What kind of President will Donald Trump be?

Strangely, it can be difficult to determine in advance, what any person will do or become, after first sitting in the Oval Office.

I say, “strangely,” because prior to becoming President or Vice-President, the man or woman receives rather intense vetting by the media, the public, and by the opposition.

Yet, after the election the real person emerges. The pretense ends and under stress of the Presidency, the true essence and fundamental characteristics take over.

Had we known him better, we could have predicted that Harry Truman would become a strong-willed, well-respected President.

Had we known that Dwight Eisenhower reached his power by being a sycophant to those above him, we could have predicted that the “powerful leader” of the combined, allied forces, would prove to be a rather vanilla President.

And given John Kennedy’s family and its moral weaknesses, we might have seen that the great orator would accomplish little, especially when compared to his successor, Lyndon Johnson, perhaps the most productive President since Roosevelt.

And we could have predicted that Johnson’s ego ultimately would destroy his legacy with the ill-conceived Vietnam war.

Richard Nixon surely was predictable. He always was “Tricky Dick.”

Gerald Ford was a sturdy, honest, plain man, who ran a sturdy, honest, plain administration. His essence was there for all to see.

Jimmy Carter, perhaps the weakest President since WWII, was a surprise and disappointment only to those who didn’t know his character, while movie actor, Ronald Reagan, even with his faults, was a pleasant surprise to us if we didn’t know his basic character.

It was in the character of George H. W. Bush to be more effective and wiser than some people anticipated, and “silver-tongue” Bill Clinton was predictably worse than advertised.

But for each, their fundamental character showed through. Situations change, but basic character doesn’t.

George W. Bush was a blithering idiot, and that came as no surprise, but we also should have understood what a liar this draft dodger, he-man pretender was.

Barack Obama was a great liberal hope, though even a cursory examination of his Chicago machine background would have indicated he was a weak-kneed compromiser, more conservative than liberal, willing to do anything for agreement.

He did what his Chicago bosses told him to do, then as President, he did what the wealthy bank executives told him to do. Without someone rich telling him what to do, he was lost.

So, to greater or lesser degree, they all changed, but expectedly, if only we had understood their basic character.

Within each man there was a fundamental — an unchanging essence — that had we understood, we could have foreseen what they were to became.

Which brings us to Donald Trump. What kind of President will he be? What is his essence? What is his basic character?

No mystery.

Because he so often speaks unscripted, we are able to discern the real Donald Trump. He has told us, in so many ways, exactly what he will be.

First, whom has Trump singled out as the one person he admires? He makes no secret of it: Vladimir Putin, the dictator of Russia.

Trump admires Putin’s strength and Putin’s “80% approval rating.” (Remember how Trump loved to talk about his own polling numbers.) Trump considers himself to be a strong man, or rather a strongman, just like Putin.

In true dictatorial style, Trump wishes to build an “iron curtain,” a “beautiful” Berlin wall, around America. Presumably, it would function the same way as the various “walls” Kim Jong Un and his father have built around North Korea.

Dictators love walls, the antithesis of America. Every dictatorship builds strong walls, some to keep people out, some to keep people in, some to do both.

Like dictators Stalin and Hitler, Trump wishes to rid his nation of those he considers undesirable — Muslims, Mexicans, other Latinos, gays.

Like all dictators, Trump is enamored with himself. He plasters his name on everything — buildings, airplanes, businesses. He tries hard to create a “cult of his personality” as did Stalin, Mao, and the Perons.

The Trump Foundation even paid $20,000 of charity money, for a portrait of Trump. (This is charity?) Go to any country ruled by a dictator, and you will see pictures of “The Great Leader” everywhere you go.

Like all dictators, Trump is a thin-skinned egomaniac. Say anything negative about Trump, and you will be subject to a flurry of insulting, even threatening Emails. As President, he will do more than threaten.

Similarly, say something complimentary, and he will reciprocate. He already has said that because Putin speaks well of him, he speaks well of Putin.

Imagine how that would affect international relations. A few kind words could get Trump to agree to anything.

Like most dictators, Trump’s primary appeal is to the less educated, the people who are more susceptible to lies, bluster, and fraud — the people who are more likely to find appeal in bigotry.

And like all dictators, Trump wishes to control the media. He has vowed to widen libel laws, to make suing the media easier. Melania Trump has threatened to sue The Daily Mail, Politico and at least eight other news outlets for defamation.

Trump has barred some media from his speeches, while insulted some media people because they asked questions he didn’t want asked — a dictator’s usual approach to the media.

In any dictatorship, the first freedom to disappear is freedom of the press. Why? Because once the media are under control, the people know only what the dictator wants them to know.

This is why Putin has that “80% approval rating” Trump admires. Kim Jong Un probably has 100% approval.

Imagine what Trump would do without the media asking him embarrassing questions, like why has he not released his promised tax returns (for which he has given at least eight excuses:)
1) He’s being audited
2) As soon as Hillary releases her Emails
3) There are 12,000 pages
4) His financial disclosures more than make up for lack of releasing tax returns
5) The American people don’t care about his tax returns
6) It’s none of your business
7) “I released the most extensive financial review of anybody in the history of politics.”
8) “It would raise too many questions.”

Too many questions?

No dictator would give out his personal, crooked, financial information. Trump follows that lead.

Also, dictators love to demonstrate physical invincibility. No dictator ever gets sick. All are in absolutely perfect health. Putin, for instance, removes his shirt while riding horseback, to demonstrate his virility.

And then there was Mao:

Mao swims in the Yangze

On July 16th, 1966, amidst persistent rumors that he was ill or suffered a heart attack, Mao staged a media event to indicate that he was still vigorous and capable of leading China. It was a swim in the Yangtze River at Wuhan.

The Chinese press spared no adjectives in its account of Mao’s dip; the report said. Mao contested energetically with waves stirred up by 20-mph winds. His cheeks were “glowing” and “ruddy”. Mao “swam with steady strokes”, “cleaved through the waves” and “floated to view the azure sky above.” “Our respected and beloved leader Chairman Mao is in such wonderful health” and “this is the greatest happiness for … revolutionary people throughout the world.”

The international media was more skeptical. Time reported that Mao swam “nearly 15 km in 65 minutes that day–a world-record pace, if true.”

Like dictators Mao and Putin, Trump is in “perfect health.” In fact, he would be “the healthiest individual ever to the presidency.”

We know this, because his doctor, Harold Bornstein (who falsely claims to be a Fellow of the American College of Gastroenterology) jotted a quick note while sitting in a limousine, telling us so.

Now, after pressure from the media, the very same doctor, who admitted he was influenced to write what Trump wanted, — this doctor the public now is expected to believe — has come up with more data to “prove” that a clearly overweight Trump still is the “healthiest individual” ever.

Bottom line: Donald Trump has told us again and again, in many different ways, that he admires dictators and will be a dictator if we elect him.

Should we fail to listen with our own ears and fail to see with our own eyes, what Trump has made obvious, we and our children will join in the misery seen by the people of Russia, China, Argentina, Germany, Italy, Cuba, and other dictatorships.

Yes, friends, it can happen here.

And we will have only ourselves to blame.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing


21 thoughts on “What kind of President will Donald Trump be?

  1. Donald Trump’s Son Just Admitted the Real Reason His Father Won’t Release Tax Returns

    Money, Brad Tuttle September 15, 2016

    Quite clearly, Trump, Jr., is saying that the Trump campaign doesn’t want the media and the American public looking into the Trump finances and business dealings.

    This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Over the summer, Trump told ABC News that the tax rate he pays is “none of your business,” and that he fights “very hard to pay as little tax as possible.”

    Trump has also argued that “there’s nothing to learn” from a person’s tax returns, and that the American people aren’t really interested in them.

    Yet surveys indicate that 62% of Republicans and 74% of all voters say he should release them. What the American public seem to be saying, then, is that if there’s nothing to learn, and if there’s nothing to hide, then why not simply release the tax returns?

    And, of course:

    A new report reveals “almost unheard of” practices at the Donald J. Trump Foundation

    Donald Trump’s namesake foundation has been revealed to be neither particularly charitable, nor much of a traditional foundation. (He) hardly contributes anything to his own nonprofit, which has spent millions on society galas and institutions tied to his family and friends.

    Trump was honored by the Palm Beach Police Foundation for contributing $150,000 to the group, but none of the money came out of his pocket. Instead, Trump solicited the money from the Charles Evans Foundation, which gave his foundation the $150,000 over the previous months.

    Trump may even have profited from the transaction; the police foundation gala was held at Trump’s pricey Mar-a-Lago resort.

    (His) foundation writes few checks each year, and of these, several either raise red flags or appear to be violations of I.R.S. rules. On one occasion the Trump Foundation paid $20,000 for a six-foot-tall portrait of Trump. On another, it reportedly paid $12,000 for a football helmet signed by Tim Tebow.

    Both instances could be classified as examples of “self-dealing” if Trump kept both items, which the Post reports is when members of a charity use its funds to purchase items for themselves. (It is unclear where both items are today.)

    The Trump Foundation also reportedly (paid) for a number of on-air promises Trump made to pay “out of my wallet” while he was the star of NBC’s The Celebrity Apprentice and when the billionaire participated in a contest called “Trump Pays Your Bills!”

    Many of Trump’s other donations, which the Post reports range from about $1,000 to $50,000, go to charities that rent out Trump properties, such as Mar-a-Lago.

    The paper also identified four charities that said they never received the contributions the Trump Foundation said it had donated to them.

    Without seeing Trump’s tax returns, which he has refused to release before the election, it is difficult to further examine the details and extent of his personal charitable giving.

    The Post’s investigation does, however, reveal that the G.O.P. nominee’s foundation operates in an atypical fashion, and seems to unduly benefit its namesake.

    Until Trump releases his returns, that public information provides one of the best portraits available of the billionaire’s financial past.

    Once a con artist, always a con artist. The truth eludes him.

    Before a room full of military veterans, Trump slammed the president of the United States while praising Russia’s.

    Trump cast aside allegations that Putin was responsible for the killings of journalists critical of his regime, saying, “At least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country.”

    Trump was quick to defend Putin while condemning President Barack Obama’s leadership. “I think when he calls me brilliant, I will take the compliment, okay?” Trump said, pointing to the authoritarian leader’s “82 percent approval rating,” referring to a single poll by a Moscow-based organization (and ignoring documented election fraud in Russia).

    Trump then argued that a number of Putin’s widely condemned leadership decisions—such as his invasion of Ukraine and his support for Iran and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad—were tantamount to those of the U.S. president. “Do you want me to start naming some of the things that President Obama does at the same time?” Trump asked.

    Just as Hitler defended Mussolini, and Putin defends al Assad, Trump defends Putin and Putin defends Trump. Why not? A Trump Presdency would weaken America.


  2. Great analysis, Rodger.
    I am now curious to get your perspective on what kind of a president Hillary would make? After all, she is far more likely to be elected than Trump.
    Thank you.


    1. I hope you’re correct.

      She will be mostly right-wing and beholden to the banks, i.e. similar to Obama but far tougher,

      Way more moral than Trump (who isn’t?) and unlikely to be a dictator.

      Unfortunately, she isn’t a liberal.

      Probably will not build a wall, nor eject Mexicans, nor start a Clinton University scam, nor pretend to be charitable with other people’s money, nor refuse to pay workers what they are owed, nor go to bed with Putin..

      Already has shown her tax returns.


  3. It doesn’t seem to matter how hard one criticises Trump, it just makes his candidacy stronger. It’s unique. Clinton stumbles in the path of ever growing criticism, Trump thrives. You couldn’t script it.

    For me Trump’s “like” for Putin is his biggest plus. It means the neocons in Washington will get no support in using Russia as a distraction and demonising Putin is a dangerous game. You’d have to be soft in the head to believe any of the news from the establishment, it’s all so carefully edited.

    Hillary is a willing party to it and will make a very dangerous POTUS. It’s the sort of morass the US and its citizens are getting fed up with. Neither candidate should be POTUS and it seems schemes are afoot to provide alternatives. You should have got wind of it by now.


    1. In the earliest days of democracy, there was a belief that only people who were above average in intelligence would be allowed to vote, the feeling being that stupid people vote stupidly.

      That might be something to consider, now. 🙂


  4. Today’s truly stupid idea from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget..

    One always can rely on the CRFB to promote the truly stupid idea that the federal government can run short of dollars, and you have too many dollars, so the government should reduce the amount of money it sends into the economy.

    It’s a stupid idea that will appeal only to those who do not understand the basic differences between federal financing and state/local financing:

    Explaining Donald Trump’s Penny Plan for Non-Defense Spending

    This plan would gradually reduce the caps on non-defense discretionary (NDD) spending by shrinking them 1 percent per year (as opposed to allowing them to grow roughly with inflation) and doing the same to certain other mandatory non-defense spending.

    By our estimates, applying the Penny Plan to the NDD caps alone would save roughly $630 billion but would shrink the NDD budget by roughly one-quarter within a decade.

    The Penny Plan has been proposed before, including by Representative Connie Mack (R-FL) and Senate Budget Committee Chair Mike Enzi (R-WY) in Congress and by former presidential candidates Ben Carson and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) during the Republican presidential primary.

    The purpose is to reduce what is misnamed the federal “debt” (which in reality is private savings).

    To my knowledge, the CRFB never in its history has explained exactly why the federal debt should be reduced.

    Because the so-called “debt” actually is the total of deposits (i.e. savings) in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank, cutting the “debt” would cut private savings.

    It would be tantamount to a tax increase for middle-income taxpayers.

    If you believe Americans have saved too much money, and your taxes are too low, the be sure to accept what the CRFB tells you.

    The stupidity of CRFB pronouncements would be humorous if they were not so damaging to America,


  5. This surely won’t be published, but here it goes.

    He surely won’t be the president with some sickness nobody has a clue what it could be – but it surely isn’t pneumonia.

    He surely won’t be a president calling people who disagree with him – deplorables.

    He surely won’t be a president docking poor donors for various unauthorized transfers.

    Your idea that Trump will be a dictator is pretty close to marsians landing on earth tonight.


    1. Oh, I’m delighted to publish your comment, which will remain, along with your name, for all to see.

      I agree that we don’t know what sicknesses Mr. Trump has, nor do we know how much he may have cheated on his taxes, nor lied about his charitable giving, nor lied about his wealth, as he has taken great pains to conceal this information. One only can ask, Why the secrecy if there is nothing evil to hide?

      And I agree that he will not call people who disagree with him “deplorables,” as it is doubtful that word is in his lexicon. He prefers much simpler words, as “lowly,” “lightweight,” “weird,” “bad,” “dishonest,” “untalented,” “clowns,” “failing,” “haters,” “loser,” “phony,” “disgrace,” “dumb,” “disgusting,” “hypocrite,” “dummies,”. . . oh the list goes on and on. You can see the literally hundreds of insults he has used HERE

      I agree he won’t dock poor donors for transfers, mostly because I have no Idea what you are talking about. Instead, he will form a Trump University to scam money from poor students, and he will refuse to pay poor laborers and creditors what he owes them, and his Trump Foundation will continue to cheat on its taxes.

      But if ever you have the intellectual curiosity to look into the rise of such dictators as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, Peron, or Mao, you will see an uncanny and frightening similarity to Trump.

      I hope none of us has to experience it. But that depends on the Intelligence of the American voter.


  6. Politicians lie. It goes with the territory. But when one is the worst liar in modern history, it should be noted, and admitted by honest evaluators, don’t you think?

    From an article in the NY Times:

    One metric comes from independent fact-checking websites.

    As of Friday, PolitiFact had found 27 percent of Clinton’s statements that it had looked into were mostly false or worse, compared with 70 percent of Trump’s.

    It said 2 percent of Clinton’s statements it had reviewed were egregious “pants on fire” lies, compared with 19 percent of Trump’s.

    So Trump has nine times the share of flat-out lies as Clinton.

    Likewise, The Washington Post Fact-Checker has awarded its worst ranking, Four Pinocchios, to 16 percent of Clinton’s statements that it checked and to 64 percent of Trump’s.

    “Essentially, Clinton is in the norm for a typical politician,” says Glenn Kessler, who runs Fact-Checker, while Trump “is just off the charts.

    There’s never been anyone like him, at least in the six years I have been doing this.”

    In contrast (to Clinton), Trump is the champ of prevarication.

    You don’t need to go back eight years to find a Trump embellishment; eight minutes is more than sufficient.

    In March, Politico chronicled a week of Trump remarks and found on average one misstatement every five minutes.

