Debates

Donald Trump and the GOP's National Status Anxiety

|

CNN

Last night's GOP presidential debate was, overall, rather light on coherent policy detail, but it served as an effective confirmation of the Republican party's priorities in 2015: policing the border more heavily and punishing undocumented immigrants who are already here, bolstering the nation's military strength, attacking the Islamic State, taking a harsher tack when dealing with other world leaders, and, in general, adopting a more openly aggressive stance on foreign affairs. Domestic policy issues like tax reform did arise, and were haltingly ping-ponged across the stage, but on the whole, the debate saw many of the party's potential standard-bearers emphasizing its hawkish, nativist impulses whenever the opportunity presented itself.

In the process, what the debate revealed, perhaps more than anything else, was the GOP's deep-seated, occasionally verging on apocalyptic, anxiety about America's place in the world—and its dwindling status in the eyes of the party's own faithful.

On more than one occasion last night, this point was made explicitly. The next president must ensure that the "world will know that the United States in America is back in the leadership business," said Carly Fiorina. "America needs a leader who will go big and bold again," said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. "I believe that we need to restore America's presence and leadership in the world," said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

Implicit in these statements is that idea that America has not only lost stature abroad, but that it has failed to live up to its promise at home as well. At times, that sentiment was spelled out directly as well, as in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's opening statement, which warned that under President Obama, the nation has lost the "belief that the next generation will have a better life" and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's promise to "reignite the promise of America" within its borders.

What's notable in these statements, and others like them in the debate, is that they describe not what the candidates would do as president, but what America would be.

All throughout the evening, and indeed through the campaign, the GOP candidates have conveyed, to varying degrees, a non-specific sense of uneasiness, and at times even anger, about America's status and identity, relying on a shared sense that America is no longer the glorious institution that it was at some point in the past. Some of this is just the inevitable rhetoric of a party that has been out of the White House for seven years. but it's common enough to leave the impression that most of the GOP candidates believe this to be the overriding problem facing the next president. The suggestion seems to be that the chief business of the next president should be to arrest the nation's perceived decline in standing at home and abroad.

CNN

At times last night, this idea manifested as an even broader sense that not only only is America's reputation at stake, but that America's decline inevitably entails the decline of the rest of the larger western world. The phrase "Western civiliation" was uttered six times last night—four times by Ohio Gov. John Kasich, mostly in reference to the conflict in Syria, and twice by Mike Huckabee, who warned that "the survival of Western civilization" was at stake in America's dealings with Iran. In this view, both America and the rest of the world are poised on the edge of an abyss, ready to plummet at any moment into darkness.

In this loss-charged environment, it is perhaps no surprise that the most successful GOP candidate of the race so far, Donald Trump, has run a campaign that is not merely light on policy specifics, but actively disdainful of them, and that his oft-repeated slogan is simply, "Make America great again."

For Donald Trump's supporters, what Trump would do as president is far less important than the character improvements he would impart to the nation simply by virtue of winning the presidency.

Trump, more than any other candidate, has effectively capitalized on the GOP base's pervasive sense of unease about America's character and status. In the process, however, he and his supporters exacerbated the character flaws in the Republican party, playing up and encouraging some of its most unpleasant and off-putting elements—its merciless nativism, its unyielding hawkishness, its persistent anti-intellectual bent. And in the process he threatens to do lasting damage to a party whose reputation is already in the dumps, reaching its lowest levels in more than two decades earlier this year.

At this point, there is clear (and entirely unsurprising) evidence that Trump has harmed the party's already-low reputation with Latinos and immigrants. There is good reason to believe that Trump, who has repeatedly demeaned women based on their looks, will further turn off women from the party as well. Many Europeans, meanwhile, appear to view Trump largely as a boorish joke—an icon of ignorance and vulgarity who reflects poorly not just on the GOP but on the nation.

At home and abroad, Trump is hurting both the GOP and the country that GOP leaders insist they want to rescue. Which suggests that before trying to rescue Western civilization; Republicans should probably try to salvage their own party first.

NEXT: Big new copyright fair use decision involving part owner of Miami Heat

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Many Europeans, meanwhile, appear to view Trump largely as a boorish joke?

    well that settles it then…

    1. Right. Because they have culture and stuff and old buildings.

      1. Mesopotamia used to too – then they threw away the culture and ISIS blew up the old buildings.

    2. Well I mean to be fair he is a boorish joke. And part of international diplomancy is being taken seriously by the other players on the board.

      1. In diplomacy, it’s better to be seen as a madman than a wimpy pushover

        1. +1 Captain Edward Jellico

          1. Tony, we prefer a certain… formality on the in these threads. I’d appreciate it if you wore a standard uniform when you’re commenting.

            1. But I was hired to be the eye candy.

    3. Well, Trump is a boorish joke. But he also happens to be right on immigration, and without his influence, it seems unlikely that the issue would ever have been broached.

      As for Suderman’s glib assessment:

      …playing up and encouraging some of its most unpleasant and off-putting elements?its merciless nativism, its unyielding hawkishness, its persistent anti-intellectual bent.

      … he’s 1/3 right. Frankly, I prefer “merciless nativism” to the apparent alternative – selling out America to every batch of detritus to drift over the border.

      As for the other two: Peter is right about the hawkishness. Rand Paul clearly has the best handle on foreign policy of any of the Republican candidates. But unless by “anti-intellectual” he means “does not agree with the faux intellectuals at Reason that we should let our Country be overrun by invaders”… he would be wrong.

      One out of three – pretty good for a Reason piece.

  2. Nothing could be smarter and more rational than choosing candidates based on nationalistic insecurity and anxiety.

    1. Who are you calling insecure? I’ll kick your fucking ass bro!

  3. The point about the decline of the US is valid. The solution would be for the US to stop being the big kid bully on the block.

    Same solution, different venue, for internal decline.

    1. Or, start acting like a big bully on the block, Roman style. Anything is better than “speak softly, then loudly, then start whacking your stick around, then throw the stick away” that has been US foreign policy since WW2.
      Seriously, Trump would get more respect as Secretary of State (most of the world thinks US foreign policy anthropomorphised would look like Trump) than Clinton or Kerry every possibly could.

      1. Bi-polar foreign policy for a Bi-polar nation!

        1. That actually describes it in a nutshell. Maybe US Embassies should start putting that on their webpages, so people in other countries won’t go conspiracy theory crazy trying to figure out what the US game at any point is.

    2. I take issue with the metric that most Republicans seem to use to measure this decline. I think what made America great was the Enlightenment ideals it was founded upon (even if the government didn’t always live up to it, there were people trying to push it to, and they sometimes succeeded). Being able throw our weight around on the foreign policy stage? That has advantages but it’s not a point of pride for me. So while I think American culture has declined in some ways (to be fair, while ascending in others), I don’t trust any of the Republican field to move us in the right direction.

      The exception is Paul. And while I disagree with him on some things, the areas where I agree are the areas where I think our government and culture need to do better. The areas I disagree are, mostly, where I think we are actually doing OK.

      1. I take issue with the metric that most Republicans seem to use to measure this decline. I think what made America great was the Enlightenment ideals it was founded upon (even if the government didn’t always live up to it, there were people trying to push it to, and they sometimes succeeded).

        Yeah.

        It’d be cool if someone would run on the argument that it isn’t the govt’s role to be spearheading national initiatives designed to ostensibly greaten the country. And that these qualities best emerges from the activities of a free people.

  4. OT: How many heroes does it take to arrest a boy for jaywalking?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..lking.html

    1. Christ. So when they shout “Stop Resisting,” are they talking to his bones, for stubbornly protecting the organs within?
      Worst cops in the world. At least in shit countries, cops walk around like they own the place, and when they decide to fuck with you, they aren’t pissing themselves in fear at the same time.

      1. “Stop Resisting” is a magical incantation cops shout to give them the power to kick someone’s ass for no good reason.

      2. And in shit countries you can make them go away with an affordable bribe.

        1. Oh, I’m sure you can in US as well. But in both places,once their blood is up, beatings are the point. Gotta make sure autoritah is respected. All the better if you can’t figure out what made them go off. Don’t want to have rules getting in the way of respect.

          1. I wouldn’t count on it in the US. I’m sure in a lot of cases you could, but in some other countries it’s pretty well guaranteed to work.

            Someone I used to work with is now living in Vietnam. Apparently there, if you are obviously a foreigner and you just act like you have no idea what the police want from you (which is usually a bribe) they will eventually leave you alone rather than face the possibility of looking stupid or losing face.

            1. In Beijing around the Tienanmen Square I constantly saw the police checking people’s IDs. It wasn’t clear to me how they decided whom to stop. We have never been approached by the police. #WhitePrivelege

              1. So, was it all Chinese people getting checked, or are white foreigners special?

                1. Only the Chinese were checked. There were relatively so few white foreigners in the city that on several occasions I noticed that I had already seen some of them before.

            2. “If you are obviously a foreigner and you just act like you have no idea what the police want from you (which is usually a bribe) they will eventually leave you alone”

              This was also effective in post-Soviet Eastern Europe, with the caveat that they might just throw you in a truck and drive you to the middle of nowhere and dump you, just because it makes the right impression with the locals. Can’t make it look like people just say, “No?” to cops. But they were nice about it at least. They’d say “hi” the next time you saw them.

    2. Hey, those heroes are all that separate us from Somalia!

      I’d like to hear from the cops or the suspect why they were harassing him, not just a spectator saying what they think he was arrested for.

      1. True, in Somalia you’d need only one or two fuckers with weapons to brutalize a teen, rest would stand around making jokes or taking bets on how long before something breaks.

    3. free4free, Mission, United States, about 6 hours ago
      I counted five cops in the takedown not nine.

      Yes, that makes it OK, asshole.

      1. Maybe the kid was a “thug”! That would justify it, right?

        1. Maybe the kid was a “thug”

          Just say nigger, Captain Racistpants, everyone knows those two words have the same meaning.

        2. The kid didn’t immediately obey. That right there justifies deadly force. He’s lucky to be alive.

        3. “He was no altar boy”

      2. Is Stockton the awesome slice of America that gave us the Kelly Thomas failure-to-comply?

    4. I do not think the city of Stockton employs enough short, chubby men in its police department.

  5. I’m no Trump guy but I agree with Bill Whittle – he is doing us a very big service by destroying political correctness.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RW4R3N8Ju8

    1. If Donald Trump becomes the great voice against political correctness, then I think that will just end up scoring points for the folks who like to think of political correctness as just an effort to be polite and inclusive, rather than a soul-crushing regime of thought control.

      1. “If Donald Trump becomes the great voice against political correctness, then I think that will just end up scoring points for the folks who like to think of political correctness as just an effort to be polite and inclusive”

        Exactly.

        He’s no poster-boy for Free Speech and honest debate. He’s a freaking demagogue who stupidly insults everything that isn’t licking his boots. He can’t so much as string a logical sentence together. Everything is just hyperbolic braggadocio with little connection to reality. WTF does “winning at trade” mean? What does “I’ll be great at the Military” say about actual Foreign Policy? He does politics at the level of Professional Wrestler smack-talk. He’s not for Big Government – he’s for ‘UUUUUUUUUUGE GOVERNMENT. So freaking big you’ll shit yourself if you think about cutting it.

        1. Or, talks at the level of a college sport locker room! He seems like a bullying blowhard. Sort of like the frat boys I had the privilege of being associated with.

  6. bolstering the nation’s military strength, attacking the Islamic State, taking a harsher tack when dealing with other world leaders, and, in general, adopting a more openly aggressive stance on foreign affairs.

    Isn’t that the Republican party’s normal priority?

    The next president must ensure that the “world will know that the United States in America is back in the leadership business,” said Carly Fiorina. “America needs a leader who will go big and bold again,” said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. “I believe that we need to restore America’s presence and leadership in the world,” said former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

    Meet the new (Repub.) boss, same as the old (Repub.) boss.

    I have an idea, why not let the rest of the world take care of itself. Get your own house in order and let others do the same.

    1. Has Obama come out and said anything about the fact that the GOP can’t seem to find a whole lot to criticize him about on the domestic front? Obamacare worked great to bring down unemployment, did it? Wages and productivity up, inflation and gas prices still down? Alrighty, then. Let’s just stick with the Dems for 2016. Biden/Warren ftw.

      1. Jerryskids,

        I am not sure what your post has to do with what I posted. But sure, go ahead and vote Biden/Warren if it makes you feel good.

      2. It probably did great at increasing dividends from the big insurance companies, as well! That does not mean that the rest of us peons would benefit from Obamacare. It did help my wife get one of her preexisting conditions taken care of!

  7. Donald Trump, has run a campaign that is not merely light on policy specifics, but actively disdainful of them, and that his oft-repeated slogan is simply, “Make America great again.”

    let’s hope that changes

    1. Soooo kind of like McCain, then.

  8. My only concern with a weaker US is what other nation will rise up to fill the void? Russia? China? Perhaps I’m naive but I trust the US with that kind of power over most other countries.

    1. I for one am perfectly content to let Russia and China dash themselves against the rocks of the Middle East. I’m sure they will enjoy just as much success as the US has.

      1. I’m kind of amused at the Russian deployment in Syria. Wonder if it turn out better than Afghanistan for them?

        1. Depends on how you define success I guess.

          I mean Russia has a history of successfully keeping client states on a leash. But of course those client states invariably turn into miserable backward shitholes.

          So even if they manage to defeat ISIS (which they won’t), they’ll still be paying Assad’s cable bill for the next few decades.

          1. Is it possible for Syria to be more miserable than it is now?

            1. Just wait until Putin turns into his private bear-wrestling preserve.

        2. They at least won’t have to supply all the combat infantry (presumably). Offload that on Iran, Hezbollah and what little of Syrian army hasn’t deserted, and stick with air strikes, advising and special ops. Kinda like US, but with more relaxed ROE.
          Probably won’t end too good for them, but maybe they’ll Ukrainians a bit of a break, so, positive outcome somewhere?

      2. I for one am perfectly content to let Russia and China dash themselves against the rocks of the Middle East

        If that were all that was at stake, I’d agree with you. But that’s not the entirety of U.S. foreign policy.

        The U.S. has had military blunders since WWII. Despite, the rest of the West shows a remarkable degree of trust (or maybe just complacency) with U.S. military leadership. It’s actually rather remarkable (maybe less so when you realize we foot the bill for the rest of the West, but still).

        And on economic and trade issues, U.S. leadership has actually been pretty good. Under U.S. hegemony relatively liberal democracies (relative to, say, Russia, China, or the ME) have done OK. We’ve certainly stuck our nose in other countries’ business, but we ahven’t gone full blown colonial (at least we’ve been better on that end since the Cold War). And there hasn’t been a war between major powers.

        I don’t necessarily trust China or Russia to keep that track record up.

        Which leaves me with a dilemma (and leads me to a be somewhat schizo on this issue): I’m not a fan of foreign interventionism but it’s hard not to believe that a world led by China or Russia would be worse for relatively liberal values.

    2. More likely to end up with a bunch of squabbling regional powers.

    3. You mean like the way the US pushed the drug war across the globe?

      1. Drugs are bad, m’kay?

      2. I never implied the US was perfect. And most countries had Draconian penalties for drug use even before Nixon launched the WoD. Just like when selecting a Presidential candidate, I consider the US being a Superpower to be the lesser of many evils.

        1. Power corrupts. The US has been the sole superpower for 20 years now, and it’s gotten exponentially worse during that time.

          Superpowers are bad in general. It would be better if there were none.

    4. Antilles, it seems like an inconvenient fact of history that times of (relative) peace coincide with the hegemony of one large power: Pax Roman, Pax Britannica, Pax Americana. So one danger is that American withdrawal will mean more war between other nations: China vs. Japan, etc.

  9. Many Europeans, meanwhile, appear to view Trump largely as a boorish joke?an icon of ignorance and vulgarity who reflects poorly not just on the GOP but on the nation.

    This is absolutely unacceptable. It is imperative to select a President who Europeans can approve of. After all, this has worked out really well with our current President, who Europeans adore.

    1. Actually, Obama has disappointed them as well. Non-Leftists are disappointed for the same reason as H&R lot, Lefties are butthurt that he’s fighting ISIS. And everyone by now understands that he’s an empty suit, not very smart and with absolute disastrous instinct on any issue, so they also feel like he tricked them.

  10. OT (because fuck Trump. I think the Grand Old Party should be now called All Trump’s Bitches, but I digress): Bernie Sanders calls for nationalization of a private industry (trigger warning: ThinkProgress)

    http://thinkprogress.org/justi…..ison-bill/

    1. I must say, prisons are one government function that should not be contracted out to the private sector.

        1. I don’t think that there should be economic incentives for locking people up. Of course, some such incentives exist with government prisons too, but I think that privatizing makes it worse.
          In principle, I don’t think there is anything inherently immoral about it (beyond some moral qualms with prisons in general). But in practice it seems like it only creates more players with a stake in maintaining the drug war, mandatory minimums and other programs that help keep prisons full. Which isn’t good.

          1. “‘I don’t think that there should be economic incentives for locking people up.”

            Its noted that the private prison operators have no control/influence over the actual ‘arrest/trial/jury’ parts of convicting people.

            You could suggest their unionized-labor constituency influences policy (like resistance to drug legalization), but then you might as well make the same point re: Defense Contractors, who must be whispering “INVADE!! INVADE SOMEONE” in the ears of whomever will listen… and indeed, they very well might – but its still not a very good case for suggesting that Defense Contracting would be better done by some Even More Behemoth Pentagon than we already have.

            The reason to make things private is to manage cost, reduce waste, by injecting some possible profit incentive. If you do so in a manner that guarantees the operators some degree of predictability of “market size”… then they’ll manage the supply they’re given with the greatest degree of efficiency. Growth isn’t a concern if you have a reasonably stable source of base revenue. If we’re reducing drug crimes, prison operators have every incentive to reduce their overhead costs and “downsize” to meet the market better. You don’t see that in Big Gov. managed programs, which persist indefinitely despite having long outstripped their purpose.

            1. Its noted that the private prison operators have no control/influence over the actual ‘arrest/trial/jury’ parts of convicting people.

              If that’s true, it ain’t because they haven’t been trying. Here’s a list of what one PPC invests in lobbying:

              http://beta.followthemoney.org…..s?eid=1096

              GEO GROUP has given $6,057,038 to 790 different filers over 13 years

              1. Of course they will try and influence lawmakers. Even if they weren’t 100% dependent on Government as their only customer, if they are even peripherally involved they’d care in what direction the laws are going.

                And all businesses do that in one form or another. If its not lobbying directly, its as a member of a business interest group that does the same. That’s called “Democracy”.

                The fact that some people lobby is not something to be concerned about by itself. My point above was that everyone does it, and their influence is probably marginal at best… compared to government lobbying *itself* and being completely unanswerable to the public – which is the more common alternative.

                Also, that $ #, considered in context, is laughably small = a company that does $1.5-$1.7bn in annual revenue, is spending an average of *half a million a year* in lobbying?

                as a company 100% dependent on State Laws to keep the customers coming in, i’d say that’s *criminally* low. (try the veal)

                Even assuming that’s not spread evenly over time…. the “700+” recipients makes clear they’ve got a lot of palms to grease, and aren’t exactly laying it on very thick.

                Re: the source – I checked on “Tesla” and apparently they hardly give handouts to people at all. Which i find sort of less-than-convincingly accurate.

            2. Another big advantage of privatization is that if a company screws up, you can end the contract and hire someone else.

            3. I think that’s sort of a naive take. They may not be buying juries but they can influence lawmakers a plenty. I’m with Zeb on this one (among many others).

              I wouldn’t hold the military-industrial complex up as a defense here. I don’t know if defense contractors are whispering “invade” (in lowercase letters…you can’t whisper in upper case letters). But I do know they are saying loud and clear “Don’t cut that fighter!” to Reps in those districts. I’d argue it’s a strong contributing factor for why our defense budget is as big as it is. When the Pentagon asks Congress to discontinue a program and they refuse, there is a problem.

              1. Sorry, I don’t see privatized prisons having any more influence over politicians than prisons run by government bureaucracies and government employment unions. If anything, they have less, because politicians can’t fire government bureaucracies and government employment unions.

                1. Those big bureaucracies still exist. Private prisons just throw one more player into the game to resist reform. There’s nothing magic about an entity being private that makes it better than something run by the government. It’s the market that does it – and this isn’t a market-based industry. The people involved are not there by choice and the buyer is the government. I’m not really worried so much about a random incident of a private prison mistreating prisoners or misbehaving in some way – it’s the systematic incentives, and being able to change contractors doesn’t change that (and that’s assuming the government uses that power effectively, which is laughable). The incentives with bureaucracies, unions, government employees, are always going to exist in the criminal justice and prison system, there’s no need to add another layer on top of that.

                  1. Well, “layer” is a bit misleading. The point of private prisons is to save tax dollars. Yeah, it’d be stupid to just spend more money to “add a layer,” but AFAIK it reduces spending on state prison bureaucracies and unions. So another “layer” might well be a win for the taxpayers and liberty, if the extra political pull of the new layer (bad) is smaller than the decrease in power of the state entities (good).

              2. “”I wouldn’t hold the military-industrial complex up as a defense here. “”

                You misunderstood the point of the example -… which was more along the lines of “other likely worst-case offender”

                Of course they use their influence. But they’re only successful insofar that the public opinion isn’t overwhelmingly in the opposite direction. And rarely if ever will they ever get what they want when the public turns sour.

                Private prisons may have helped resist reform of drug laws… sure, but all the other points i made are still true, and less true for large public-sector constituencies.

                I’m not being naive in the slightest = i’m saying that as bad as you think the private/public collusion might be, its not nearly as bad as government by itself, which is both unresponsive and wasteful.

    2. Only honest Democrat.

  11. Who’s going to protect America’s legacy? Reason Magazine? You, Suderman? No, only the GOP. You want them on that wall.

    If the GOP’ers really want to go all Reagan, they would praise Americans for their perseverance in the face of a criminally self-serving and oppressive regulatory environment, for their ability to adapt to obstacles, even obstacles they’ve elected to place in their own way, and their capacity to brave forward through the daily molestations of their own government. Unleash the United States economy and, yes, the country will dominate the world. God bless you all, AND GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

    [thunderous applause for me from you]

    1. TAKE IT OFF

  12. The greatest threat to Western Civilization is the people who govern it.

  13. Invade Iran, defeat ISIS and spread democracy to the Middle East, that is what Trump should do. Here is the kicker: he will make the Iranians pay for it.

    1. I guess he could always take their oil after the invasion.

    2. OK juggler who else is going to do it, look I’m rich so people listen to me, by the way have you seen my wife melania’s rack? The Iranians are annoying, I mean have you seen have you seen their beards? My foreign policy is going to be great. It’s all in my book, have you read my book by the way? anyway, the Art of the Deal you’ll love it.

      1. Well I’m convinced! Have my (illegal) vote!

        1. Illegal? Hmm. What is your address, by the way? I am won’t tell anyone, swearsies.

          1. Umm…. #14 Real American Crescent, Realtown, Illinois.

    3. Will men in the ME finally be able to buy pants?

      1. After all of the winning, everyone will be able to buy pants.

        1. Solomon Grundy want pants too!

      2. Sure. But why would you want pants if it is socially acceptable not to wear pants?

        1. So much winning that you’ll be sick of winning

          1. Has Trump been doing blow with Charlie Sheen or something? Winning.

    4. Did you watch the debate? They all said that, except Rand Paul.

      1. It was more of a parody of the entire Republican party, with the Trumpian part at the end.

    5. Replace Iran with Iraq, and that’s exactly what Rumsfeld said about the Iraq invasion.

      I suppose it will work this time because Trump is a winner!

  14. Could it be that the debate focused on foreign policy/national security because the folks at CNN wanted the debate to focus on that? They picked a conservative radio talk show host, that essentially only cares about that, to be a moderator.

    CNN doesn’t want the Republicans all on stage talking about tax cuts and going into details. They want them fighting over who can kick out the most illegals or build the biggest fence.

  15. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump. All Trump and no Trump makes Trump a dull Trump.

    1. Please, please tell me you didn’t use copy/paste!

      1. we need to ban copy/paste and bring back menial data entry jobs! #makeamericagreat

        1. If it was good enough for Kubrick, It’s good enough for us!

        2. +1 Bartleby

        3. If we ban copy/paste only criminals will have copy/paste.

        4. If we ban copy/paste only criminals will have copy/paste.

  16. “America needs a leader who will go big and bold again.”

    What is he referring to when he says “again”…? I’m scared.

  17. I just started 6 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $4,200…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home. This extra cash has changed my life in so many ways, visit this following website for more details,,, thank you!”

    http://www.OnlineJobs100.Com

  18. The Donald does tell it like it is.

    http://www.Full-Anon.tk

  19. And with good reason Mr Suderman – look at California for the impact of demographic change. Israel understands this, why doesn’t the US?

    “Given the aging white population (average age, 42), many of these new graduates will have to come from the burgeoning Latino immigrant population (average age, 26). By one estimate, this would require tripling of the number of college-educated immigrants, an impossibility if current trends hold. The state’s inability to improve the educational attainment of its residents will result in a “substantial decline in per capita income” and “place California last among the 50 states” by 2020, according to a study by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems…..

    Research on Los Angeles immigrants by Harvard University scholar George J. Borjas shows that 40.1 percent of immigrant families with non-citizen heads of household receive welfare, compared with 12.7 percent of households with native-born heads. Illegal immigrants also increase public expenditures on health care, education, and prisons. In California today, illegal immigrants’ cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be $13 billion half the state’s budget deficit.”

  20. Good for Rand Paul. He sure is allot better than that power hungry, ex prosecuting attorney, fat ass, Chris Christy. Christy, actually brags about being a former federal prosecuting crook. Christy, would triple the prison population in just his first month as president. He wants everyone that is using pot in the states that legalized it, to go to federal prison on pot possession charges. What a jerk!

    ysl envelope bag

    http://www.tildee.com/RWq1q
    http://ptc.allsiteshere.com/st…..ssbody-bag

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.