Donald Trump

[Willie71]

Time warner is the 7th largest donor for Clinton's campaign. Time Warner owns CNN. CNN has been very pro Hillary and dismissive or outright negative regarding Sanders. The Daily News interview was a total hatchet job. The owner of the Daily News would personally lose 100 million per year with Sanders tax proposals, or 400 million over one term. I read the interview, and sanders could have been a bit more direct, but all of his answers were correct. You wouldn't get that from the media summary, would you. The interview was fact checked and the fact check said Sanders was correct.

 

In 2015 Sanders got a total of 10 minutes coverage by the major networks. He was basically ignored. Look at the breakdown of the coverage which was reported recently. Trump got almost 2 billion in free coverage. Sanders now has the equivalent of 300 million. Clinton was in between, but I don't remember exactly where she was. By any objective measure, Sanders has not been treated equally by the media.

 

Chris Matthews wife is a politician, and they have many shared donors. Notice the difference in how Matthews interviews Sanders, and how he interviews Clinton? Have you seen how Matthews treats Sanders surrogates? It's an embarrassing conflict of interest.

 

The coverage would be quite funny if they had to disclose donors or conflicts of interest. The feel of the reporting would be very different.

 

Don't forget that Chelsea Clinton is on the board of Directors for the daily beast. Look at their coverage of Sanders. At one point 16 negative Sanders articles in a 24h period. This is an absolute embarrassment to journalistic standards.

 

Outside of new media, the first I saw of the mainstream media treating Sanders legitimately was strangely a couple weeks ago on Morning Joe. They spent 20 minutes discussing Sanders following, and how he is a legitimate contender.

 

Sanders is nip or likely to win the nomination simply because of the math. There would need to be a lot of "ifs" happening for him to come out on top. The biggest hurdle us the closed primary structure. This disenfranchises independents and youth inexperienced with the electoral system. It favours the status quo, and it does so on purpose.

@Overtone, I like Sanders. I prefer him to Clinton. He is better on the issues. However that doesn't I must believe he has been mistreated. You are claiming media attention is the reason why Clinton has received two in a half million more votes in the primary? No one has received more media attention than Trump and Clinton has received over a million more votes than Trump.

 

Sanders is actually doing worse than his share of the delegates implies. Sanders has received a larger share of delegates than he has votes.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/

 

As for the media and Clinton Nate Silver did an analysis back in Sept showing that Clinton had spent the whole summer in a negative media feedback loop that drove her poll numbers and likability down. In my opinion you are not being honest about the way the media has handled Clinton. She has not been done any favors.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-is-in-a-self-reinforcing-funk/

The vote tally is simply bad math. Sanders did better in caucuses than primaries. Caucuses have much lower turnout just by their nature. Correcting for the app,Es to oranges comparison, scaling the caucus numbers to be equivalent to primaries, Clinton is ahead bu about a million votes. She's still ahead, but the gap isn't as big, and the delegate math is about right. 538 has been very pro Clinton. They have a bias. 538 list my respect with a few of their op eds, including the one you listed. Clinton is winning, you don't need to embellish it. Just stick to the facts.

[EdEarl]

Doonsberry's "Trump Brand Insults."

http://doonesbury.washingtonpost.com/strip/archive/2016/04/17#mutable

The cartoon is in a format not allowed on this site. I think Doonsberry has made a good caricature of Trump.

Edited April 18, 2016 by EdEarl

[Ten oz]

@Willie71, I like Sanders over Clinton but disagree with what you're suggesting. I think you are allowing your passion to get the better of you a bit.

 

1 - media coverage via cable news does not direct impact votes. If it did Trump would have already won the GOP nomination long ago. With the amount of coverage he gets he'd be unstoppable. Yet Trump is coming up short in the primary and isn't competitive for the general.

 

2 - The average cable news viewer is not Sanders demographic. "CNN’s median viewer age was 61 compared to 67 for Fox. But in primetime the difference was starker; CNN’s average was 59 while FoxNews averaged 68." http://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-oldest-tv-news-audience-cnn-youngest-in-2015/

 

3 - This is 2016; media is consumed al la carte. Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, and etc all know my preferences and give my the headlines they assume I would be most interested in based on my habits. If I or anyone else wants info about Bernies it is at our finger types 24/7. Separately I do not believe any member of this forum has been moved to support a specific candidate based on What Anderson Cooper or Rachel Maddow has had to say. If you are not swayed by CNN why assume millions of others would be? I think that is a rather cynical thought.

 

 

There is not a direct link between media coverage and votes, cable media has a old audience that isn't Sanders demo, and we all pick and choose which media we consume. You are assuming that a few extra stories from Chris Mathews or whomever would change anything in the Democratic primary but there is no logical reason to assume that is the case. I understand being fustrated that a candidate you like isn't getting the type of coverage you may wish but the coverage isn't what is determining his support. The coverage isn't why I like him. Maybe Sanders has reached his peak? This is the level of support he has and it simply isn't enough. Extra mentions on the Today Show won't change anything. What percentage of Sanders supporters do you think still even watch live TV? Seriously, One tweet from Trump gets more views than the tonight shows get ratings. This is 2016. We all consume the media of our choosing and the media pushes out whatever stories people are hungry for.

 

You are also exaggerating how helpful the media has been to Clinton. Everyone in the whole country is aware of her email "scandal". And that is just a plane as day partisan attack. We all are all aware of her role in Benghazi, we all know Bill slept around, she had made millions giving speeches, she voted for the war in Iraq, and etc,etc, etc. It is not like her negatives are hidden from view and the media is endorsing her all day every day. A lot of her headlines are about things I am sure she'd rather just go away.

[Willie71]

Ten Oz, I agree with what you are posting, but I think it's more complex. When looking at the voting break down by age, you see older people, watching cable news voting for Clinton, and new media viewers voting for Sanders. You can certainly break each demographic down from there, but this is the most consistent split. This seems like clear evidence that media definitely influences elections.

 

In American politics, the candidate with the most money usually wins. Presidential elections have a lower correlation for this than local elections, but it's still there. Money buys ads, staff, and an effective campaign schedule. These all affect outcomes. Is it the only variable? No, of course not, but it's important.

 

Right wing media has been very hard on Clinton. I agree with that. She will have trouble with any segment of the republican electorate because of that. MSNBC and CNN have been pretty darned good to her, and until recently for MSNBC, very hard on sanders. I've been watching the media influence for a while. It's interesting to me. I actually was considering the influence of media for my masters thesis. I'll likely go with visual spatial learning, or rural community engagement instead.

 

I don't see sanders peaked. He keeps polling better and better as time goes on. It's likely too late to make up the deficit, but I'm hoping for the upset. I'm realistic about his chance though. It's gotten to the point that the latest New York polls have been exposed in only calling democratic regions she won the largest margins in 2008. Anyplace she got less than 60% wasn't polled. Unbelievable. Manufacturing consent.

 

Trump is a perfect example of media influence. In spite of all the negatives, he has amassed a large amount of support. Without the free coverage, where would he be?

[Ten oz]

@ Willie71, do older people that watch CNN support Hillary because CNN is nice to Hillary or vice versa? If we take a look at the demographics going back in every general elections all the way to LBJ what do we see; minorities and young people vote Democrat while whites and older folks vote Republican. If take a look at the demographic break down of the 1988 election and compare it directly to the 2012 election by plus or minus a couple of points Dukakis did identical to Obama and Bush did identical to Romney. 1988 was before the influence of Foxnews, MSNBC, and the internet. http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/

 

A few headlines don't move the needle. If headlines and media coverage did move the needle we'd see more variation in how people vote election after election. Instead there are consistant and predictable trends. Politics is like religion. People are raised on political ideology. More Sanders coverage on CNN isn't going to make a 70yr old democrats, who specifically watches CNN over Foxnews because they support Clinton, go out and vote for Sanders. People consume the media they want. They are on the couch watching CNN for a reason. Seriously would you ever watch CNN to learn something new or to better inform yourself about anything?

 

Sanders does have his supporters in the media. Bill Maher has nice things to say are Sanders every show, Thom Hartmann's show has become unapologetic Sanders campaign programming. Sanders supporters have taken to protesting Trump events and media outlets all of which have been covered. And of course Foxnews and conservatve media in general boast about how good Sanders is doing every chance they get. It is April going on May do you really think at this point Sanders issue is that voters don't realize he's out there? By nature primary voters are more political. Most people in the U.S. will never vote in a primary a single time in their lives. If you are voting in the Democratic primary this year I think you have already known who your horse was for a long while.

 

Trump has gotten 2 billion dollars in free coverage and he still can't get the delegates he needs. That is proof headlines aren't enough. Foxnews, talk radio, Drudgereport, and etc have been giving Republicans free air time to the tune of billions for over a decade yet The GOP hasn't been able to enhance their position. To the contrary the GOP has shrunk. People vote the way they vote. You and I didn't learn about Sanders from CNN. Cable news isn't where people go to figure which side they are on it is where they go when they have already chosen a side.

[Willie71]

Fair enough. All good points. I disagree with a bit of it, but in the grey areas.

 

I agree that at this point, people know who Sanders is, especially after New York. It might have made a difference early on, but informed voters know what is up now.

[Ten oz]

Fair enough. All good points. I disagree with a bit of it, but in the grey areas.

 

I agree that at this point, people know who Sanders is, especially after New York. It might have made a difference early on, but informed voters know what is up now.

What do you think happens with Sanders support? He has done so well that I don't believe Clinton can get thenomination and just move right. However because both Clinton and Sanders are older than normal I don't know if them together on a ticket makes any sense. Perhaps that is a bit of ageism on my part? How do you think it plays out?

 

Same question for Trump. I have felt all along that Trump would fail to get the needed delegates .However the GOP have failed to find a reasonable alternative. Cruz is not well like by the majority of Republicans either. Is there a path to the nomination for Trump if he can work out a deal with Kasich, Rubio, or Cruz? Or do you think the GOP will just replace the field with someone else (Ryan, Romney, etc) and then lose this thing will some dignity in an attempt to not tarnish the brand any further?

[MigL]

Forget about the Republicans, at this point they are a joke.

Ten oz is right, they may have to scrap the lot of them and parachute someone else in.

They'll still lose ( badly ), but may save face.

 

A lot of democrats ( and people in general ) remember Bill's tenure in the White House, as good times ( people tend to forget the problems ). No Americans were getting killed overseas ( shot down, but rescued, over Kosovo ), people had employment, government deficits were trending down, etc.

All these people are now 20 yrs older.

Is it any wonder that older demographics favor a return of the 'Clinton years' ?

 

II like a lot of B Sanders policies ( he could be a Canadian Conservative ) and would personally vote for him ( if I could ), but I don't think he has a chance.

Hillary is known to be more to the right, and that may help her work with some Republicans.

And if she were to choose Sanders as a running mate, that may soften her image to Democrats and progressives.

Hopefully she can be a 'bridge' to co-operation.

 

That being said, Canadian elections and campaigns usually last 2-3 months.

American ones, because of the nomination process, last up to 2 years !

So there's still time for 'strange things' to happen.

[Willie71]

What do you think happens with Sanders support? He has done so well that I don't believe Clinton can get thenomination and just move right. However because both Clinton and Sanders are older than normal I don't know if them together on a ticket makes any sense. Perhaps that is a bit of ageism on my part? How do you think it plays out?

 

Same question for Trump. I have felt all along that Trump would fail to get the needed delegates .However the GOP have failed to find a reasonable alternative. Cruz is not well like by the majority of Republicans either. Is there a path to the nomination for Trump if he can work out a deal with Kasich, Rubio, or Cruz? Or do you think the GOP will just replace the field with someone else (Ryan, Romney, etc) and then lose this thing will some dignity in an attempt to not tarnish the brand any further?

I think the democrats are facing a similar problem as the republicans are. In economic terms, democrats are right wing, but socially they are progressive. I think Sanders supporters want center left economic policy, and voting Clinton is not consistent with that. I think Sanders supporters would see a sanders Clinton ticket as selling out. It's ideologically inconsistent. Sanders supporters know Clinton's shaky history inside and out.

 

My gut feeling is that whoever wins the general, Clinton, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, will implement a shift to the right economically, and be more hawkish, resulting in massive disillusionment on the American left. There is no reason to think that Clinton will, or even could govern left of where she has thus far.

 

If Clinton is the president, it will probably be only one term, handing the next 8 to the republicans, unless there is a strong populist challenger in 2020. She will not likely govern to her campaign promises. Wealth inequality will grow, and the allegiance to her donors will become transparent, especially if there is another Wall Street crash. If one of the republicans wins, it will only be one term, handing the next 8 years to the democrats. The clown car has no business trying to run a school council, let alone a country. That would be an obvious disaster. This is assuming there isn't a new left wing party formed.

 

There are increasing protests, democracy spring, wolf pac, the massive Sanders rallies. These are showing momentum. A few years ago, there was Occupy Wall Street, but the movement wasn't part of a bigger movement. Add Black Lives Matter, and the escalating outrage over election fraud, the movements are converging, and Sanders has provided a focal point. All that needs to happen is Elizabeth Warren to take the helm, or a young guy like Canova in 2020. The republicans will likely find some charismatic "outsider" as well.

 

For the Republicans, I think they go with Kasich. A recent poll show him beating Clinton, but only one that I've seen. I'm not confident that Clinton could win a general against Trump, or Kasich. Cruz is a loser in any scenario. Clinton doesn't do well with independents, moderate republicans, and only has the support of 1/2 of the mainstream democrats. Many will vote for her anyway, but Kasich doesn't seem so negative unless you dig.

[Ten oz]

@ MigL, I think to an extend people are so caught up in how much they dislike Trump and Cruz and the media over exposure of the GOP primary that they over estimate the likelihood of either actually winning in the general election. Never mind their polling numbers vs Clinton or Sanders; historically failure of a candidate to capture the needed delegates to win a primary has lead to defeat. It happened to the Democrats in 1968 and the GOP in 1976. On top of that more people in the U.S. identify as Democrat. http://www.pewresearch.org/data-trend/political-attitudes/party-identification/

 

Unpopular GOP candidates that even conservatives are rejecting, at a time when most in the country indentify as the opposing party (Democrat), and coming off a successful 8yr Democratic President with positive job approval numbers equals the GOP at a huge disadvantage this year. More over the GOP has not done one thing to grow their base this election season. Rather Cruz and Trump have shrunken the base.

 

To have a shot at the 2018 mid-terms and the 2020 general the GOP need to ensure they don't do any permanent damage. As a demographic Blacks vote Demiocrat over at about 90%. The GOP lost them with the Southern Stategy trading them away for George Wallace supporters. In the last 20yrs Latinos have gone from around 55% to now 70% Democrat. Too many GOP candidates are trading latino support away by complaining about immigrants and Mexico. The GOP can not afford to completely lose any shot at Latinos (fastest grow demographic) the way they have blacks and expect to win any future elections. In my opinion whomever their nominee is this year need to back pedal hard and basically campaign of a reform platform of steering the GOP in a new direction. Lose on a positive message rather than crash and burn on hatred and anger.

@ Willie71,

I do not disagree with anything you said (perhap the bit about 2020). However I think it is importatnt to manange expectations. The President is not all powerful. With the best intentions in the world there are very real limits on what can be done. Some progressives feel let down by Obama yet Obama faced the most partisan and uncooperate Congress in the history of this country. Our system is set up where Congress writes law and control spending. Many of the things people want on both side (left and right) fall in the wheel house of Congress and their state leadership. I think we (society in general) are too fixated on the President. We owe it to our conscious and beliefs to support the right people at every level rather than expect a messiah who can come along and deliver us massive change all at once.

 

I like Sanders and would happily vote for him. However I do not believe his ability to accomplish a progessive agenda will fair any more successful than Clinton. Politics is a team sport and ultimately everyone puts there hands on the ball: Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, Governors, Mayors, circuit courts, and etc. There is a finite amount of change that can happen. Abondoning Clinton out of fustration would be to cut off one's nose to spite their face.

 

You can't fire a cannon accurately from an unstable base.If nothing else at least Clinton won't put federalist society members on the courts. That is a big deal. Once the supreme court and circuit courts are rid of partisan conservative judges we can see a lot of bad law over turned.We can't stop the clown cars without the courts. Some progressive changes must happen at the state level, some in the courts, others in Congress, and yes some in the White House. Sanders supporters should not have a White House our bust mentality.

 

I would prefer Sanders to Clinton but will not be angry or fustrated is Clinton is the next president. She will nominate good judges and that alone is huge. Will she start her battles far to the left as Sanders would, no. But I think what she will end up be able to squeeze out of Congress will essential be that same. Where a negotiation begins matters but so does every participants line in the sand. If someones absolute limit is 5 it doesn't matter is you start negotiating at 20 or a hundred. The most you'll get is five. The GOP have shown they will hurt this country for partisan cause.

[Willie71]

I think the media is ignoring the massive support from independents and Millenials who are showing up in very large numbers. A 74 year old socialist gets more people to a rally than a charismatic first black president hopeful? I think Sanders has a better shot at motivating grassroots for downticket elections. With that movement, Sanders' plans are more doable than Clinton's if she doesn't swing congress. Clinton has an enthusiasm problem. It seems to me it matters less to the oligarchy if it's Clinton or Cruz in maintaining the status quo. What is important is preventing Sanders, and to a lesser extent Trump from overturning the apple cart.

 

It seems they are playing the short game to keep the established powers where they are. Sanders is not one of them in any way other than being to the left of the republicans.

[Ten oz]

I think the media is ignoring the massive support from independents and Millenials who are showing up in very large numbers. A 74 year old socialist gets more people to a rally than a charismatic first black president hopeful? I think Sanders has a better shot at motivating grassroots for downticket elections. With that movement, Sanders' plans are more doable than Clinton's if she doesn't swing congress. Clinton has an enthusiasm problem. It seems to me it matters less to the oligarchy if it's Clinton or Cruz in maintaining the status quo. What is important is preventing Sanders, and to a lesser extent Trump from overturning the apple cart.

 

It seems they are playing the short game to keep the established powers where they are. Sanders is not one of them in any way other than being to the left of the republicans.

Obama won the primary. Getting people to rallies is not the measure of success in an election.

 

Downticket is what really matters. Imagine what Obama my have done with 10 people akin to Sanders in the senate? I am glad young people are taking an interest but the white house should not be the fixation. We have so many Governors, Senators, and Congress members who are terrible it is beyond belief. Hyper fixation he white house alone is what allows them to get into office. Palin was the Governor of a state!!!! How did that happen?

[Willie71]

Obama won the primary. Getting people to rallies is not the measure of success in an election.

 

Downticket is what really matters. Imagine what Obama my have done with 10 people akin to Sanders in the senate? I am glad young people are taking an interest but the white house should not be the fixation. We have so many Governors, Senators, and Congress members who are terrible it is beyond belief. Hyper fixation he white house alone is what allows them to get into office. Palin was the Governor of a state!!!! How did that happen?

Obama gave up on his supporters and did the pro corporate dance. Not to mention the republicans were outraged with a black man in office. Of course the rallies don't translate to election results, but think for a minute if those young voters could have voted for Sanders in New York. His campaign has been built on the idea that the presidency isn't enough, and that people need to stay involved in local, state, and mid term elections, he's speaking a new political language. We won't know how successful he would have been, since he won't get the nomination. As an aside, Clinton had 2000 supporters show up for an event today, and was interrupted by protesters several times. It's a far cry from inspiring.

[Ten oz]

Obama gave up on his supporters and did the pro corporate dance. Not to mention the republicans were outraged with a black man in office. Of course the rallies don't translate to election results, but think for a minute if those young voters could have voted for Sanders in New York. His campaign has been built on the idea that the presidency isn't enough, and that people need to stay involved in local, state, and mid term elections, he's speaking a new political language. We won't know how successful he would have been, since he won't get the nomination. As an aside, Clinton had 2000 supporters show up for an event today, and was interrupted by protesters several times. It's a far cry from inspiring.

This message does not require Sanders to win the primary.

As for Obama; he did as much as is possible considering the record level of partisan obstruction. Powerful as hope and change or any another message is people still often vote their hatred and fears. Parts of this country will always (forseeeable future) elect conservatives. As a result there will always be multiple levels of government working against itself. Right now I am sure many feel this same way on the right. That various leaders have let them down by not being conservative enough. That if they could just elect Trump he would be so successful and we'd finally get a wall, and kill all terrorists, and etc. It is not realistic. Trump would not be able to do any of the stuff he campaigns on. Congress, courts, and states would shut him down. For us to get further left (or right) we need it to start locally and move up. It won't work from the top down. A President is always confined to the common ground that exist when they come into office.

[Bill Angel]

Not sure how to interpret this - but Trump got more votes in Nevada yesterday than were cast in 2012, and 50% more than Romney got in winning in 2008.

 

In general elections Democrats win when more people turn out to vote - I wonder if the parallel is that the non-traditional win in primaries when more people make the effort

Yesterday in each of the primaries that they both won, Donald Trump got a percentage of the vote comparable to what Hillary Clinton got, but Hillary Clinton got the greater number of votes. This would suggest that Clinton will beat Trump in the general election in each of those states.

[Willie71]

Yesterday in each of the primaries that they both won, Donald Trump got a percentage of the vote comparable to what Hillary Clinton got, but Hillary Clinton got the greater number of votes. This would suggest that Clinton will beat Trump in the general election in each of those states.

In closed primaries, independents are ignored, as are voters who would vote contrary to their party affiliations.

[Ten oz]

Trump has won 39% of the popular vote and 27 states in the GOP primary. For some perspective the last 3 GOP presidential candidates(Reagan, Bush, and Bush) that went on to win the general all won at least 60% of the popular and 42 states in their primaries. Trump is the weakest GOP front runner in modern history.

[iNow]

Ted Cruz just suspended his presidential campaign after losing in Indiana.

[imatfaal]

After months of pundits telling us that Trump couldn't win the nomination, of members here being categorical that it was a passing phase and that trump would be easily overhauled once the race sorted itself out, of being informed that the gop grandees would not tolerate trump, and that it was gonna be Bush, no Rubio, no Cruz...

 

We are now at a situation were these same pundit and funnily enough same members of SFN are confidently saying (presuming his nomination is ratified etc) that he is already as good as beaten in the Presidential election.

 

Wake up America. Unless you want to be represented by a Head of State that most people wouldn't piss on if he were burning, an arrogant narcissist, a racist demagogue, a duplicitous bully - then you need to understand that a huge portion of your country feels (possibly wrongly - but more likely correctly) that they have been sidelined by the present political process. Trump has cleverly (and quite wrongly) convinced these political impoverished that he is their man. Trump has carried the game with those who can be bothered to get out and vote in the primaries - these are a self-selecting group who tend to be more politically active. Come the presidential election we will see the result of the decision making of a larger and different self-selecting group - those who can be bothered to vote in the Presidential election. The primary-voting group tends on average to be more politically involved than the general-voting group - this is not good news...

 

Situation normal will not suffice - the usual discourse has been subverted and joe public needs to be convinced though greater engagement, education, and involvement that state and federal governments can be a source of good for the nation and for them individually.

[Phi for All]

Does anyone know percentages on how many Republicans who don't like Trump will vote for him anyway if he gets the nomination? I know waitforufo declared just that, that he didn't like the man or agree with him on most points, but would have to vote the party ticket if he's nominated.

 

I'd like to think it's a small number. I'd like to think nobody at all would do such an obviously self-defeating thing. Following the letter of a process while pissing all over the spirit of it is just massively ass-backwards.

 

The big worry, of course, is that now the Daffy (sorry, Donald) swerves to the middle and picks up voters who thought he was only a bit over the top. The campaign will be looking for anything that gives on-the-fence Republicans justification for casting a Daffy vote, and defending Daffy principles they were demonizing only months before.

 

We're in the grip of a conservative fever over here. People are very afraid and they're not bothering to educate themselves, or look rationally at the problems we face. They're being emotional about decisions based on their fear, and it's forcing them to make really bad choices (and they're just following the Republican leadership - can you believe they're going to miss the chance to have a decent appointee to the SCOTUS in favor of who Hillary or Daffy might choose?). And the incredible amounts of campaign money being thrown at them in the form of advertising is sick-making in a country where so many are underprivileged, and hurting just to keep their homes, and their families fed.

 

It's been pretty clear that corporate political influence has ruined our social systems, starving programs that don't help the wealthy directly. Why anyone thinks Daffy will change that is beyond me. He's so much a part of the dodgy, legalized corruption our political arrangement with corporate influence has fostered. "Sinister" is the best single word to describe him. Bad evil things will happen on his watch, and they'll likely make him a LOT of money.

[dimreepr]

And with Daffy's fixation about going public with his personal worth, he'll no doubt be bragging about it.

[Phi for All]

And with Daffy's fixation about going public with his personal worth, he'll no doubt be bragging about it.

 

The profit he'll make serving Trump steaks and Trump wine at White House functions alone makes me cringe. Along with a rebranding of the presidential china service.

[dimreepr]

After he banned the kebabs...

[iNow]

...Unless you want to be represented by a Head of State that most people wouldn't piss on if he were burning...

Quick point of clarification: I'd be happy to piss on him if he weren't on fire. Just want to make that clear.

[Phi for All]

Quick point of clarification: I'd be happy to piss on him if he weren't on fire. Just want to make that clear.

 

The more Scotch you consume beforehand, the higher the probability you could achieve both goals.