    The Huffington Post once chronicled 71 inaccuracies in an hourlong town hall session — more than one a minute.

    You are an honest evaluator, aren’t you.

    Oh, by the way, Clinton has released many years of tax returns and complete medical evaluations. Trump: No tax returns and a phony little medical letter from a doctor who lies about credentials.

    What is your honest evaluation?


    1. You wrote the post and a multitude of others bashing Trump. Yet you haven’t had the time to write one about Clinton – and the way I see it, you won’t.

      But you know what, that may actually be a good thing, it makes you look like the person you really are. A complete biased one sided pony that won’t budge even after being hit with a 10 foot truth pole.

      Are you still glad Trump won the GOP nomination?


  7. Yes, I admit to being biased, though I’m not sure about the “pony” part. I assume that is one of the very few insulting words Trump has not yet used.

    I am one sided, because I consider Donald Trump to be the most dishonest, unqualified, bigoted, dangerous Presidential candidate to arise in my lifetime — and I’m 81 (well past the”pony”stage.)

    I also am biased and one-sided when comparing Trump’s idol, Vladimir Putin to Barack Obama. And I am biased and one sided when comparing the USA to Russia, though Trump seems to disagree with me on both counts.

    To be even-handed when comparing a typical politician (Clinton) to a dishonest, mean-spirited, draft-dodging lout (Trump) would be . . . well, dishonest.

    Yes, I’m still glad Trump won the Republican nomination, because I believe there are more intelligent Americans than damn fools who are brainwashed by a con artist.

    How about you? What do you believe? And what exactly is the “truth pole” about Trump?


    1. I dont agree with alot of what he preaches, but i think he will take the nation in the right direction.

      The best we can expect from Hillary is an Obama, the worst is she sends us into another stupid war while our economy crumbles. Quite honestly, most politicians will wreck the economy thats to the leftists policies they both implement. Trump has advocated for something that only free markets proponents believe in and something that is monumental in fixing the economy. Killing the root cause of all our economic ills, the source of imbalance and corruption – ending the fed.

      Given the hell hole we are currently in, i think Trump will be a godsend.

      I laugh at comments above, you have to be the biggeat hypocrits, everyone, including the media, academia, even the gop is against trump and for Hillary. Trump represents the will of the people.

      Although we’ve been pretty stupid in the past, i think we’ve moved beyond that and a trump win will show a middle finger to the inside enemies of our nation.


        1. Another rubbish set of assumptions. If the US starts or answers a nuclear threat it won’t be with Russia, as he already likes Putin, and vice versa. No, it would have to be with another nuclear power. Take your pick:- Pakistan? India? China?north Korea? France? even Britain? Hillary, on the other hand could easily get embroiled with Russia. So the article is arrant nonsense, pure propaganda which just strengthens Trump’s candidacy.


          1. Which is the arrant nonsense part?

            1. That Trump is ignorant of foreign policy, but thinks he can learn it in and hour?

            2. That Trump would be happy to use nukes on ISIS?

            3. That Trump is willing to use nukes in Europe?

            4. That Trump thinks he knows more than the U.S. generals and would fire half of them?


          2. Yes, that is arrant nonsense but so is the idea that he would start a nuclear war with Russia. I think I said before its the one thing in Trump’s favour. He wouldn’t start a war with Russia. Anyway I believe that what he says is carefully crafted [ask George Lakoff] and has little to do with what as POTUS he will be able to do. It will in fact be down to Congress as to what he can do.
            I understand the lesser evil option of Hillary, it’s just that I am not at all convinced she would be a lesser evil.
            A friend of mine here said he thinks neither will get to be POTUS. Something will happen to make them abandon their candidature and then a reset can be organised, perhaps asking Obama to stay on for while. Who knows?


          1. You are correct that Hillary is a right-winger, as is Obama. Trump is a right winger between 6:00AM and noon, a left winger between noon and 6:00PM, and cheating on his wife and his workers after hours.

            That’s on Mondays.

            On Tuesdays, he reverses the above.

            Notice, that Trump does not object to sucking up to the rich bankers. Perhaps the biggest scandal of the Obama administration is that no banksters have gone to jail — yet Trump says nothing about it. Instead, he focuses on Obama’s citizenship.

            That tells us a great deal.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s