Will Donald Trump's Run for President Help or Hurt America?

1. 86

   My Esotericposted 8 years ago

   Obviously, I have my views, but I leave this as an open-ended question.  There is no question he has become a lightening rod and has stirred great controversy in America, and now around the world.  Is that good or bad?  Does what he is saying from his platform as a serious contender for the Republican nominee for President of the United States have lasting impact, good or bad, on 1) relations in general with other nations and 2) the war against Daesh.  Does his rhetoric make America palpably more or less safe, or does it have any affect at all?
   
   What do you think?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think Trump will become President even if he can wrangle the nomination out of the GOP. He will go independent and like Perot split the vote making it impossible to beat Hillary. By offending the Hispanic vote and with the Independents votes to be counted he doesn't have a chance. Part of me wants him to win although I wouldn't vote for him because it could be quite interesting. I would rather see Kasich or Pataki get the nomination even though they are establishment candidates and I still think Hillary will crush them.

      replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Heard a comment on TV last night from the news station that a lot of people, who may or may not like Trump, DO like that he speaks his mind.  He "tells it like it is". 
      
      If nothing else, maybe his try will help put an end to the endless PC rhetoric we are required to use today.  They aren't "undocumented immigrants"; they are "illegal aliens".  They aren't "vertically challenged"; they are "short".  They aren't "socially forgotten"; they are delinquents.
      
      If we could get rid of the garbage cluttering and obfuscating our language even Trump might be worth it.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         That would be great, Wilderness, if most of what Trump said was the truth or had substance.  I like Sanders for the same reason, he is straight forward, but I won't vote for him because many of his policies are too far Left for me.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            The latest on who is lying the most from Politifact:
            
            * Of 25 recent statements checked, Carson was adjudged Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire in 82% of them and True or Mostly True 4%
            The rest are from over 70 recent statements
            * Similarly, Trump makes up or embellishes his facts 76% of the time, and is Truthful a whopping 7%
            * Cruz lies or embellishes 66% of the time, but tells the truth 22% of the time
            * Rubio's false rating is 40% and truth rating is 38%
            
            So much for leading Conservatives; how about the Democrats?
            
            * Hillary lies 28% of time and tells truth 51%
            * Sanders lies 28% of time and tells truth 54%
            * Obama has been found Mostly False, False, or very few Pants on Fire 26% of time, and tells Truth or Mostly True 48% of the time.
            
            Why is this no surprise?
            
            http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opini … .html?_r=0

            replyreport
            1. 78

               colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Politifact is PolitiFalse, is bias and leans toward the Democratic party.  The same with Snoops and FactChecker. 
               
               PolitiFact admits it exercises discretion in choosing which fact check stories to pursue. That results in obvious selection bias. So PolitiFact two-facedly admits its work is journalistic and not social science while encouraging readers to draw conclusions from its data with caution.
               
               http://www.politifactbias.com/
               http://www.debate.org/debates/Politifact-is-biased/1/
               
               According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of "fact" is: 1) Knowledge or information based on real occurrences; 2) Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed; or 3) A thing that has been done, especially a crime. The last is especially interesting since the way fact-checking has been employed in the last two election cycles is as near to a crime as a journalist can commit.
               
               http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pet … epublicans
               http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv … 029053.php

               replyreport
   3. 78

      Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      yes, Trump's involvement is good for the country as it educates everyone of what to avoid and the truth behind extremism. His rise and his doing so well may be the 'canary in the coal mine' as to the forces that can tear the country apart. I would rather know and let everyone see the truth, than otherwise. While many laud Trumph for 'telling it like it is', so does Archie Bunker....

      replyreport
      1. 72

         rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Candidates such as Trump and Sanders are just the beginning in Americas wake up call as to who owns and runs this country. The hegemony is just now becoming part of the vernacular and maybe for some good. Who can tell? The establishment may finally have its' face reddened with the exposure.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I would not mind Trump or Sanders.  Both of them aren't afraid to step on the establishments toes.  But, I do not agree with everything either one of them has to say.  I do not trust them completely.  Honestly, I think I am leaning more in the way of Ted Cruz because he tells it like it is too, and I find myself able to trust what he says.  He has an impeccable record.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               I am very suspicious of Cruz as he is heavily supported by the oil lobby. With him and McConnell (another big oil plant) in cahoots with each other there is no telling where we could be in two or three years down the pike. I know we will be in another full scale "Country Building" fiasco such as Iraq again as his rhetoric is the same as it was the first time we failed there.

               replyreport
         2. 78

            Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Maybe, this is the prized moment we were speaking of, where the people take a stand independent of the political machine. Both men on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. This will be an interesting contest to say the least.
            
            I have to admit though, I am still 'feeling the Bern'. He is doing so well without all the big money politics and such that Ms. Clinton has relied upon.

            replyreport
         3. 86

            My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            The type of exposure Sanders provides is reasoned and thought, even if it too far Left for my tastes.  Trump, on the other hand, is just the opposite, he is unreasonable and thoughtless.  Because so many on the Right embrace Trump, this may be the end of the Republican Party as we knew it.  The Federalist Party did the same thing in the very early 1800s, alienated all but their hardcore supporters.  They became ineffectively small in Congress in 10 years, and disbanded in 20 years they had so screwed the pooch.

            replyreport
2. 78

   colorfuloneposted 8 years ago

   Former Florida governor Jeb Bush misconstrued the words of businessman Donald Trump in claiming that Trump said that “ISIS was not our fight” and that “ISIS was not a factor.”
   
   Trump, Sept. 28 on CNN: “We have ISIS, and ISIS wants to go after Assad, but we’re knocking the hell out of ’em — even though it’s not a very full-blown thing, we’re still dropping bombs all over the place and, you know, look, they’re not exactly loving life over in Syria. So we’re stopping them, to a certain extent, from going after Assad. You have Russia that’s now there. Russia’s on the side of Assad, and Russia wants to get rid of ISIS as much as we do, if not more, because they don’t want ’em coming into Russia. And I’m saying, ‘Why are we knocking ISIS and yet at the same time we’re against Assad?’ Let them fight, take over the remnants. But more importantly, let Russia fight ISIS, if they want to fight ’em … in Syria. …
   
   “Let Syria and ISIS fight. Why do we care? Let ISIS and Syria fight. And let Russia, they’re in Syria already, let them fight ISIS. Now look, I don’t want ISIS … ISIS is bad, they’re evil … I don’t want them. But let them fight it out. Let Russia take care of ISIS. How many places can we be? …
   
   “We have to get rid of ISIS, very importantly, but I look at Assad, and Assad to me looks better than the other side. And you know, this has happened before. We back a certain side, and that side turns out to be a total catastrophe. Russia likes Assad, seemingly a lot — let them worry about ISIS. Let them fight it out. Now in Iraq, we have to do it.”
   
   Mr. Trump made it perfectly clear that he thinks the U.S. should fight ISIS in Iraq. And it is not rue that he suggested ISIS was “not a factor.” 
   
   http://www.amtvmedia.com/usa-today-revi … an-debate/
   
   No more Bushes as president.  Do some research on the Yale elite Skull and Bones Society.  I do not know that Jeb is S&B, but Preston, George Senior, and George Jr. ARE!   BTW, John Kerry is S&B and many other well know names.   ---  Donald Trump is not!

   replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   Trump will not be the next President .   He's a buffoon , loud , boisterous  , outspoken and basically believing he is buying his way towards the white house ,    My prediction , Cruz or Rubio will be the nominee ..........
   Trump's popularity is simply  some of mainstream America's voice - outside of  the political circles , away from career  candidates ,  when the moronic debates are over  , America's right will pick a real candidate .

   replyreport
   1. 86

      My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I suspect you are very right, ahorseback.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Cruz has an impeccable record. He is a devout Conservative and stands and fights for the Constitution.  The more I listen to him, the more I like Cruz as a person and potential president. 
      
      President (Tzar) Putin praised Donald Trump as 'bright and talented'. He thinks Trump has the commend in the race to become America's next president.  He doesn't think he should really say that because ultimately it is up to the voters.  I admire President Putin and respect what he has to say.  Sad that I cannot say that about Obama (Administration).

      replyreport
4. 57

   Alternative Primeposted 8 years ago

   Impeccable Record ? Cruz ? Seriously ? ~ Teddy's past is FAR from Impeccable, he has MORE Flaws than a "Dollar per Carrot Diamond" ~
   
   Moreover, he wasn't even born in the United States, he was born in Canada which is an Immediate Disqualifying Detriment for MOST Republicans ~ Using Conservative Criteria, how do you even know he's an American ?

   replyreport
5. 78

   colorfuloneposted 8 years ago

   Ted Cruz: "The facts are clear. I was born in Calgary. My parents — as a legal matter, my mother is an American citizen by birth. And it’s been federal law for over two centuries that the child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen by birth, a natural born citizen."
   
   U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
   
   Case CLOSED!  (AP (snooze) news)

   replyreport
   1. 72

      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      So according to the rules as they apply to Cruz, Obama who has the same situation although it is claimed in Kenya, what is all the birther $#!+ about? Or is it that he won't admit it? I am just asking and not accusing anyone other than maybe Trump.
      
      Speaking of Trump I happened to catch "Morning Joe" the other day for a moment and I heard something very funny. Joe said what if America is just fed up with the government and wants to elect Trump like throwing a hand grenade at Congress. I got a good chuckle from it. I may just do it to see what happens. Things can't get much worse.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         I would like to find the timeline for Hillary Clinton for when she made a surprise visit to Kenya during the time she was running for president against Obama.  I read it some time ago and wish I had copied it.  Anyway, it said that she made an "unannounced visit" to the place where "Certificate of Live Birth" records were kept and returned home right after.  All you have is my word on that for now. Finding it is not all that important to me because I know what I read but it may have disappeared.  It was Hillary's campaign that started the birther.  And, as you know she made a deal with Obama. 
         
         ADDED:   Certificate of Live Birth vs Birth Certificate / Hawaii
         http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2784418
         
         Whoa! - Glenn Beck is saying that Trump is a Big Government Progressive. 
         I trust what Beck has to say.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            You got to be kidding me, you are such a comic.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               You can decide for yourself if I am kidding. 
               I have to admit this stuff is funny! 
               http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism … -movement/

               replyreport
         2. 72

            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            So if this is the case that a foreign born child to a parent who is a legal resident in a US State or Territory can claim citizenship why was the thing such a controversy with Obama and not Cruz?

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

               RH, I think that we already know the answer to that, it is just that conservatives are too hypocritical to admit it.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Well that is the elephant in the room isn't it? Instead of my assuming hypocrisy I would like someone to try and make a cohesive intelligent argument to it's logic. I think it bares the subjective nature of politics in this country. It comes from both sides and this is precisely an instance where that is played out.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     Like you, I am waiting to hear that cohesive, intelligent  argument. But, I think that you will be waiting for a long time, and will most probably have a 'no show'. There is nothing subjective about it, why can't I get an answer to this basic question? There has to be a reason.

                     replyreport
                     1. 72

                        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                        I think that it is subjective after one swallows a position they cannot back down from. For instance I voted for Obama twice as I felt the candidates in opposition where duplicitous in their objectives. I felt McCain would have us involved in every war and "police action" under the sun. Romney was so involved with equity investment scams I feared for the treasury under one of his terms. So I chose Obama twice. Now do I think he has been a stellar President and do I think I was wrong for voting for him. No and no to those two questions. But many who find themselves in a similar situation cannot see their way to having both answers as they take the reasoning a step further by refusing to admit anything went wrong with this administration or anything he did was wrong. The same is true for the "birther" rhetoric or the Trump phenomena.
                        
                        Until we can have introspect for our actions the hypocrisy will continue.

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                           greetings, RH, When was the last time we actually had a 'stellar' president?
                           
                           It is as I say, everything is relative and as you say with the choices I had, Obama was definitely an improvement over McCain or Romney. Just like I think that Sanders and wishful thinking, Warren, would be an improvement over Hillary Clinton. The stone that has to moved is big and heavy, but nudging it in the right direction is better than not moving it at all or moving it in the wrong way.

                           replyreport
                           1. 57

                              Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                              Credence2 my Friend, the last time we've had a "STELLAR" President was between the years of 2009 thru 2016 ~ President Obama is unquestionably a TOP 5 if not TOP 3 Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America ~ He PROVES this Righteous & Highly Capable Stature time and time again ~
                              
                              I Thank God every day Greed Driven, Anti-American Mutt Romney was an utter Failure ~ Can you IMAGINE where we'd be as a nation if he were President ??  ~ By now, we would have INVADED the Philippines , or Australia, or Japan, or some other Sovereign Country that has NOTHING to do with the "Bad Guys" ~ Jed Bush just like his idiot brother, and just about every other conservative republican would have done the SAME ~  What a FRIGHTENING thought ~
                              
                              Calm, Cool, Calculating, Strong, Intellectually Superior, Strategically Sound, ALL words which accurately describe Barrack Hussein Obama, one of the Absolute Best Leaders this country has ever known ~

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                 Happy Holidays, AP. I think under the circumstances, Obama has done a pretty good job, cleaning up the dismal mess left by the last administration. But there are people who think otherwise, where is a universal acknowledgement that any one president is flawless beyond complaint? It depends upon what point of view you look at it from, if you listen to the rightwinger, Bush and Reagan were heroes. But, I beg to differ. I think history will put him as a certainly better than average president when compared with his predecessors.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 57

                                    Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                    Happy Holidays to you as well my friend formerly from the Beautiful Inland EMPIRE ~ a "Pretty Good Job" ?? ~  Let me just be Concise ~ The Disaster in EVERY way George W Bush, the "DUNCE" left President Obama is Un-Precedented ~ As bad as the 2 wars that Bush started were and still are, the FINANCIAL  Disaster he left behind was EVEN WORSE ~  Worse than the 1929 mess ~ When you are in the Financial Industry as I am, you understand & realize just how Epically Inept Bush truly was ~
                                    
                                    Digging out of said mess was almost insurmountable and if a Republican were president following Bush, there would have been a very good chance OUR country would have been driven into a "Point of NO Return" situation, and that's NO Exggageration my friend ~ There are several things President Obama did to AVOID this catastrophe, and he is the PRIMARY reason WHY we are in a SWEET Economy right now, certainly NOT Perfect, no economy ever is, but relatively sound and on the rebound ~ If getting this country OUT of Bush's Disasterous Mess was the ONLY  Monumental Accomplishment of President Obama's tenure, that alone would justify his lofty RANKING of TOP 5 in Presidential History ~

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 78

                                       Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       You know, if he would have received the support the 'stimulus' plan without obstruction from the GOP, things would have even been better. If had have received the support he deserve, the economy would be spinning like a top. Putting people back to work on infrastructure projects, with roads and bridges falling apart was a win/win. But, conservatives are more interested in the short sightedness of instant profitability for the bourgeois class, otherwise known as just more 'tinkle down'. I don't know if I like being on the receiving end of the 'tinkle'......
                                       
                                       The top 5 will be a tough call, a few years will have to pass when we can all truly look back at the accomplishment of the Obama years objectively.

                                       report
                                    2. 57

                                       Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       It's a very EASY Call right now, George Washington probably Number 1, then I'm struggling with the order for Abraham Lincoln & Barrack Obama for the 2cnd and 3rd Place SLOTS ~

                                       report
                                    3. 78

                                       Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       Many historians debate whether Lincoln or Washington should be first, but I generally say, Lincoln. We have to look at FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, men that define the times in which they lived and Barrack Obama could well be that man during the 2nd decade of the 21st century!

                                       report
                                       1. 86

                                          My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          I wish that were true, about Obama ranking up there with Washington and Lincoln (after reading a biography on Madison, I no longer think of Jefferson as one of the Great presidents, only a good one who got lucky with the Louisiana Purchase.
                                          
                                          I do think PBO will go down as one that bested one of the most determined, focused, hate driven campaigns by the opposition Party.  He will have chalked up many impressive victories beginning with
                                          1. Bringing America out of a certain depression into a growing economy faster than most other recoveries from similar sized economic disasters.
                                          2. Putting through Obamacare which to an end an era where rising medical costs were bankrupting many Americans who got seriously sick, stopping the arbitrary decisions by insurers to deny needed care, and to allow up to 40 million people who wanted to be insured but were prevented by the high cost of insurance and even the outright denial by insurers from pre-existing medical conditions.
                                          3. Bringing equal rights to LGBT and even changing his mind to support equal access to marriage for those who love each other.
                                          4. Ending, for now, Iran's march to a nuclear capability
                                          5. Decimating al-Quada
                                          
                                          And many more.
                                          
                                          Where he fell very short was his inability to work with his own Party in Congress and his decision to "lead from behind" most of the time.  I don't fault him for not working with the GOP because it takes two to tango and those that controlled the GOP were in no mood to be his partner in compromise.  (Why wouldn't they, because it would defeat their raison d'etre for being in office ... to bring down Obama.)
                                          
                                          I also don't fault him for "leading from behind" either because our founders that that Congress should be in the drivers seat with the President executing their initiatives.  Obama tried to get Congress to do its job, and failed.  "Leading from behind" also doesn't generate the kind of lasting memory which taking bold action does.

                                          report
                                    4. 78

                                       Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                       Looking at the bigger picture, Obama will also have to compete with James K. Polk, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, LBJ, (JFK's term was too short)  and in all fairness, Ronald Reagan, and even Bill Clinton, these men could have been considered more than mediocre as president during their tenure.
                                       
                                       President Obama has been courageous against a stubborn foe. What chief executive has gone into the office against a so mindless an  obstructionist foe. Only Andrew Johnson got more hassle from the GOP.
                                       
                                       Happy holidays...

                                       report
                                       1. 86

                                          My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                          From my readings and lectures, you can drop Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson and Woodrow "Couldn't Get Anything Done Right" Wilson from your list.  They talked about Polk as well, but I can't remember what was said about him.

                                          report
                  2. 86

                     My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     If this is about why people illogically support Trump, then read http://hubpages.com/politics/An-Analysi … llower-RWA to find out why (I think Credance already has).  I am about to add Donald Trump followers to the body of the Hub.

                     replyreport
            2. 78

               colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               I do not know the answer to your question as to why.  I do know what I read on Hillary's timeline the day she made an unplanned visit to Kenya where Certificate of Live Birth are held, and that her campaign started the birther. 
               
               Doing a keyword search for "ted cruz not eligible for us president" there seems to be a controversy likened with Obama.  It has not had as much time to pick up steam is reasonable.  If Ted becomes president that would change?  Perhaps. I don't have an answer into the future except that history repeats...
               
               I have a cousin who is a cyber security, digital forensics and cybercrime investigations expert for the FBI, and he said he could get into any online site and do whatever he wanted including make websites disappear, but that's not his job.  The computer room in his home has 3/4" titanium walls for security.  Hackers can do the same and the rabbit trail ends.  I know what I read...but its not to be found.
               
               You all have my deepest apology for going off on something that can not be proven or disproved here in the forums.  I will correct that and be done with it once and for all. 
               
               Its a mystery, and I do like mysteries.

               replyreport
6. 57

   Alternative Primeposted 8 years ago

   Crazy as he appears to be, Donald Trump is the ONLY Republican who has even a REMOTE chance of winning the Presidency for the GOP ~ Why do you think the Progressive Left, Fox Snooze Propaganda & Lies Channel, & The Main Street Media are Relentlessly Attacking him Ad Nauseam, Night & Day ? Because they know he can win, it's a Longshot but possible ~
   
   The Media would LOVE to see a nominee such as Chris Christie, or Ben Carson, or Jed Bush, or Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz, or any other republican in kind who is either Pathologically Delusional, Irresponsibly Corrupt, or who has  Destroyed a Corporation or two Like Jeb, Carly, and Mitt have, or who has Questionable Citizenship Status & Communist Ties like Ted Cruz ~ THEY are ALL UN-Electable  and are getting Torn to Pieces as we speak, EXCEPT Trump, aside from his INSANE Comments, he's the ONLY Republican Candidate without Baggage ~

   replyreport
   1. 84

      psycheskinnerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Sure Trump could win the presidency... for Hillary.  If you want to be her, someone the GOP doesn't hate will be required.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Hi psycheskinner,
         
         It's no secret, I'll be Enthusiastically Supporting the Democratic Nominee, the individual who will continue to fight for Workers, Senior Citizens, Students, Women's Rights, Labor Unions, Minorities, Income Challenged  etc etc ~
         
         The Conservative Republican side is essentially in Shambles, that's no closely held secret either ~ ALL GOP  Candidates are Un-Electable if we examine the "Baggage" each carries, except for Trump, as Crazy as he appears to be, he has no "Disqualifying" baggage unless a Big Mouth "Qualifies" ~
         
         Regardless of the Republican Nominee, either Bernie Sanders or Hillary will be VICTORIOUS by a Considerable Margin next November ~

         replyreport
         1. 86

            My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I more or less agree.  I don't think Bernie can beat Bush or Kasich.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               If Bernie did become the Nominee, a scenario which is not out of the question considering the Excitement & SHEAR Volume of ENTHUSIASTIC Crowds he DRAWS, the MAJORITY of the Minorities should convert over to his side giving Bernie a decisive WIN over Bush and or Kasich who have already ALIENTATED Women, the Working Class, African Americans, Asians etc etc ~ It's the same old Backward Republican Propaganda espoused by these two "Wall Street Greed Driven Vultures" for generations, it NEVER changes ~ I don't think Minorities would ever fall for their rhetoric ~

               replyreport
            2. 57

               Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               If you Inspect their Records, both Bush & Kasich, Both the Obvious & Hidden, I think you might change your mind ~ Bernie is a POWERHOUSE for very good reason, I wouldn't under-estimate his Draw ~ It's VERY Dedicated & Enthusiastic ~
               
               Bush was FINISHED Before he began his campaign, or whatever it was ~ I've seen "Political Gall" before, but his took the proverbial Prize ~
               
               How any rational thinking individual could watch his idiot brother virtually DESTROY Our Economy and turn the Middle East into a "Caldron of Instability"  within a few short years, then, ask Americans to support his own run for president is the very definition of INSANITY ~
               
               I never thought I could possibly find a Bigger idiot in politics than George W Bush, then came his brother Jeb ~

               replyreport