do agree with Jeb Bush, Trump is the chaos candidate.


Leave a comment

Posted by on February 28, 2016 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Oh, I do love articles that accurately portray Trump

See Trump as Liberace.

It’s brilliant.

And, although I have no problem with Trump being the person he is. I have to say that, like many born-on-third-base-thought-they-hit-a-triple people, I do begrudge him his fortune a bit, but there’s nothing for it. That’s just the world. Do I begrudge tall people for having the benefit of height? Do I begrudge Lucas Don Velour for his health? Sure, but that’s just the way it is – so it’s not really a grudge, just envy on my part.

It’s what he assumes with his wealth that bothers me most. That it makes him better, smarter, classier, H U G E ! !

Because he’s only fooling himself about that – well, he’s fooling a bunch of other white men too, I guess, and Ivana, Marla, and Melania too. But I don’t envy any of them a speck.

I was hoping to play a little game. I’ve gathered a few photographs of home interiors and you have to pick the owner of the house.

1.Screen Shot 2016-01-03 at 10.03.28 AM.png

2.Screen Shot 2016-01-03 at 10.00.38 AM.png3.Screen Shot 2016-01-03 at 10.02.18 AM.png4Screen Shot 2016-01-03 at 10.01.55 AM.png.

5.Screen Shot 2016-01-03 at 10.00.23 AM.png

6.Screen Shot 2016-01-03 at 10.00.33 AM.png

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 3, 2016 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , ,

Trumps Sets a Low Bar; Celebrates Own Greatness

There’s a part of me that is getting worried by Donald Trump’s persistence in the GOP primary race. That same part of me wonders, if he wins, whether this blog entry will be used against me in some dark future.

Then I think back to races past when other candidates were leading in polls (and even in primaries a bit later) around this time in past election years.  Newt Gingrich was certain that his lead was insurmountable for a time in 2011.  Pat Buchanan  won the New Hampshire primary back in 1996. Hillary Clinton won that same primary in 2008 and looked unstoppable. Ron Paul was getting more attention than ever in 2011-early 2012. None of those candidates won the presidency, or even became their party’s nominee.

Politics can be scary, but often times it does actually select for mature, level-headed leaders in the highest offices – seemingly in spite of the process that gets them there. But loud-mouthed, bellicose bullies do have their draw. Palin rode the wave of jingoism all the way to her Party’s vice presidential nomination, for instance, with little more than volume and a message so simplistic it left extra space on a bumper sticker: ‘Drill baby, drill.’

Lately, Trump has let the dogs out by suggesting policies such as mass deportations of ~11 million illegal immigrants, closing our border to Mexico with a massive wall and to Muslims at every port of entry. He’s proposed shutting the internet down because it’s used by terrorists (I wonder if any of them use cell phones?)

In an interview with ‘Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos, Trump was asked: “You’re increasingly being compared to Hitler…Does that give you any pause at all?”

“No, because what I am doing is no different than what FDR — FDR’s solution for Germans, Italians, Japanese, you know, many years ago…This is a president who is highly respected by all…He did the same thing.”

I shouldn’t get myself into this, but I can’t help it…

I could be wrong, but I didn’t think it was internment that made FDR a highly respected president, I thought that had more to do with giving people jobs and building infrastructure.

“I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created.”


“I’ll bring back our jobs, and I’ll bring back our money.”


What about healthcare?

Don’t worry, he’s got health. “I consider my health, stamina and strength one of my greatest assets.” and on Twitter: “As a presidential candidate, I have instructed my long-time doctor to issue, within two weeks, a full medical report-it will show perfection”

What about everyone else. Those of us who weren’t so blessed with perfection?

“We have to repeal Obamacare … it can be replaced with something much better for everybody… much better and much less expensive for people and for the government. “

Any ideas on how to make that happen?

“[W]e can do it.”


This presidency thing is looking easier all the time. It’s amazing no one has managed to do it well before now.


Posted by on December 21, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , ,