Posts Tagged ‘Donald Trump’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Trump dominates even the Democratic convention

July 28, 2016

The DNC convention should have been all about Hillary. Instead it is becoming all about Trump.

Not unexpectedly, it has been Trump-bashing all week both by Democrat politicians and by the – largely – anti-Trump media. Last night Obama came out strongly in Clinton’s corner and criticised Trump. Michael Bloomberg stated that Hillary was “sane and competent” unlike Trump. Somebody else went down the dubious  “all good girls have abortions” line. and attacked Trump. Harry Reid attacked Trump, Martin O’Malley attacked Trump, Joe Biden attacked Trump. Joe Biden went on to say that “America was already great”. Chris Murphy attacked Donald Trump, Tim Kaine attacked Trump. Michelle Obama attacked Trump and said that “America was the greatest”. Bernie Sanders attacked Trump. Bernie Sanders’ supporters were very unhappy with the DNC and Hillary Clinton, but they too attacked Trump.

Everybody in sight and his pet dog attacked Trump.

Many of the attacks are so contrived or so over-the-top that they can only be counter-productive. The Democrats have effectively handed Trump a full week of attention and publicity on a plate. There’s still another day for the DNC convention to run, but it is quite clear that attacking Donald Trump dominates the proceedings – even more than supporting Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is dominating the media and all attention even at Clinton’s party.

Donald Trump is holding out being “Great Again” as the hope. To counter that by just saying America is “Already Great” could be the strategic blunder of this election.

It has been my theory for over 6 months now that full-frontal attacks on Trump are counter productive. His support feeds and grows on such attacks from the establishment. It is also my theory that to diminish his support requires occupying some of the ground he stands on – not by denying that the ground exists. “Great Again” is what an increasing number of the electorate aspire to. For Michelle Obama to merely claim that “America is the greatest” gives such aspirations no hope at all. Is she really saying to “black live matters” that all is “sweetness and light”? Barack Obama – after 8 years of “where he could but didn’t” – merely asks them to live in hope rather than in fear. For Joe Biden to also say that “America was already great” was a denial of hope for those who live in a depression and keep going only buoyed by their  aspirations for something better.

“Already Great”  smacks of complacency. It gives no room for aspirations. It is likely to be a bad loser against “Great Again”.  It is not what Democrats would like to hear or to acknowledge but “Great Again” is about hope and “Great Already” is about complacency.

The Democrats are turning Trump into the candidate of hope.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Trump dominates even the Democratic convention

Trump can’t do “issues” and Clinton can’t do “mood”

July 24, 2016

It is my observation and experience that logic and rational arguments on the one hand and emotional arguments on the other are like parallel lines which never meet. If logical argument is pitted against emotions, a meeting of minds is not possible, nobody is persuaded and nobody “wins”. It strikes me that the US Presidential election is going to be between one candidate trying to get the electorate to respond to emotions and the other to argument. But it would be wrong to think that an apparently reasoned argument is always more correct or “better” than an emotional one. Intuition, gut-feelings and hunches are often correct and are all essentially examples of “emotional” decision making. Even economic decisions – which one might expect to be very rational – are nearly always trumped by the “mood” in the markets.

Trump may be exaggerating the gloom and doom but nobody in their right minds would argue that all is sweetness and light. And it would seem from the anger and frustration and powerlessness that is abroad among the US electorate, that there is a revolt against the direction that conventional, correct politics has taken the US. I see no other explanation for the “anti-establishment” wave present, not only in the US, but globally. There is electoral capital to be made – globally – by tapping into this “mood” that the wrong path has been followed for far too long.

Now, the US Presidential election is boiling down to be a fight between evoking a “mood” on the one hand against an argued presentation of “issues”. The contrast between the two candidates is stark. Hillary Clinton’s strength does not lie in appealing to emotions to evoke a mood of sweetness and light to counter Trump’s gloom and doom. Donald Trump, however, is not the best person for presenting a rational, argued position on a complex issue.

For the US electorate I think it is going to be a classic stand-off between heart and head, between impulse buying against a purchase based on a cost-benefit analysis. I don’t think that one is necessarily “better” than the other. I have made some impulse buys which were disasters and others which were inspired. In the corporate world I hardly ever made large purchases which were not based on some form of cost-benefit analysis. But I also remember how assumptions were skewed to cover the “intangibles” so that the analysis eventually matched the “gut feeling”. Apparently “reasoned” decisions were actually emotional ones.

Trump can’t do issues – but he can do “mood”. “We should have gone to Mars and not to the Middle East” is all about evoking a mood. “Make America safe again/ proud again / great again” is a naked appeal to return to “the good old days” which only ever exist in the rosy fog of nostalgia. In trying to evoke “mood”, Trump can ignore getting bogged down in policy details at which he is not particularly adept. Clinton on the other hand, may try occasionally to evoke emotions, but that always seems very contrived and could be counter-productive. She will probably be far better off to stick to reasoned argument.

In November it is going to be mood versus issues. Trump can’t do “issues” and Clinton can’t do “mood”. For the US voter it is, I think,  going to be the emotional choice between a high-risk, high-gain Trump or the reasoned choice of a low-risk, low-gain Clinton. Things have crystallised but not changed much since I wrote 3 months ago:

After 8 years of a lack-lustre and indecisive, risk-averse Barack Obama who promised much only to deceive, Hillary Clinton offers “more of the same”. She is as “establishment” as it is possible to be. She represents the safe choice. There is no chance of any kind of greatness, only of a slight improvement or a gentle decline. She removes the possibility of a “high gain” scenario.

But I see two possible outcomes with Donald Trump. The first is that he will be the unmitigated disaster that the media and the politically correct expect. In this scenario, the US will become a harder, more bigoted country, less tolerant of minorities and less compassionate. It will become divisive in domestic affairs and inept and dangerous in its foreign policy. It will become a sin to remain poor. …. The second scenario is that US domestic and foreign policy will become entirely “trade” oriented. International friendships and alliances will have to have a cost-benefit analysis. Public spending and government jobs will be drastically down-sized. Bureaucrats will be subject to performance indicators. It will not be a sin to be rich. The ideological shift will be to “people as they deserve” rather than to “people as they desire”.

Trump versus Clinton

High-risk, high-gain Trump or low-risk, low-gain Clinton

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 1 Comment »

Trump nominated, as the clown trounces the media

July 20, 2016

I never thought he would actually get this far. I took him for a clown to begin with. Later, I remembered that clowns can have hidden depths. There are times in any show when it is time for the clown to come on, and when only a clown will do. He reminded me, from my own experiences, of my first impressions of Laloo Prasad Yadav and my later realisation of the shrewdness and native cunning that Laloo had (still has I suppose). I remembered that Trump was born rich but had indeed made himself much richer. Donald Trump hit a nerve and was perfectly placed – but not I think by design –  to catch and ride an anti-establishment wave. The wave is turning out to be a global phenomenon and may turn into a tsunami.

For 12 months now, he has faced the massed opposition and vilification of the media not only in the US, but globally. The media have been scathing and openly slanderous about Trump. The liberal-left media have been frothing at the mouth in their indignation and have been hard put to find the words to describe their revulsion and disgust (Washington Post, Boston Globe, Huff Post, The Guardian, Der Spiegel …..). The New York Times has been openly hostile but has tried to keep one foot on the fence. Some of the right-wing media have been vitriolic in their opposition (Fox, Red State) while others have pointedly refrained from total opposition and remained neutral (Drudge, Washington Times). Every TV channel in the US has been opposed to Trump.

media vs trump

And yet, Donald Trump is now the official Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US. He was expected to be the first hopeful to drop out. Instead the rivals he has trounced (Bush, Kasich, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, ….) were the cream of the establishment, Republican, heavyweights. Two years ago I though it would be a Clinton-Bush fight. But Jeb Bush was pulverised early on in the competition (and the Bush family are still sulking). It has been a remarkable triumph for Trump considering the unprecedented level of opposition from the media and the political establishment (including the Republican establishment). I have never in my lifetime seen the media so united in their opposition to a candidate. And yet, they have all failed, and failed quite miserably, in their objective to “stop Trump”. The dismal failure of the media is all the more pronounced considering their almost unanimous opposition. Trump has reached and touched and ridden something above and beyond the control of the media. perhaps even beyond their understanding. He has connected with support which actually feeds and grows on the media opposition to him. Every time an establishment figure has castigated Trump, his support has grown. He backtracks on previous statements but never apologises. He makes gaffes which are quickly forgotten. He makes outrageous statements about ridiculous policies and his support does not desert him. It is mood – not issues – that seems to be controlling.

Those who have been particularly outspoken against him are now realising that it might not be such a good idea to completely alienate somebody who could be President in November. President Trump? It still sounds like a fantasy.

The wrong person? Or another Reagan? A catastrophe? Or an inspired choice? But, in the unfolding drama that is the US, it does begin to look like he could be the right clown with the right mood, for the right audience, in the right place, at the right time.

Quick, send in the clowns.
Don’t bother, they’re here.

 

 

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour, Media, Politics, US | Comments Off on Trump nominated, as the clown trounces the media

If “law and order” becomes the dominating issue, Clinton could easily lose

July 18, 2016

Hillary Clinton appears to have a substantial lead over Donald Trump in many polls (though there are some polls which puts them quite close). His uninspiring choice of running mate does not bode well either (for him). But, paradoxically, it is “black lives matter” and the mood it inculcates of it being “open season” on the police, which might give Trump an unbeatable edge.

It is not just in Dallas, or now in Baton Rouge, that policemen (some of them black) are being killed by murderous black men. The LA Times (which is virulently anti-Trump), reports:

When five police officers were killed and nine wounded in an attack during a protest march in Dallas on July 7, it rattled the nation. Ten days later, three officers were killed and three injured in Baton Rouge, La., as they were responding to a call about a suspicious person with an assault rifle.

Between the two attacks, law enforcement officers from Georgia to Michigan were shot in incidents that drew far less attention but have added to the growing sense that it’s a dangerous time to be a cop. With the Dallas shootings, 31 law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty so far this year, compared with 18 officers who had died at this point in 2015, according the statistics from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. 

…… “As we see increases, it becomes very concerning, particularly when you see increases in the cases of the nature of Dallas,” Breul said. “Certainly there is a climate now — and the Dallas case indicates that there is a climate now — that certainly should have police on guard,” he added. 

Supporters of “black lives matter” were not slow in celebration of the deaths and in commending the police killers both after Dallas and after Baton Rouge. (Not unlike the Islamic teenagers celebrating after the terrorist truck attack in Nice). Donald Trump responded immediately and was quick to draw a picture of the break-down of law and order and the lack of leadership. Hillary Clinton, however, took almost 8 hours to respond very cautiously to the Baton Rouge killings. Sarcastic comments suggested she was waiting for her focus group to tell her what to say.

“Immigration” is the issue that has probably helped most – so far – to fuel Trump’s support among those who feel it has gotten out of control. However there is a significant amount of support for the pro-immigration position as well, which accrues – by default – to Hillary Clinton.  “Law and Order” as an issue is different to “immigration”. There is only a “pro” position here. It is not possible to be “against” law and order. If “law and order” becomes a key issue then it becomes the candidates’ credibility to promote “law and order” that count.

And here, I think, Hillary Clinton could lose very heavily. There is no conceivable way she can present herself as being in favour of, or of being able to restore, or even manage “law and order”. It is not so much that Trump will have any more in the way of solutions than blank support of the security forces, but Clinton does not even understand the problem. Her perceived pandering to “black lives matter” means not just zero credibility regarding “law and order”, but actually a huge negative that she must first overcome. Clinton would lose rather than that Trump would win.

Trump’s best chance now to win against Clinton probably depends upon “immigration” and “law and order” becoming the key issues in November. If “law and order” becomes the dominating issue then Clinton will self-destruct.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on If “law and order” becomes the dominating issue, Clinton could easily lose

Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologises to Trump

July 14, 2016

It is untenable for a Supreme Court Justice to support the independence of the judiciary while involving herself in a political, election campaign. I thought she was being exceedingly stupid in coming out with anti-Trump statements but was somewhat amused at the intellectual contortions of the loony-left media (Huffington Post) in trying to justify her outbursts. She was providing the political establishment a perfect excuse for interfering with the judiciary.

But she has finally seen some sense (or has had it pointed out to her) and has apologised (sort of) to Trump:

Reuters: Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg ‘regrets’ Trump criticisms

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Thursday said she regrets making critical comments about Republican presidential contender Donald Trump.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” she said in a statement issued by the court.

Ginsburg, the 83-year-old senior liberal member of the high court, inserted herself into the U.S. presidential election in recent days by making negative remarks about Trump in a series of media interviews. Her earlier remarks prompted criticism from Trump, who said she should resign. In one of a series of Twitter posts, he also said Ginsburg’s “mind is shot.”……..

Legal ethics scholars also questioned Ginsburg’s actions, saying Supreme Court justices should stay out the political fray in order to maintain their judicial integrity. The New York Times and the Washington Post chided Ginsburg in editorial articles.

“Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect,” Ginsburg said.

In a CNN interview posted on Tuesday, Ginsburg called the presumptive Republican nominee “a faker.”

In a separate interview with the New York Times, Ginsburg joked about moving to New Zealand if Trump wins the White House.

Under a code of conduct that federal judges – but not Supreme Court justices – are required to follow, judges are forbidden from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.

image

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologises to Trump

The election is Hillary’s to lose

June 21, 2016

Does Donald Trump really have a chance to win the Presidential election in November? It is – still – improbable but it is not impossible. Both Hillary Clinton and Trump have such high negatives that I suspect this is becoming an election which will be lost by someone rather than be won by anyone.

It is not difficult to imagine blunders by Trump which can increase his negatives. His support is driven by attacks on him perceived to be from the “establishment”. His negatives could multiply quite easily to make him unelectable.

But what could Hillary Clinton do that would increase her negatives? I can think of the following:

  1. Choosing another woman as her VP pick. An all woman ticket will win some but will probably lose more. More importantly it may lose her more support among traditional Democratic, blue collar, and minority groups. Muslims and some of the other ethnic groups who are now for Clinton, would have second thoughts if it was an all-woman ticket.
  2. Go too soft on immigration. Legal immigrants are not at all keen on the too-easy rationalisation and ratification of the status of illegal immigrants. It devalues the effort and hardships they have had to endure and overcome. The problem for Clinton would be that even a small defection – or even abstention – of her assumed “captive voters” could have a major impact on her vote.
  3. No message for the young. Bernie Sanders has enthused some of the young in a way that is alien to Hillary. With no clear message for the young beyond the usual cliches, she could see a large abstention of the millennials. The young voting surge seen in 2008 has peaked and is already on the way down. A lack of any clear and uplifting message would only exacerbate this trend.
  4. Clinton is indicted for emails or Libya or something. Many of Clinton’s negatives are based on her perceived dishonesty and deviousness. A formal indictment will only cement such perceptions and – if serious enough – could even make her unelectable.
  5. Revelations that Hillary “allowed” or “covered-up” Bill’s sexual transgressions. Hillary is already on shaky ground when it comes to her “feminist” credentials. If it is perceived that she actually helped Bill in his predatory behaviour with young women, then she could lose all her support from Republican women voters and and a good chunk of her Democratic female support.
  6. Revelations that the State Department under Hillary actively supported the groups that have now become ISIS. To some extent this is already “out there”. But memos or the like linking, first, US support for these extreme groups in Syria and second, those groups with what is now ISIS, could be debilitating in its own right. It could also provide Trump with some serious ammunition.

It is difficult to see either Clinton or Trump coming with positive messages which command enthusiasm and which can mobilise the electorate in their support. It is quite possible to see them alienate further groups and increase their own negative perceptions such that they mobilise voters only against themselves (#stoptrump or #stopclinton).

It is still a long way to November but it is an election that will, I think, be lost by someone.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on The election is Hillary’s to lose

Could Trump get concessions from the NRA that are beyond Obama and Clinton?

June 16, 2016

It is strange but true that a left-wing government can succeed in implementing an austerity package where a right-wing government cannot. The left leaning government in Greece has implemented austerity measures which would have caused riots if implemented by a conservative administration. Of course there has to be a practical imperative to do so and the apparent betrayal of ideology is excused on the necessity of realpolitik. Similarly right-leaning governments are excused for going against their natural instincts when being heretical. Increasing taxes or increasing public spending can be introduced where a left-leaning government would be critcised for blindly following ideology.

Now it is reported that in the wake of the Orlando massacre, Donald Trump is trying to get the NRA to cooperate in preventing people on watch lists from easily acquiring automatic weapons.

CNBC: Presidential hopeful Donald Trump on Wednesday said he will meet with the leading U.S. gun rights group about preventing people on a government terrorism “watch list” from buying guns, a move that may put pressure on fellow Republicans to enact new gun restrictions following the Orlando massacre. …….

…… The National Rifle Association, a politically influential lobbying group that claims more than 4 million members and has played a key role in thwarting gun control legislation in the U.S. Congress, on May 20 endorsed Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

“I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

Trump last month told an NRA convention that he would protect the constitutional right to bear arms. He accused the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, of wanting to abolish that right, which she says is false. Trump said in a November television interview he would support gun restrictions for someone on a “watch list” who is “an enemy of state.”

Trump NRA

I observe that when the same suggestions have been made by Democrats it invites immediate and instant opposition from the NRA.

But it could be different coming from Trump. The suggestion is basic common sense and unexceptionable. While Paris and Brussels demonstrate that even stringent gun restrictions will not stop terrorists from carrying out their atrocities, it may well make their life a little harder. But for the NRA to take a Democratic suggestion on board is not genetically possible. But accepting a suggestion coming from Trump – who they have endorsed for President – offers both Trump and the NRA a potential win/win. Trump could do with demonstrating his effectiveness in achieving something – even when just a Presidential candidate – which Barack Obama has not been able to do in 8 years with the full range of Presidential powers available to him. The NRA has the possibility of demonstrating their consideration not only of “individual rights” but also of “the national interest”.

So my expectation is that the NRA may well accept restricting gun sales to people on “watch” lists or “no-fly” lists and that Trump will be able to take the credit.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | 3 Comments »

Clinton versus Trump is the Bad versus the Ugly …

June 10, 2016

The Good is nowhere to be seen.

Of course, there may be some good among the bad and what is ugly is not necessarily all bad, but it must be immensely frustrating for US voters that the choice available is as impoverished as it is.

How Presidential candidates appear during the election is not a very good indicator of their performance. Ronald Reagan reduced expectations to those of a bad B-movie script, but ended up changing, and charging up, the mood in the country. Barack Obama raised expectations for all that he said he could but his Presidency has become a litany of all that he could not (did not).

So it is not impossible for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to be great Presidents, but the signs are less than promising.

Still, it should be a fascinating contest with real entertainment value. I hardly watch and am no expert on how Big Brother functions, but my perception is that it is not “niceness” that wins. In fact, my perception is that ugliness is prized. Maybe Trump has shifted the battle to be an ugliness contest and has an advantage. But shrewishness also wins and wins big.

The Ugly Beast versus the Bad Shrew.

The Good is noticeable by its absence.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Politics, US | Comments Off on Clinton versus Trump is the Bad versus the Ugly …

Obama, Clinton, media slam Trump, and Trump support will probably rise

June 2, 2016

This week has seen a concerted, seemingly coordinated, attack by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the establishment press on Trump and Trump University. If my theory, that Trump is riding an anti-establishment wave which feeds on attacks from the establishment, is correct, this will lead to an increase in Trump’s numbers. This will show up in next week’s polls.

The anti-establishment wave could, if fed enough energy by the media attacks on Trump, turn into an anti-establishment tsunami. I find it amazing that the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, HuffPo …. have not picked up on the reality that it is their “over the top” attacks on Trump which are energising and feeding his support. The content of their attacks has become irrelevant. It is their contempt which is creating a magnified reaction. The more the establishment seem to be “ganging up” on him, the greater the reaction. I see an analogy with the vibrational collapse of a bridge when troops march across in step and cause a resonance failure. As media attacks on Trump seem more coordinated, the anti-establishment reaction could reach resonance and become an uncontrollable tsunami.

Obama’s stuttering attack was particularly unconvincing and gives some backing to the suggestion that “Barack Obama as your enemy is equivalent to having a thousand friends”. 

(ISIS might agree. I note that the Iraqi (with US air support) assault on Fallujah has stalled. Massive advance publicity was released about the assault but it has been somewhat less effective than when Syria (with Russian air support) has taken back ISIS strongholds.)

In the meantime Clinton does not seem able to finally kill off Sanders. In line-ups against Trump, Sanders consistently does much better than Clinton. I take this as being consistent with the angry, anti-establishment wave which transcends “left” or “right”.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Media, Politics, US | 2 Comments »

Trump leads — is it a perversion of democracy?

May 24, 2016

Donald Trump leads – just – in the polls and there is some panic. The RCP poll of polls shows Trump leading Clinton for the first time by just 0.2 percentage points (43.4 to 43.2).

Trump leads 22nd May 2016

Trump leads 22nd May 2016

But this support for Trump is not reflected in the US media. Overwhelmingly – and I would guess over 90% – of the main stream media are contemptuous of Trump. The liberal media is filled with anti-Trump vitriol. (These attacks are counter productive and I have written elsewhere of how Trump and the anti-establishment wave he is riding feed on these attacks). The consensus even among my friends – who do reflect the media – is that a Trump victory would be a catastrophe for the US and the world. Trump supporters are considered fools or worse. They are supposed to be the racists and the rednecks and all the stupid and “angry” people.

The US media attacks on Trump show a hint of panic (especially the liberal-left media). They are still missing the point that attacking Trump increases his support. It is only by adopting an anti-establishment stance that some of this support could be siphoned away.

Suppose Trump does win the election. Will the media and the establishment accept the “verdict of the people”? Will they still be extolling the virtues of democracy and universal suffrage where the stupid have as much of a vote as the intelligent? I suspect that Trump will not be as bad a President as people fear. But if he wins, it will be because of the inherently, perverse nature of democracy.

The basic problem is that “universal suffrage” with an “equal vote” for everyone is fundamentally unjust.

……. it is mere existence as an individual that suffices to have an “equal vote”. And if everyone has the vote it is assumed that “democracy” has been attained – as if it were some sort of state of grace.  The only real criterion is that of age, even if some countries still have some other criteria in force. The merit of the individual is irrelevant. Votes can and are bought by promises or by free meals or by money or by a bus-ride. A “bought” or coerced vote weighs as heavy as one that is freely given. (There is nothing wrong in buying or selling votes – the flaw lies in that the seller has a vote equal to that of free elector). A fool has the same vote as a wise man. A large tax contributor is equated to a small tax contributor. Government servants paid for by taxes have the same weight of vote as the tax payers. Priests and politicians have the vote. The behaviour of an individual does not affect his vote. Experience, intelligence, wisdom, competence or criminality are all considered equally irrelevant. A majority vote is considered to be the “will of the people” where “constitutions” are supposed to prevent excesses against minorities. But constitutions are subject to the same majority vote. One hundred and one idiots take precedence over one hundred wiser men. And we inevitably get the politicians that universal suffrage deserves. This democracy and its universal suffrage needs also to be tempered by merit. But meritocracy smacks of elitism and no self-respecting socialist could tolerate that.

Universal Suffrage which ignores merit has led to the Lowest Common Factor becoming what counts and not the Highest Common Multiple that is being sought. And that was not, I think , what Lincoln intended.

Perhaps what is needed is a differential vote. Every one would have a basic vote but extra fractions of a vote could be earned for merit – for intelligence, for service, for wealth creation, … . It is probably time for “democracy” to shift towards a “meritocracy”.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Behaviour, Politics, US | Comments Off on Trump leads — is it a perversion of democracy?

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »