Answering Trump: What Do You Have to Lose?

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 06:53:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At a campaign rally over the weekend, Donald Trump asked people to vote for him, saying "What do you have to lose?"

It would take a book to answer that question. Shorter version: It's a suicide mission for America.

But let's just start with something simple, like how Donald Trump left Atlantic City when he was done with it. [More...]

Trump started buying up land in Atlantic City in 1978 when it legalized gambling. His first casino, Trump Plaza opened in 1984. After that came Trump Castle and in 1990, Trump Taj Mahal.

Within a year of its opening, Trump Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. After that, three more Trump properties in Atlantic City filed for bankruptcy protection. The last one filed in 2009. Trump Plaza closed in 2014. Trump is gone from Atlantic City, but he left a miserable legacy. Just like he'd leave America.

Lenders to Trump's Atlantic City companies lost over $1 billion. More than 1,100 people were laid off. Who else got stiffed?

[S]mall time investors, individual bondholders who might have invested in the Trump casinos through their retirement accounts, or vendors who might have been purveyors supplying produce or supplying restaurant supplies, or doing labor or contracting for the properties, also got stiffed.

The Trump Taj Mahal was taken out of bankruptcy by Carl Ichan.

The union for about 1,000 Trump Taj Mahal employees has sued to fight the elimination of health coverage and pension benefits as billionaire investor Carl Icahn takes the property out of bankruptcy.

The New York Times explains Trump bankrupted his casinos but made millions. Here's how he left the Taj Mahal:

Years of neglect show: The carpets are frayed and dust-coated chandeliers dangle above the few customers there to play the penny slot machines.

...He put up little of his own money, shifted personal debts to the casinos and collected millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and other payments. The burden of his failures fell on investors and others who had bet on his business acumen.

What do Americans have to lose with Trump? Everything. He'd take the shirt right off our back and replace it with one made in China. The man doesn't know how to create jobs. He isn't qualified to be Mayor, let alone President. He's out for him, not you. Who in their right mind would trust him to control polciy decisions about their social security or health care plan?

Of course, the biggest thing America has to lose with Trump is the 200 years of principles that have made us free, equal in the eyes of the law, and a beacon for others to follow -- along with our standing in the world and the respect of others.

But since that's apparently too nebulous a concept for his under-informed supporters to grasp, maybe they'll understand this better: The instability a Trump presidency would bring will make you unhappier and poorer than you've ever been. The effects of electing an unqualified, inexperienced, self-absorbed carnival barker, who has no idea what he's talking about on any issue and doesn't care to learn, will be felt by your children for generations to come. Donald Trump will be a change all right -- a devastating change, for individuals, their families and the country.

Republicans are always a bad choice. This year, voting Republican for the presidency would be a suicide mission and a total disaster.

Trump won't win. Events of the last week, like the FBI's unprecedented exercise of poor judgment, will assure the highest turnout ever among Democrats in a presidential election. Trump has no organized effort to get out the vote. His rag-tag campaign has no centralized coordination. He's lost -- unless you don't vote.

Americans like watching reality TV. It's good. entertainment. But they know it's fake, and that governing 200 plus million people requires a seasoned pro, not a self-proclaimed billionaire with a long record of business failures, revenge lawsuits and trying to outwit the tax man, whose principal accomplishment seems to be having co-spawned three telegenic adult children who have been given every advantage in life. (Yes, I know he has more children.)

We get the government we elect. The right to vote is precious. Treat it with respect, and stay above the fray of the under-informed Trump supporters, most of whom are guided only by their feelings of victimization and mis-directed anger.

< Variety's First Endorsement: Hillary Clinton | Teen in Weiner Sexting Case Blasts James Comey >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Answering Trump: What Do You Have to Lose? | 41 comments (41 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

In terms of my son becoming (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 09:36:48 PM EST

Once again a total pre-existing condition? Everything Donald. I stand to lose everything that currently allows me to be sane.

: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 10:12:02 AM EST

that would be completely horrible for Josh. I guess I might get coverage as a cancer survivor or maybe not. Depends on how the insurance companies would write up the details. Fortunately for me if they did take away my coverage going to the endocrinologist once a year is not going to put me into bankruptcy.

It is interesting to note (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Chuck0 on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 04:26:22 PM EST

that it seems most Trump supporters are not the "have nots" but rather made up mostly of "haves." I believe I read somewhere the average Trump voter (or supporter) has an income around $71K. There is beaucoup support here in my part of PA. Trump lawn signs outnumber Clinton at least 40 to 1. But these lawn signs are on nice big houses. Certainly upper middle class. I have an in-law in MD who owns property in Ocean City as well as a house in Baltimore County. Successful, lots of toys, yet are Trump supporters. What the hell are these people mad at? Why would they want "change"? They are all doing well. (As am I, but I'm not afraid of the "other"). I agree with Donald from Hawaii. It's all about white privilege. Whites afraid they are "losing" just because someone else might actually be gaining (Heavens to Murgatroyd the brown people are moving in). I have a dilemma if Drumpf wins this election. I cannot be a resident or a citizen of a country with Donald Trump as its face to the world.

Well, if it makes (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 04:54:36 PM EST

you feel any better the British newspaper the Independent wrote an article the other day saying the rest of the world feels the same way you do. They love Hillary. They all know her and have dealt with her. They dread a return to Bush on steroids foreign policy with an unstable Putin stooge.


I live in a haves neighborhood (none / 0) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 05:27:52 PM EST

I thought signs would come down as he's gotten more and more insane but they are breeding overnight


Six more lawn signs for Clinton-Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Peter G on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 09:41:46 PM EST

on our block (the proverbial Philly suburbs) in the last two days. Until earlier this week it was two Clinton (including ours) and one Tr*mp. It's still one for Tr*mp.


: Hooray!!! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:07:55 AM EST

It isn't as if Clinton-Kaine were going to carry Alabama and gain much of the electoral college doing so. But Philly!
The Cubs winning brightens today even as the Trump signs multiply in crazy town :)
I hope to not become a hateful militant after the election. Election bumper stickers are allowed during the election but once Obama was elected some folks who work on post kept their bumper stickers on to silently deligitimize his Commander in Chief status. So a new regulation was put on the books. Election bumper stickers must be removed after the election on cars on post.
And a Colonel's secretary carried copies of the regulation in her car along with everything needed to safely remove stickers from cars. When she found offenders she parked in such a fashion that they were blocked, phoned the MPs, and the car could not be driven anywhere on post until the sticker had been removed.
I fear I will replace her in these volunteer duties after this election is over.

Agreed on PA (none / 0) (#32)
by jmacWA on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 05:47:27 AM EST

Lehigh County PA where I am I have seen 2 Clinton signs, and too many Trump signs to count. I am hoping that this is simply because the Clinton campaign has not been very active here. I fully expect Clinton/Kaine to take PA, but if you go by yard signs around here it certainly doesn't look to be the case.


In our area, I should mention, (none / 0) (#34)
by Peter G on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:18:35 AM EST

the Clinton campaign is selling yard signs, while the Tr*mp campaign is giving them away and even delivering them.


: Off topic, sort of, still ... (none / 0) (#35)
by Nemi on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 09:32:56 AM EST

On Twitter Joyce Carol Oates refers to 'him' as T***p.
Great minds and all ... :)

Yeah (none / 0) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 07:16:57 PM EST

I'm not into blowing up the country. Revolutions often don't turn out well for even those who want them.

Even if you don't want the country blown up nonpartisan Moody's said Trump will lose 3.5 million jobs in one term. I'm sure his supporters believe that it will not be them that lose those jobs only "those people". Sad is what it is.

It is all about (none / 0) (#2)
by MKS on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 08:16:28 PM EST

"cultural issues." If it was about economics, they would not be supporting Trump.

It is about cultural issues--about racial resentment and not letting "them" get government benefits.


Well, it actually (none / 0) (#3)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 09:23:01 PM EST

is somewhat economic in the sense that a lot of these voters have the same mentality as a homeless person. If you try to take a homeless person's box they are going to fight you to the death. My experience has been that they feel that "those people" are taking their jobs too that they are entitled to because of the color of their skin. Basically it boils down to "those people" are taking my tax money, my jobs, everything. "Those people" are to blame for the fact that my life is just awful and if we only could return to the days where I got a job strictly based on the color of my skin and I didn't have to compete with anybody other than other white people things would be so much better.


I'm of the generation that was ... (none / 0) (#4)
by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 09:30:57 PM EST

... the first in Southern California to experience school de-segregation policies mandated by court order. As a result, we grew up with classmates who were not lily white like we were and not surprisingly, many of those classmates became our friends.

But what I specifically remember about that era was the ugly public backlash from many white parents who really and truly resented desegregation, and who did everything they could to prevent it. And my mother was a public school teacher at the time, and it wore her out to have to deal with them on a near-daily basis.

Now, personally, my mother sent me to Catholic school, where my siblings and cousins also went, so I didn't experience mandatory public school bussing firsthand. However, I do distinctly remember seeing a huge influx of white students into my Catholic elementary school in my 4th grade year, which was the first time that court-ordered public school bussing went into effect.

We had so many new students, the school administration literally split our days. Some students started at 8:00 and went until 1:00 p.m., and others started at 10:30 a.m. and went until 3:30 p.m., until the Archdiocese built a new classroom building to accommodate the influx.

And as the years went by, it became clear that the parents of many of those children weren't interested in Catholic education. Rather, they were simply trying to minimize any opportunities there were for interaction between their kids and "The Other."

Ironically, by the time I was in high school, our Catholic schools were actually a lot more diverse than many of our local public schools, which started undergoing a de facto resegregation as the "white flight" phenomenon took effect. Many white families abandoned places like Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, Eagle Rock, Alhambra, Temple City and Monterey Park for oh-so-white outer suburbs in Simi Valley, Santa Clarita and Orange County.

But Heaven forbid that we white Angelenos / Pasadenans should be called racist. After all, we vocally supported the civil rights struggles of "The Other" in the South, etc. We just did so with the caveat that they weren't supposed to then move into our neighborhoods, that's all.

And of course, we'd tell one another that we were actually thinking of the best interests of "The Other," and we never hesitated to note that it was for their own good, that they'd really be much happier living amongst their own kind.

By my college years, I finally concluded that as whites, we are a rather silly and self-indulgent demographic subset who tend to both think way too highly of ourselves and overvalue our own opinions. It made me distinctly uncomfortable to have to listen to white people gripe and complain about "The Other," as the Reagan Years took effect and it became okay to voice such opinions again.

In retrospect, the best thing I ever did was move to Hawaii. I got to look to the U.S. mainland from afar, and the resultant long-distance perspective afforded me the opportunity to see these people -- including, sorry to say, a fair number of my own relatives -- for exactly who and what they were. I feel sorry for them.

(Happy to say, that trend has since slowed greatly in Pasadena and even reversed. Today, my old hometown is a far more racially and ethnically diverse and culturally enriched community, than was the white-bread one in which I grew up and was raised in the 1960s and '70s.)

Aloha.


Turning people terrified and enraged (none / 0) (#21)
by jondee on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 01:19:28 PM EST

at the OTHER into another OTHER isn't going to work in the long run either.


I don't have any empathy for the concerns ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 03:43:32 PM EST

... of those white people who show little or none themselves for the struggles faced daily by members of minority communities.

Pity and contempt, yes. I've got plenty of that for yahoos who revel in their own stupidity and ignorance. But actual empathy for these people? No, absolutely none.

I can't believe that we still have to be saying this 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but white people in America best realize that the world doesn't revolve around their personal wants and desires.

For those who still insist upon believing otherwise, I say "Bring it on." I'll be more than happy to set them straight, as will be tens of millions of others across our country, who are just as effin sick and tired of their whineya$$ed white-wing bullschitt as I am.

I have empathy for the lessons (none / 0) (#36)
by jondee on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:04:49 PM EST

of history and what works and what doesn't.

Inculcating the belief amongst enraged peckerwoods that brown, yellow, and red people are treacherously stealing away their last piece of cheese and last shred of dignity behind their backs is a teaching-lesson the hard-right noise machine has been diligently applying themselves to since they used to sic the American Legion on the Wobblies..

Imo, it's all inextricably tied-in with the particularly American fetishizing and mythos of competition at the expense of the deeper reality interdependence and community.

What can be taught can be gradually untaught -- or radically modified, with the introduction of new information.


: It all comes down to policy. (none / 0) (#41)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 07:02:04 PM EST

And policy development is much more my forte than is politics. The way you can help these people is by implementing policies that are actually going to make their lives better, where they'll notice the difference. That's actually how you get people on your side politically. A good example of how to govern effectively and change perceptions is California Gov. Jerry Brown.
But honestly, I'm not going to waste my time by getting into a pi$$ing context with people who are clearly so ignorant that they no longer even realize how ignorant they actually are. I'm never going to convince them of their folly with any amount of reasonable discussion, so screw them. Sometimes, people really need to learn the hard way through bitter experience.
That's why I don't have any empathy for the citizens of Kansas. Yes, it's truly horrible what's happened there under Gov. Sam Brownback's hard-right maladministration, and people are hurting due of his incompetence. But hey, they knew what that yahoo was all about in 2010 when they first elected him.
And then, even though things went to hell in a handbasket in a big hurry, Kansans voted for re-elect Brownback in 2014. And I'm sorry, but how does the old adage go? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." So, you know what? F--- 'em. At that point, it ceased being solely a matter of dubious policy and became a self-inflicted political problem. And in that regard, they need to find their own political solution.
But there's an upside here, in that Kansas voters have apparently and finally absorbed a hard and expensive lesson about what can happen when you elect true numbskulls to office who don't have a frickin' clue about the actual art of governance -- and worse still, really don't care.
18 incumbent GOP state legislators -- all of whom were identified as Gov. Brownback's ideological lapdogs at the statehouse in Topeka -- were ousted in this year's GOP primary, and replaced with candidates who are, if not more moderate, at least not totally batschitt crazy. That gives me hope that maybe Gov. Brownback's budget disaster finally knocked some sense into state voters.
Aloha.

It's also about people who have (none / 0) (#20)
by jondee on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 01:09:47 PM EST

had the experience of losing everything, or almost everything, and who are beside themselves and desperately casting about for any imagined guiding light outside the percieved status quo that has let them down..

We're talking about many many more people than the somewhat smug yuppies in certain local precincts seem willing to acknowledge..

Conveniently shedding one's threadbare liberal garb and blaming others for their "life choices," like some nasty social darwinist just flushed out of hiding, just provides more ammunition for the enemy that so many here claim to be concerned about.

If we don't want even more (and possibly worse) "populist" Trumps loudly promising salvation to the hungry and thirsty down the road, a lot of people in this country need to get serious about reexamining how much power, economic and otherwise, we've allowed to be accrued by rootless, rapacious, neoliberal "globalists" whose hearts and souls are invested everywhere and nowhere.


I'm more than happy to help people ... (none / 0) (#26)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 04:17:40 PM EST

... who are clearly willing to make an effort to work hard and help themselves. But honestly, I don't have time to waste on white people who repeatedly and deliberately self-pander to their own worst fears and darkest instincts about "The Other."

People who willfully retreat into their own parallel universes, rather than face up to actual facts and deal with the reality of given situations as do rational adults, are fools. More likely than not, whatever social Darwinist fate which awaits them will be entirely self-inflicted.

And unless and until these white fools finally wise up, and cease identifying with their own oppressors solely on the basis of race and ethnicity, we really can't do anything to divert them from achieving that particular rendezvous with destiny.

All we can do is look to ourselves, and assist as we can our fellow travelers on this journey who likewise don't subscribe to the philosophy of socio-economic nihilism.

Two different things (none / 0) (#37)
by MKS on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:26:00 PM EST

Yes, there are those who have been the economic losers of the last few years and decades, and there Trump supporters.

I am not automatically going to agree they are the same.

The last I saw, data on Trump supporters show them to be making an average of $71,000 k annually. Not exactly poor.

For those economically distressed, there all kind of things to do. Trump offers them nothing.

The glue that binds Trump to his supporters is racial resentment and fear that whites are losing their preferred place in society.


Underneath the racial resentment, imo (none / 0) (#38)
by jondee on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:41:20 PM EST

is a tribal version of the social darwinist mythos of the zero-sum, take-no-prisoners, fight of all against all.

..the mythology treasured and promulgated by the robber barons, and by those who tried, and still try, to rationalize slavery and the treacherous conduct toward Indians.


: The Limbaugh-Savage-Mark Levin (none / 0) (#39)
by jondee on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 02:55:40 PM EST

quarter has been pushing day-in-and-day-out some variation on this image of people on welfare laying around in hammocks all day drinking Mai Tais with little umbrellas in them -- living the good life and pillaging away all the good stuff that hardworking white people should be getting..
Playing people with more common interests than not against each other.

It's a suicide mission for America. (none / 0) (#6)
by hilts on Tue Nov 01, 2016 at 10:20:17 PM EST

Jeralyn,

I think you've actually understated Donald Trump's threat. His victory would be a suicide mission for the world because he's an existential threat to life on this planet.

You Are Aware, I Am Sure (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by RickyJim on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 08:37:07 AM EST

that Trump has made the same accusation against Clinton. In particular, he has said that her plan for a Syrian no fly zone will cause World War III as soon as a Russian plane is shot down. Maybe they both are right and we are doomed, no matter who wins.


I certainly feel a... (none / 0) (#11)
by kdog on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 08:51:57 AM EST

"anyway you look at it we lose" vibe...at least as far as foreign policy and economics are concerned.

Though I think the greater potential for losing bigly lies with Trump.


I Agree With You (none / 0) (#12)
by RickyJim on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 09:01:04 AM EST

but I would like to read more detailed, direct comparison articles on who is a greater threat. Here is one that makes sense to me.


: I would think... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by kdog on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 09:45:47 AM EST

Clinton's greater sanity would supersede her neocon warhawk tendencies when it comes to thermonuclear winter...and intelligent enough not to get boxed into anything. I would hope!
What she will do in Syria is cause for alarm though...to be sure. Trump's rash volatility makes him unqualified on it's face to make life or death military/foreign policy decisions. God help us, but even a neocon is more appealing than that.

Yes, but... (none / 0) (#23)
by Repack Rider on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 02:54:38 PM EST

You Are Aware, I Am Sure that Trump has made the same accusation against Clinton

YOU are aware, I presume, that Donald Trump has zero credibility, and citing him to support your argument weakens it rather than supporting it.

Hillary Clinton has a long public record of competence, Trump has a long record of insanity.


: Watching Game Seven (none / 0) (#30)
by Peter G on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 09:21:11 PM EST

Just saw two runs of a Hillary for America ad -- not a PAC ad -- hitting Tr*mp hard on his disrespect of women, by playing recordings of his own voice (some with video) making those statements, and of his ugly behavior. Interesting the Clinton campaign believes that there are plenty of women watching a baseball game, and enough men who love, respect and support them, to make this an effective ad in the waning days in the campaign.

Jeralyn, I understand the gloom and doom but... (none / 0) (#7)
by McBain on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 01:50:40 AM EST

That's a little over the top, don't you think?

Here's your better argument...

He'd take the shirt right off our back and replace it with one made in China. The man doesn't know how to create jobs. He isn't qualified to be Mayor, let alone President. He's out for him, not you. Who in their right mind would trust him to control policy decisions about their social security or health care plan?

But, can you see why many people don't trust Hillary or the DNC right now?

Of course, the biggest thing America has to lose with Trump is the 200 years of principles that have made us free, equal in the eyes of the law, and a beacon for others to follow

I see some of those principles being ignored by Democrats, some with a win at all cost, the ends justify the means mentality.

No, not over the top (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 07:02:18 AM EST

The man kept asking during his security briefing why he couldn't use nukes.


: He's a real life ... (none / 0) (#14)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 09:22:52 AM EST

Greg Stillson.

Actually... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Repack Rider on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 03:02:43 PM EST

I DON'T see why people would not "trust" Hillary.

Hillary has been accused of dozens of crimes. She has been investigated for some 25 years, and the GOP has spent tens of millions in taxpayer money, because no accusation was too crazy or too loony to be ignored.

Proof of criminal activity? Nada. Zip. None Zero. Includes EIGHT Benghazeeee! investigations, all resulting in acquittal. Eight. Acquittals.

If all that investigation hasn't convicted Hillary of so much as a parking ticket, there are only two possible conclusions to be considered, both of them devastating to the GOP.

Either Hillary Clinton is the most squeaky clean candidate ever to run for office in the United states...

The GOP is the most incompetent bunch of "investigators" who ever tried to find a clue. They still don't have one.

Out of curiosity, which would you select? Is Hillary as squeaky clean as the investigative failure seems to prove, or is the GOP monstrously incompetent?


I think of the Taj often... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 08:29:53 AM EST

as a microcosm of Trump's America...a once decent place left to rot by greedy neglect.

It used the be the spot for poker in AC...last time I was there the poker chips were as filthy as the carpets and only the deplorables of the poker scene would be caught dead there.

Sad to think it is within reason that Trump might succeed in making America his next mark. Sh*t, at least Hillary doesn't aim to destroy the place while profiteering off it.

This race is classic good corruption vs. bad corruption. The former you can live with, the latter is just flat out unacceptable.

Jeralyn, this should be the lede: (none / 0) (#13)
by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 09:17:31 AM EST

Events of the last week, like the FBI's unprecedented exercise of poor judgment, will assure the highest turnout ever among Democrats in a presidential election. Trump has no organized effort to get out the vote. His rag-tag campaign has no centralized coordination. He's lost -- unless you don't vote.

Yup, I think Comey has unleashed the Democratic Kraken.

: Comey sure (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 10:15:25 AM EST

loaded up Hillary's campaign war chest for her. She raised 11.3 million over the weekend after Comey pulled his stunt.

My answer (none / 0) (#18)
by leap on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 11:40:15 AM EST

to "What Do You Have to Lose?" would be another question, and then a riposte:

"What do you have?"

"You'll lose it."

Maybe, (none / 0) (#19)
by KeysDan on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 11:41:12 AM EST

it's not what do we have to lose, as much as it is what he have to gain: The New American Experiment--a jettisoning of democracy and replacement with oligarchic fascism. A Trumpian authoritarian reform that controls the government with a small group for corrupt and selfish purposes and prohibits people from disagreeing. Governance is through scapegoating populism "peindre en blanc." Rewards are granted in direct proportion to accolades festooned upon Trump.

We can look forward to building on the foundations and ideas of Trump supporters such as Brownback's Kansas economic model; Trump's own practices on trade; Dead Scalia's dead Constitution; Jerry Falwell, Jr.'s vision for social inclusiveness; Pence's idea of religious liberty; Clive Bundy's treasuring of federal lands; Rep. Steve King's plan for immigration reform; Bull Connor's civil rights legacy; Wayne LaPierre's commitment to common sense gun measures; Climate change "scientists" on the Koch Brother's payroll; Rick Scott's recognition of rising oceans; Tom Cotton's Iranian peace policy; Little Marco's 1958 Chevy-like-Cuban brain;

and, of course, Leonid Brezhnev's attraction to NATO and disdain for the West, updated by Putin's greater than Obama's leadership. So, see, what's to lose?

15 year old (none / 0) (#22)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 02, 2016 at 02:07:37 PM EST

in Weiner sexting case speaks out against Comey's behavior here

More (none / 0) (#40)
by FlJoe on Thu Nov 03, 2016 at 04:58:21 PM EST

fail for the big league bankrupter in chief.

The failure this week of Trump Toronto showcased a familiar scenario: big promises, glitzy image, a Russian-born financier, aggrieved smaller investors - but few losses for the mogul himself.