Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the last debate he wanted to explain why anchor babies should not be US citizens but he couldn't find the words to articulate what he wanted to say. I don't think he even understands the concepts in the first place. It wasn't until another candidate jumped in(maybe Paul, I can't remember who) that the "jurisdiction" part of the amendment was explained. What a disaster. Trump has the vocabulary of a 6 year old. No wonder he can't memorize all those "Arab names"
For being as bad at this as you claim, he is doing a pretty good job of staying in the lead, isn't he?
I suppose all the rest of the Candidates did memorize all those names? I doubt that vey much. Trump doesn't need to know the names. That's what the CIA is for, to give him what names he needs to know. Being I Real Estate does not require knowing who all these Iranian Clowns are. Anyone that says he should know them now is foolish.
Because the status quo has worked so well, right? We have the middle class disappearing while people in poverty is increasing and the wealthiest are owning more wealth than ever before.
We need a businessman in the White House that is a straight shooter. No more political correctness bull. Straight to the point.
People like Mark Cuban and Carl Icahn are exactly who we need.
While it is indeed true that the middle class disappearing while the wealthiest are owning more wealth than ever before, you are mischaracterizing the cause. It isn't because of government policies, it is a phenomena that is relatively recent - since about 1980 - the undoing of government policies that decreased inequality. It is the same problem the nation had at the beginning of the 20th Century, when the robber barons ruled.
Let me start this off with a chart that’s central to how I think about the big picture, the underlying story of what’s really going on in this country. The chart shows the share of the richest 10% of the American population in total income – an indicator that closely tracks many other measures of economic inequality – over the past 90 years, as estimated by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez.
During the Gilded Age, income remained about as unequally distributed as it had been the late 19th century - or as it is today. Public policy did little to limit extremes of wealth and poverty, mainly because the political dominance of the elite remained intact; the politics of the era, in which working Americans were divided by ethnic and cultural issues, have recognizable parallels with modern politics.
The middle-class society that developed in the late 1930s to the mid 1940s didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart shows, income inequality declined drastically during this period, with working Americans seeing unprecedented gains. The root cause was government policies that encouraged strong unions, a high minimum wage, and a progressive tax system helped limit inequality.
Since the early 1980s, middle class America has unraveled. Union membership dropped sharply, and as it did, so did the share of income that went to workers. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13%, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose about 300%.
Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But the great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change.
In the last three decades, politics was the cause of returning to high income inequality. Over this period - the era of rising inequality was caused by “movement conservatism,” which was designed to unravel the programs created in the New Deal and Great Society. What we don't need is a return to robber baron billionaires, like Mark Cuban and Carl Icahn, running American government policy.
On a scale of 1 to 10, how mad are liberals at the fact that a polictically incorrect celebrity has the support of a gigantic percentage of Americans? I mean, the guys/gals he'll be running against are Joe "Hair Transplant" Biden / "Amtrack Joe" and Hillary "What, Like With a Cloth?" / "Dodged Sniper Fire in Bosnia" Clinton.
This is a serious question. Where on earth do you get this idea? I personally don't know any liberals who are "mad", and I don't know of any liberal pundits who are "mad" about Trump leading the R nomination race.
Ds have little to lose when it comes to Trump. If Trump gets the R base and the R establishment beating each other up, we're good. If he gets the nomination and Kristol follows through with his 3rd-party threat, we're good. If Trump loses the nomination, repudiates his pledge, and follows through with *his* 3rd-party threat, we're good.
If Trump gets the nomination, we have a bombastic buffoon to run against, and we're good. If the unexpected happens, and our nominee really f***s up and Trump wins the presidency, we get a politically easily-maneuverable bombastic buffoon who at least is not a right-wing religious nut and is more centrist, by far, than any of his R competitors.
I don't get why anyone thinks that Ds would be seriously upset by this.
For being as bad at this as you claim, he is doing a pretty good job of staying in the lead, isn't he?
I suppose all the rest of the Candidates did memorize all those names? I doubt that vey much. Trump doesn't need to know the names. That's what the CIA is for, to give him what names he needs to know. Being I Real Estate does not require knowing who all these Iranian Clowns are. Anyone that says he should know them now is foolish.
What Trump is staying in lead is a plurality of Republican primary voters -- or about 4% of the voters. That's about 1% of all voters. It's telling that Republicans disparage President Obama as "an empty suit" but rally to a candidate that specifically says that he doesn't need to know because he'll hire "terrific people."
We all know Trump is being paid by the DNC to embarrass the Republican party.
Nonsense. The GOP has always been able to embarrass itself all on its own.
They've had Mr. 999; Rick Perry who couldn't remember the third department that he would eliminate; Rudy 911, 911, 911; cribnotes on hand Palin, etc., etc.
Please lord let Trump win the republican nomination LOL.
And let us say, Amen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
