"The Donald"
- Thread starter Drillher4me
- Start date
-
- Tags
- breast pumps elections trump
LOL, I think BigBlackBull76 is running isn't he?I did find it humorous that Trump has brought up the size of his dick. Might be a solution. Biggest Cock wins, we would likely have a real Black President. Maybe I should run.
I think a little more competition would be fantastic, that's why I'll nominate my old university friend and roommate, Edwin! I'll keep you posted if I can convince him to at least consider!
I did find it humorous that Trump has brought up the size of his dick. Might be a solution. Biggest Cock wins, we would likely have a real Black President. Maybe I should run.
@Torpedo, @hoping hubby - ROFTLMB(lack)AO - good *******.
Yeah I am running make sure you write my name on the Ballot and check out my campaign Ad here:
https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...dent-2016-tour-across-america-al-ga-fl.37467/
I get the reasons why Trump and Sanders are popular and I'm of the same sentiment although I have not seen from any of the candidates outside of Kasich the appropriate temperament, trust and honesty (this is directed at Hillary), or cerebral capacity to effectively serve as the POTUS.
Their success (Trump/Sanders) can be summed up perfectly with this logo:
Why is Donald Trump getting a pass for his disastrous and incompetent track record of running a public company?
The Republican front-runner has made much of his supposed “success” in business and says he now wants to do the same for America.
But the only part of his business track record for which we have the full picture shows that Trump wasn’t a successful executive but an absolute catastrophe.
Donald Trump ran his public company into the ground, but pocketed millions for himself
ref: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-worse-than-you-think-trumps-business-disaster-2016-03-04
@Torpedo, @hoping hubby - ROFTLMB(lack)AO - good *******.
Yeah I am running make sure you write my name on the Ballot and check out my campaign Ad here:
https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...dent-2016-tour-across-america-al-ga-fl.37467/
I get the reasons why Trump and Sanders are popular and I'm of the same sentiment although I don't think any of the candidates outside of Kasich have the temperament, trust and honesty (this is directed at Hillary) or cerebral capacity to effectively serve as the POTUS.
There success came be summed up perfectly with this logo:
View attachment 792380
Why is Donald Trump getting a pass for his disastrous and incompetent track record of running a public company?
The Republican front-runner has made much of his supposed “success” in business and says he now wants to do the same for America.
But the only part of his business track record for which we have the full picture shows that Trump wasn’t a successful executive but an absolute catastrophe.
Donald Trump ran his public company into the ground, but pocketed millions for himself
View attachment 792389And as far as cock size is concerned, yeah if the race was ran by who had the biggest cock, I'm sure Torpedo and I would be beating trump by a large margin on that campaign issue too:
ref: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-worse-than-you-think-trumps-business-disaster-2016-03-04
Based on Trump's comments in the last debate, we need to see a clear picture showing the size of your hands before we can endorse you for president.
@Torpedo, @hoping hubby - ROFTLMB(lack)AO - good *******.
Yeah I am running make sure you write my name on the Ballot and check out my campaign Ad here:
https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...dent-2016-tour-across-america-al-ga-fl.37467/
I get the reasons why Trump and Sanders are popular and I'm of the same sentiment although I have not seen from any of the candidates outside of Kasich the appropriate temperament, trust and honesty (this is directed at Hillary), or cerebral capacity to effectively serve as the POTUS.
Their success (Trump/Sanders) can be summed up perfectly with this logo:
View attachment 792380
Why is Donald Trump getting a pass for his disastrous and incompetent track record of running a public company?
The Republican front-runner has made much of his supposed “success” in business and says he now wants to do the same for America.
But the only part of his business track record for which we have the full picture shows that Trump wasn’t a successful executive but an absolute catastrophe.
Donald Trump ran his public company into the ground, but pocketed millions for himself
View attachment 792389And as far as cock size is concerned, yeah if the race was ran by who had the biggest cock, I'm sure Torpedo and I would be beating trump by a large margin on that campaign issue too:
ref: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-worse-than-you-think-trumps-business-disaster-2016-03-04
Anyone with even the smallest dick could beat Trump "The Dickless Wonder!"
However, if I had a vote, it's yours!
dam - poor little Rubio - his ears look as big as his hands..
The week the Republican Party imploded
One of the most tumultuous weeks in recent Republican Party history ended with a sort of détente.
Sen. Ted Cruz has painted GOP frontrunner Donald Trump as a liberal who will work with the Republican Party's most vehement Democratic enemies in Congress. Sen. Marco Rubio has labeled Trump, over and over again, as a "con man."
Yet, when pressed at Thursday's debate, both senators said they'd support Trump if he ends up as the Republican nominee — a scenario that grows more and more likely by the day.
It was an odd, disjointed conclusion to a week that will long live in party lore. This was the week the party ruptured, its long-simmering civil war exploding out into the open, led by the brash billionaire from New York.
Many in the party are worried, for varying reasons, about whether it will cost them dearly in November.
Others are so terrified about the party's future with Trump as their nominee that they'd rather have Hillary Clinton win the White House than stand behind Trump's campaign in the general election.
GOP strategist Rick Wilson, a prominent Trump critic, told Business Insider why some Republicans are more focused on stopping Trump than Clinton:
Stopping Trump is most important. Hillary Clinton is a nightmare but she's not actually clinically insane. She'd unify conservatives against her. Trump will destroy not only the GOP but also the modern conservative movement. He'll also pollute the GOP brand for a generation.
Here's a brief summation of the week, just from Thursday: The 2012 Republican nominee, backed up by the 2008 nominee, unloaded on the 2016 party frontrunner, who was backed up by the 2008 vice-presidential nominee.
Got all that?
"This week was a total disaster," said a top Republican strategist and former 2016 campaign aide. "I don't see how we come back from this."
Thomson ReutersMitt Romney.
The week started and ended with veiled references to the frontrunner's genitals.
Between the two references, there was little question about Trump's domination of the swath of states that voted on "Super Tuesday," the most important day of the primary-election season.
But instead of rallying around someone — who, in most other nominating contests, would be the party's presumptive nominee with this number of wins — Trump's dominance has only emboldened those in the party who say they will refuse to support him.
The #NeverTrump movement exploded on social media this week. Its preferred candidates, Rubio and Cruz, savaged him on the campaign trail. The Republican 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, launched an unprecedented attack on Trump, the party's frontrunner, calling him a "fraud," a "phony," and a "con man," among other things.
Trump's critics are furiously plotting to deny him the nomination. One plan has Rubio beating Trump in his home state of Florida and Gov. John Kasich beating Trump in his home state of Ohio. Others are focused on trying to stop Trump from securing a majority of delegates, which would thwart Trump from winning outright at the convention, while some hypothetical unifying candidate — Romney? Paul Ryan? — steps in.
Wilson described the situation in fairly emphatic terms.
"German tanks rumble on moonlit roads outside Paris in 1940, but the city still parties like nothing is wrong," the strategist told Business Insider. "The hot French summer of 1789 as the old order flees in darkened carriages for Calais. People rarely realize they're in the middle of a huge historical inflection point; it's the details that absorb attention."
Wilson continued:
We are in that moment for the GOP, right this minute. There is a (currently) non-violent revolution inside the GOP and both the amplitude and frequency of radical distortions in what we thought Republicans politics and conservatism actually mean is increasing.
If the plans to stop Trump sound discombobulated and lacking cohesion, that's because they are. Trump has secured 332 pledged delegates, according to a CNN estimate. The next closest candidate is Cruz, at 230, and Rubio, who is fast becoming the Republican establishment's candidate of choice, is at just 113.
A New York Times analysis on Friday found that if the "Super Tuesday" voting patterns hold up through the rest of the primary season, Trump would be able to secure the 1,237 delegates needed to claim a majority. That is why many party leaders and GOP-leaning figures are urging Republicans to face reality and coalesce around Trump, their most likely nominee.
Alex Castellanos, a GOP strategist who urged donors to mount an anti-Trump effort early in the primary season, said it was time to get behind the businessman. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch said the GOP establishment would be "mad" not to unify around Trump if he became the "inevitable" nominee. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and presidential candidate, urged Republicans to wake up and realize the stark choice between Trump and Clinton.
"I think he'll be a really strong candidate," Doug Watts, a former adviser to the campaign of retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, told Business Insider last week. "He's as good as we've got."
Romney argued that Republicans should take the fight all the way to the convention floor to block Trump's nomination.
Others argue that a contested convention would be a disaster, a recipe for Clinton's election to the White House. Indeed, Romney's speech lambasting Trump overshadowed seemingly significant developments in the FBI investigation into whether any classified material was mishandled in connection to the private email account Clinton used at the State Department.
About 35% of the Republican electorate in the states that have voted so far has voted for Trump, and polls have found that Trump's supporters are committed to their candidate. And any attempt to launch an 11th-hour coup against Trump at the convention would inevitably result in intense backlash from the frontrunner's many fans.
GOP strategist Matt Mackowiak, the president of the Potomac Strategy Group, told Business Insider that there was simply no good solution for the establishment's Trump dilemma. He argued instead that there was still time for other scenarios to come to fruition, such as a "unity" ticket between Cruz and Rubio.
"I fear that there will be a revolt if Trump loses after the first ballot if he has a significant delegate lead going in," Mackowiak said.
I think it was Rubio that initially "hinted" about the size of a man's cock during one of his campaign stops ... "Trump has small hands, and you know what they say about men with small hands... "I did find it humorous that Trump has brought up the size of his dick. Might be a solution. Biggest Cock wins, we would likely have a real Black President. Maybe I should run.
Yeah, I could see you running, Torp ... you wouldn't want a podium, just a standing mike, so as not to block the audience's view of the imprint of your manliness in you custom sown, silk pants. Maybe you could even put your hand in your pocket a few times to move it around, while bragging about your successes with money & women ... jiggle your cock for the ladies to get their votes. In fact, you could use your b2w SN ... let the ladies really know the "goodness" you pack for them. You would take Trump to a whole new level for sure.
The Republican 'establishment' made Donald Trump's nomination possible
ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-establishment-created-trump-2016-3
Members of the Republican "establishment" are finally grappling with the likelihood that their party is about to nominate Donald Trump. But they still don't understand how they brought this phenomenon on themselves.
Here is my suggestion to them: If you want to understand how Trump invaded your party, think first about what Ben Carson's campaign, and other campaigns like it, say about your party.
It has become routine for people who obviously never ought to be president, like Herman Cain, to enjoy success in the Republican primary polls for a time and conservative fame — and speaking fees and book sales — thereafter. Sarah Palin has made a similar career without ever technically running for president, raising funds instead for a political action committee that mostly spends money on consultants, giving very little to actual Republican campaigns.
This time, it was Ben Carson who ran a "normal" scam campaign similar to the one people were expecting Trump to run. He raised a lot of money and enjoyed a brief honeymoon in the polls before collapsing under scrutiny, sold books, and made his campaign consultants wealthy, built a brand that can be monetized on the conservative speaking circuit, and compiled a fundraising list that can be rented out to other campaigns for years.
REUTERS/Mike BlakeBen Carson.
Often, when these candidates aren't running for president, they rent their mailing lists and their personas to peddlers of doomsday investment strategies and nonsense natural cures, as when Mike Huckabee endorsed a cinnamon-based natural diabetes cure. (Note: Cinnamon does not cure diabetes.) Republican insiders have tended to view these scam candidates with a mix of disdain and amusement, but not alarm.
These candidates might be taking $50 donations from old ladies on fixed incomes who really should do something better with their money, but they are ultimately pretty harmless because they always lose.
But what does it say about the Republican Party that its voters spent even a week or two seriously contemplating giving the presidency to Herman Cain? Republican insiders should have realized the appeal of scam campaigns was a symptom of a problem with the way Republican voters evaluate candidates — and that eventually, someone smarter than Herman Cain would come along and figure out how to run the scam long enough to win the nomination.
Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesHerman Cain.
It's not normal for a political party to rent frontrunner status to cranks and charlatans for weeks at a time. Disastrous candidates are supposed to be blocked by validating institutions. Policy experts explain that their proposals do not add up. The media covers embarrassing incidents from their past and present. Party leaders warn that they will be embarrassing or incompetent or unelectable.
The problem is that Republicans have purposefully torn down the validating institutions. They have convinced voters that the media cannot be trusted; they have gotten them used to ignoring inconvenient facts about policy; and they have abolished standards of discourse by allowing all complaints about offensiveness to be lumped into a box called "political correctness" and ignored.
Republicans waged war on these institutions for a reason. Facts about policy can be inconvenient — a reality-based approach would find, for example, that tax cuts increase the deficit and carbon emissions cause climate change. Acknowledging the validity of complaints about racism could require some awkward conversations with racist and quasi-racist voters in the Republican coalition.
Of course, we're now seeing the unintended consequence of the destruction of those institutions and the boundaries they impose around candidate acceptability: In doing so, Republicans created a hole that Donald Trump could fly his 757 through.
Is the press reporting that some of Trump's businesses disserved customers and lost money? Well, you can't trust liberal media institutions like Fox News. Is his tax cut irresponsibly large? Don't worry, Trump will make us so rich it won't matter. Should we be concerned about his rants against Mexicans, either because they are offensive or because they will turn off voters? That sounds like something Obama would worry about.
Trump is woefully incoherent and self-contradictory on policy, and often has terrible ideas when he does get specific, but that doesn't make him much worse than average in today's Republican party. It's hard for Republican insiders to call his $10 trillion tax-cut plan absurd when Marco Rubio wants a $7 trillion one.
In addition to making it hard to attack Trump for policy unseriousness, the choice to decouple from reality has made Republican insiders less situationally aware. Who can forget 2012, when Republicans convinced themselves the polls were skewed and Mitt Romney was really leading all along? In this campaign, Republican insiders — and not a small number of reporters — failed to panic about Trump early enough in part because they bought into a repeated idea about Rubio surges that were not borne out by the polling or the voting.
Thomson Reuters
The emerging conventional wisdom is that Rubio and other establishment candidates screwed up through tactical errors — failing to take Donald Trump seriously early on, not adjusting their messages to meet the mood for populism, not putting campaign resources in the right states. There is a lot of finger pointing about who should have been doing opposition research on Trump and who should have been running attack ads against him and when.
"Party leaders, donors and other supporters of Rubio portray a political operation that continues to come up short in its message, in its attention to the fundamentals of campaigning and in its use of a promising politician," declares The Washington Post in a Rubio pre-mortem — amusingly skipping over the possibility that Rubio is losing because people simply do not want to vote for him.
It may well be true that Rubio's campaign is inept, but in a healthy political party, a savvy campaign would not have been necessary to defeat Trump. The whole reason Republican campaigns failed to take Trump seriously early on was that his unsuitability for the presidency was supposed to be self-evident: Eventually, one of the many outrageous things he said would do him in, without his opponents even having to argue against him.
Republicans will not be able to protect their party from future Trumps without redeveloping institutions that impose accountability — institutions that make reality matter, and allow the self-evident to be evident.
ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-establishment-created-trump-2016-3
Members of the Republican "establishment" are finally grappling with the likelihood that their party is about to nominate Donald Trump. But they still don't understand how they brought this phenomenon on themselves.
Here is my suggestion to them: If you want to understand how Trump invaded your party, think first about what Ben Carson's campaign, and other campaigns like it, say about your party.
It has become routine for people who obviously never ought to be president, like Herman Cain, to enjoy success in the Republican primary polls for a time and conservative fame — and speaking fees and book sales — thereafter. Sarah Palin has made a similar career without ever technically running for president, raising funds instead for a political action committee that mostly spends money on consultants, giving very little to actual Republican campaigns.
This time, it was Ben Carson who ran a "normal" scam campaign similar to the one people were expecting Trump to run. He raised a lot of money and enjoyed a brief honeymoon in the polls before collapsing under scrutiny, sold books, and made his campaign consultants wealthy, built a brand that can be monetized on the conservative speaking circuit, and compiled a fundraising list that can be rented out to other campaigns for years.
Often, when these candidates aren't running for president, they rent their mailing lists and their personas to peddlers of doomsday investment strategies and nonsense natural cures, as when Mike Huckabee endorsed a cinnamon-based natural diabetes cure. (Note: Cinnamon does not cure diabetes.) Republican insiders have tended to view these scam candidates with a mix of disdain and amusement, but not alarm.
These candidates might be taking $50 donations from old ladies on fixed incomes who really should do something better with their money, but they are ultimately pretty harmless because they always lose.
But what does it say about the Republican Party that its voters spent even a week or two seriously contemplating giving the presidency to Herman Cain? Republican insiders should have realized the appeal of scam campaigns was a symptom of a problem with the way Republican voters evaluate candidates — and that eventually, someone smarter than Herman Cain would come along and figure out how to run the scam long enough to win the nomination.
It's not normal for a political party to rent frontrunner status to cranks and charlatans for weeks at a time. Disastrous candidates are supposed to be blocked by validating institutions. Policy experts explain that their proposals do not add up. The media covers embarrassing incidents from their past and present. Party leaders warn that they will be embarrassing or incompetent or unelectable.
The problem is that Republicans have purposefully torn down the validating institutions. They have convinced voters that the media cannot be trusted; they have gotten them used to ignoring inconvenient facts about policy; and they have abolished standards of discourse by allowing all complaints about offensiveness to be lumped into a box called "political correctness" and ignored.
Republicans waged war on these institutions for a reason. Facts about policy can be inconvenient — a reality-based approach would find, for example, that tax cuts increase the deficit and carbon emissions cause climate change. Acknowledging the validity of complaints about racism could require some awkward conversations with racist and quasi-racist voters in the Republican coalition.
Of course, we're now seeing the unintended consequence of the destruction of those institutions and the boundaries they impose around candidate acceptability: In doing so, Republicans created a hole that Donald Trump could fly his 757 through.
Is the press reporting that some of Trump's businesses disserved customers and lost money? Well, you can't trust liberal media institutions like Fox News. Is his tax cut irresponsibly large? Don't worry, Trump will make us so rich it won't matter. Should we be concerned about his rants against Mexicans, either because they are offensive or because they will turn off voters? That sounds like something Obama would worry about.
Trump is woefully incoherent and self-contradictory on policy, and often has terrible ideas when he does get specific, but that doesn't make him much worse than average in today's Republican party. It's hard for Republican insiders to call his $10 trillion tax-cut plan absurd when Marco Rubio wants a $7 trillion one.
In addition to making it hard to attack Trump for policy unseriousness, the choice to decouple from reality has made Republican insiders less situationally aware. Who can forget 2012, when Republicans convinced themselves the polls were skewed and Mitt Romney was really leading all along? In this campaign, Republican insiders — and not a small number of reporters — failed to panic about Trump early enough in part because they bought into a repeated idea about Rubio surges that were not borne out by the polling or the voting.
The emerging conventional wisdom is that Rubio and other establishment candidates screwed up through tactical errors — failing to take Donald Trump seriously early on, not adjusting their messages to meet the mood for populism, not putting campaign resources in the right states. There is a lot of finger pointing about who should have been doing opposition research on Trump and who should have been running attack ads against him and when.
"Party leaders, donors and other supporters of Rubio portray a political operation that continues to come up short in its message, in its attention to the fundamentals of campaigning and in its use of a promising politician," declares The Washington Post in a Rubio pre-mortem — amusingly skipping over the possibility that Rubio is losing because people simply do not want to vote for him.
It may well be true that Rubio's campaign is inept, but in a healthy political party, a savvy campaign would not have been necessary to defeat Trump. The whole reason Republican campaigns failed to take Trump seriously early on was that his unsuitability for the presidency was supposed to be self-evident: Eventually, one of the many outrageous things he said would do him in, without his opponents even having to argue against him.
Republicans will not be able to protect their party from future Trumps without redeveloping institutions that impose accountability — institutions that make reality matter, and allow the self-evident to be evident.
It is an interesting thought
However I don't think bragging about wealth would be a major benefit in this election. Quality and quantity of sexual encounters would likely be good for some press for a couple of days. I likely am in the 1 per center club but I would have a ways to go to match Trump. But then I didn't get to inherit most of my wealth.As to silk pants I always thought they were a bit over the top. I do have a couple of silk shirts that have been gifts. Most of my suits have been purchased off the rack. I would rather impress someone with my abilities than make a fashion statement.My younger ******* has mentioned on more than one occasion my lack of fashion acumen
Last edited:
