He might not have much chance of winning, and he may not command the same attention in the news cycle, but there's another hopeful in the 2016 presidential election besides Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump: libertarian Gary Johnson, a socially liberal, fiscal conservative whose campaign rests on the idea that he can bridge the divide between the left and the right. Unfortunately, the branding of the Johnson campaign wasn't getting that idea across, so as a fun exercise, the Florida-based branding agency Spark decided to mock up an identity for him.
Then things got weird. Without crediting Spark or paying for the work, a contractor for the Johnson campaign stole Spark's brand identity wholesale. To add insult to injury, the contractor didn't even steal the work correctly. The execution was so bad, Spark felt obliged to publicly release a style guide to its own pilfered work, in the hopes that the Johnson campaign would start using it right.
In a statement to Co.Design, the Johnson campaign acknowledged the screw-up. "At the senior level of the campaign, we were completely unaware until receiving a media inquiry Saturday evening that our website contractor had seen and clearly used the concept and design ideas posted on the web by Spark," said Joe Hunter, communications director for the Johnson campaign. "Upon seeing the obvious connection, we immediately contacted Spark and have since had a very constructive conversation with them—hopefully with no hard feelings. It was never our intent to use anyone's creative work, spec or otherwise, without giving appropriate credit, and we regret that our contractor apparently failed to communicate our desire to use Spark's work. It won't happen again, and we look forward to continued conversations with Spark about putting their excellent work to good use in the campaign."...
Jeff Domansky's insight:
Gary Johnson's Libertarian campaign finally fesses up to stealing another designers work for their own use. Classic reputation management although a little slow.
A new clip from the executive producers of The Simpsons finds Homer and Marge contemplating their votes.
WHY WE CARE: The Simpsons does not shy away from making political statements. The show has been openly critical of its Fox network overlords at News Corp for decades, roasted every sitting president since 1989, and outsourced a couch gag to Banksy that criticized the makers of Simpsons merchandise. Now the producers behind the show are weighing in on the impending November election.
Contrary to The Simpsons' long-ago prophecy that Donald Trump would be president someday, it seems like an orange White House is something our beloved yellow friends do not want—or at least Marge doesn't. The fact that the political ad in this short clip that sways her is "paid for by Americans who really are starting to miss Obama" further clarifies just where the show's creators are coming from.
Watch another short Simpsons video, "Trumptastic...
The Times reporters Nick Confessore, Maggie Haberman, Adam Nagourney and Alan Rappeport provided real-time analysis of the final night of the Democratic National Convention, featuring Chelsea andHillary Clinton. Check out the highlights.
Jeff Domansky's insight:
Interesting NYT analysis of final DNC night via Twitter.
Below are Donald Trump's remarks accepting the Republican nomination as delivered. Where text is in bolded, it denotes a place where Trump's comment deviated from the original draft that leaked to the press.
Friends, delegates and fellow Americans: I humbly and gratefully accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States....
Jeff Domansky's insight:
The Washington Post shares The Donald's full speech text. He alludes to Hillary's campaign theme as: "I'm with her." In my opinion, his campaign theme should be: "I'm with myself." Ah politics...
Boris Johnson’s latest column for the Telegraph is a marvellous specimen of an emergent school of political thought: Bloody Brilliant Brexit Britishism. Here’s a snippet: And that gives us a chance not just to do new trade deals, but to think of ourselves once again as a truly global Britain using our unique voice — humane, compassionate, principled — to do good around the world, and to exploit growth markets to the full. link
How splendid. Here’s another cracking example of the genre: Priti Patel‘s got some cracking news, just wait til you hear this, guys! We are already seeing our friends in the Anglosphere sending us positive messages on future trade deals, and it is clear that the US wants us at the front of the queue rather than the back…As a beacon of global free trade and enterprise, we should go into our negotiations with the EU with confidence that we can achieve fair terms of withdrawal. link
Cool! What are you all worrying about, you idiots, we’re a beacon! We’ve got confidence! And, and and and, we’ve got some amazingly positive messages, and — holy shit! — have you seen how big these imaginary trade deals are?!...
Jeff Domansky's insight:
While post-Brexit Britain burns, Boris Johnson leads the British cheerleaders in their "Bloody Brilliant Brexit Britishism". If I was young and living in Britain might be getting ready to pack up and leave because cheerleading is not substance.
Last June, as dusk fell outside Tony Schwartz’s sprawling house, on a leafy back road in Riverdale, New York, he pulled out his laptop and caught up with the day’s big news: Donald J. Trump had declared his candidacy for President. As Schwartz watched a video of the speech, he began to feel personally implicated.
Trump, facing a crowd that had gathered in the lobby of Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue, laid out his qualifications, saying, “We need a leader that wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ” If that was so, Schwartz thought, then he, not Trump, should be running. Schwartz dashed off a tweet: “Many thanks Donald Trump for suggesting I run for President, based on the fact that I wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ”
Schwartz had ghostwritten Trump’s 1987 breakthrough memoir, earning a joint byline on the cover, half of the book’s five-hundred-thousand-dollar advance, and half of the royalties. The book was a phenomenal success, spending forty-eight weeks on the Times best-seller list, thirteen of them at No. 1. More than a million copies have been bought, generating several million dollars in royalties. The book expanded Trump’s renown far beyond New York City, making him an emblem of the successful tycoon. Edward Kosner, the former editor and publisher of New York, where Schwartz worked as a writer at the time, says, “Tony created Trump. He’s Dr. Frankenstein.”
Starting in late 1985, Schwartz spent eighteen months with Trump—camping out in his office, joining him on his helicopter, tagging along at meetings, and spending weekends with him at his Manhattan apartment and his Florida estate. During that period, Schwartz felt, he had got to know him better than almost anyone else outside the Trump family. Until Schwartz posted the tweet, though, he had not spoken publicly about Trump for decades. It had never been his ambition to be a ghostwriter, and he had been glad to move on. But, as he watched a replay of the new candidate holding forth for forty-five minutes, he noticed something strange: over the decades, Trump appeared to have convinced himself that he had written the book. Schwartz recalls thinking, “If he could lie about that on Day One—when it was so easily refuted—he is likely to lie about anything.”
It seemed improbable that Trump’s campaign would succeed, so Schwartz told himself that he needn’t worry much. But, as Trump denounced Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” near the end of the speech, Schwartz felt anxious. He had spent hundreds of hours observing Trump firsthand, and felt that he had an unusually deep understanding of what he regarded as Trump’s beguiling strengths and disqualifying weaknesses. Many Americans, however, saw Trump as a charmingly brash entrepreneur with an unfailing knack for business—a mythical image that Schwartz had helped create. “It pays to trust your instincts,” Trump says in the book, adding that he was set to make hundreds of millions of dollars after buying a hotel that he hadn’t even walked through....
Jeff Domansky's insight:
Here's an excellent tell-all article in The New Yorker Donald Trump's ghostwriter. if you enjoy politics, this is a must read. 9.5/10
If their labor was similar to that of many other reporters in town covering the convention, their nationality wasn't. Reporter Jiwon Park and cameraman Bohyun Bang are with Arirang TV based in Seoul, South Korea.
Why were they here?
"It's the president of the United States," Park explained. "We have a lot of interest in the United States. It is the number-one country in the world."
As NBC's Chuck Todd was hustling to a nearby outdoors studio not too far away and eliciting a news celebrity's typical response from passersby ("hey, that's the guy from CBS!" a Mississippi delegate said to his companion), the two journalists from Arirang were virtually unnoticed and blended into the bustle of conventioneers, media and massive security.
The duo has been in the country for 10 days, starting in Washington, D.C. and finishing up in Cleveland.I asked if they had come to any clear understanding of Trump's appeal. They said a little bit but not completely. Perhaps join the crowd, I said....
Jeff Domansky's insight:
Explaining Donald Trump? What's a poor foreign reporter to do?
Donald Trump's national spokeswoman Katrina Pierson explains why she wore a necklace made of bullets on live television.
Jeff Domansky's insight:
In the light of all of the gun violence in the US, this clip is a sad reflection of insensitivity, disregard for victims of violence, self-centeredness and shallow thinking by Trump's spokesperson. Typical.
His credibility is zero, but by attacking political correctness he projects a true voice to his internet followers
In most ways, Donald Trump has taken poor advantage of the Net. He has not used it for organizing and spreading a movement the way the Occupy Wall Street or Arab Spring did. He has not used it to raise essential funding for his campaign, as Bernie Sanders does. He has not used it to build community among his supporters as presidential candidates since Howard Dean in 2004 have.
He has not even used it as the primary vehicle for getting his message out, relying instead on the countless hours of coverage broadcast media have provided for free — although he’s obviously no slouch at social media. But despite these missed opportunities, Donald Trump has utterly excelled in one single aspect of the Net. Leveraging — and perverting — one of its key values: Authentic speech.
Speech on the Net sounds very different than the voice of old media. When I was growing up, the media’s authoritative voice had the same accent. It was professionally enunciated, often presented as neutral and stripped of personal belief, always calm, and overwhelmingly male. Then the Internet liberated our voices, training us to expect people to speak for and as themselves, with all their idiosyncrasies and imperfections.
Trump’s voice is indeed authentic in that sense. After all, he is the first major candidate for the presidency of the United States who clearly writes his own tweets. Hillary Clinton (whom I support) tweets out carefully prepared campaign points that seem obviously to have been written by her staff — especially when the tweets are dispatched while Clinton is making a point in a live debate. Donald, on the other hand, just says whatever is crossing his mind at that moment, much of which is nasty, degrading, and untrue. The lack of a filter, the weird punctuation, the very clumsiness of its expression makes Trump’s Internet speech seem much more authentic than Clinton’s....
Jeff Domansky's insight:
Interesting look at Donald Trump and social media.
This article makes a lot of valid points however, I think they are incorrect about one thing. While Donald Trump has said and done many unfavorable things, he has been able to do one thing correct, and that is create a following. While his ideas are not something I personally agree with, there are many that do and he has brought them all together. He has used the mass communication powers that Twitter allows to generate a community and voter-base. Like the article says, Trump has a certain authenticity and genuine nature about him and his tweets, that people are drawn to. Like one of module's discussed, CMC often allows people to hide behind carefully crafted tweets, messages, and profile pages in online dating. Though it is not for dating purposes, politicians and candidates do the same thing. They create an online and public persona based on what people want. Trump however, has broken all these rules and ideas, and a significant amount of people found that honesty refreshing. He did not hide behind political correctness as many have done.
If there’s one tactic that has stood out in this presidential campaign, it is the way GOP frontrunner Donald Trump has slain his foes with the jawbone of an ass.
Trump’s penchant for labeling his opponents—from “Lyin’ Ted” Cruz to “Low-Energy Jeb” Bush—has been like a boxer’s left hook to the liver. It doesn’t look like much until the other guy drops.
Now Trump is trying to do the same to his Democratic foes, calling them “crooked” and “crazy.”
After The New York Times Magazine explored the issue (“Donald Trump Shares His Opponent-Branding Secrets”), I wondered: Do the same labeling techniques work in PR and marketing? Whether it’s throwing mud or branding oneself positively, does Trump offer lessons to PR pros?
The consensus is that such tactics can work, but mudslinging is “risky,” a word Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton uses in an effort to brand Trump.
“Trump has a knack for coining just the right moniker, the perfectly dismissive and catchy thing,” The Times writer stated. “‘It works, it flows,’ Trump said, admiring his latest work.”
Jeff Domansky's insight:
There used to be an old PR saying about the risk of fighting with the media who buy ink by the barrel. or, how about this, George Bernard Shaw quote: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
Those are two important lessons for the Democrats as they consider how to engage with The Donald.
" Jumping the shark" is an idiom popularized by Jon Hein that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality, signaled by a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show in which the writers use some type of gimmick in an attempt to keep viewers' interest, which is taken as a sign of desperation, and is seen by viewers to be the point at which the show strayed irretrievably from its original formula.
Ever wonder where this great expression came from?
"Jumping the shark" is an idiom popularized by Jon Hein that was used to describe the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality, signaled by a particular scene, episode, or aspect of a show in which the writers use some type of gimmick in an attempt to keep viewers' interest, which is taken as a sign of desperation, and is seen by viewers to be the point at which the show strayed irretrievably from its original formula.
The phrase is based on a scene from a fifth-season episode of the sitcomHappy Days when the character Fonzie jumps over a shark while on water-skis.
The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment when a brand, design, franchise, or creative effort's evolution declines....
Jeff Domansky's insight:
I'm thinking "jumping the shark" perfectly describes where we are today in the Republican nomination. If you read further in this Wikipedia note, you'll also see "nuke the fridge" which is also a propos for the media the bridge which now really resembles a media circus and a fight to the bottom in terms of quality reporting.
I'm thinking "jumping the shark" perfectly describes where we are today in the Republican nomination. If you read further in this Wikipedia note, you'll also see "nuke the fridge" which is also a propos for the media the bridge which now really resembles a media circus and a fight to the bottom in terms of quality reporting.
To run for president, you need to possess a certain je ne sais quoi when it comes to communicating messages that can provoke people to take action.
So regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on, your brand can take a lesson from each of the master marketers who remain in the race. The candidates clearly know how to engage their base.
Below are some of the top strategies and tactics of Decision 2016, which can be applied easily to your organization’s social channels to gain traction and win over some very loyal constituents....
Jeff Domansky's insight:
Interesting marketing lessons from political candidates.
There is so much to learn from the US Presidential candidates especially about effective social marketing strategies. Brand promoters can learn a lot about how to pitch their ideas, more effectively!
Donald Trump can be entirely banned from the internet using a Chrome extension.
The software analyses websites for the use of his name and stops access to any website that contains it.
Its creator says that the tool hasn’t just been created to filter out the often incendiary pronouncements of the presidential candidate — but in the hope of broadening the debate, too.
"I hope folks will take this opportunity to learn more about the wide field of candidates out there," Rob Spectre, who created the Trump Filter, told CNN. The extension could allow people to actually learn about the issues that are at stake in the race to be the Republican candidate for president, he said....
Designed by Alicia Parlapiano and Adam Pearce for the New York Times, this short series of data visualizations tell a very clear story about how Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees For the 2016 Presidential election.
The United States is home to 324 million people. Each square here represents 1 million people.103 million of them are children, noncitizens or ineligible felons, and they do not have the right to vote.
88 million eligible adults do not vote at all, even in general elections.
An additional 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year, but will most likely vote in the general election.
The remaining 60 million people voted in the primaries: about 30 million each for Republicans and Democrats.
But half of the primary voters chose other candidates.
Just 14 percent of eligible adults — 9 percent of the whole nation — voted for either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton....
I didn’t think it was possible for Donald Trump to say anything more despicable than he has already served up in this campaign. But this weekend the GOP presidential nominee did just that twice.
First, he went after Ghazala Khan, the mother of U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan who had received a Purple Heart for bravery after being killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. And then stunningly Trump equated his work as a businessman as being a “sacrifice” akin to the sacrifice made by the brave women and men who have served in our nation’s armed forces.
With respect to Mrs. Khan, Trump was asked by Maureen Dowd on Saturday what was his reaction to ”the poignant appearance of Muslim lawyer Khizr Khan and his wife” at the DNC. Did Trump respond by acknowledging Captain Khan’s sacrifice or offer words of support for these Gold Star parents? Nope, instead he answered with one sentence: “I’d like to hear his wife say something.” (How would his wife saying anything change in any way Capt. Khan’s sacrifice or his parents’ loss?!)
Jeff Domansky's insight:
The one thing about egomaniacs in social media is that your true colors can't be hidden. So it goes with Trumpet. His apologists must be getting exhausted trying to come up with new excuses for his behavior.
Social media is playing a transformative role in this presidential election. Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton are heavily utilizing social media platforms to connect with voters.
And it’s working.Millions of people follow Trump and Clinton on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and the numbers are growing every day. Via these platforms, people are tuning in to see what the candidates have to say, whether Clinton and Trump’s platforms align with their views. People are invested in the Clinton and Trump brands.
After rising to the top of the political social sphere, it’s safe to say Trump and Clinton can teach us a few things about using social media to boost our own personal branding.
Here are five social media takeaways from Clinton and Trump’s social media campaigning....
Donald Trump’s speech at the Republican National Convention was only 8% specific policy promises. On the other hand, by my word-for-word calculation, 20% of it was criticism of Trump’s opponents, 21% was fearmongering, and the rest was mostly vague generalities and cheerleading.
Based on this speech, you really can’t identify what you’ll be getting if this guy gets elected — but you certainly know what to be afraid of it he doesn’t.
Let me break it down for you.
I used the Washington Post’s version of the planned text of the speech. Then I marked it up in different colors to represent different elements: vague promises, passive promises that something will magically happen, overarching proclamations, criticism of opponents and elites — and the few actual promises.
You can see my analysis in the color-coded graphic at the end of this post, and you can see the color-coded text in my Google Document of the speech....
Parts of Melania Trump’s speech at the Republican National Convention are strikingly similar to Michelle Obama’s speech from eight years ago. How does this happen? Plagiarism at this level is typically the result of sloppiness, not outright theft. If you don’t want this to happen to you, then you need to change how you work.
What Melania Trump said sounds awfully familiar.
In 2008, here’s what Michelle Obama said, in part (most of the highlights in these passages, which show the similar parts, are from a Wall Street Journal article about the plagiarism).
Like my family, they scrimped and saved so that he could have opportunities they never had themselves. And Barack and I were raised with so many of the same values: that you work hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you do what you say you’re going to do; that you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don’t know them, and even if you don’t agree with them.
And Barack and I set out to build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next generation.
Because we want our children—and all children in this nation—to know that the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them....
Jeff Domansky's insight:
It's too bad the kudos from a well-delivered speech were undone by the campaign clowns and amateurs in the backroom.
It was early evening in Politico’s newsroom, four days before the Iowa caucuses.
Reporters were working sources and checking TV screens as a presidential debate was about to get under way. But tonight, January 28, Politico’s biggest story was about itself.
Outside news organizations were reporting a massive, unexpected overhaul of the company’s leadership. Now executives were scrambling to respond. In a glass-enclosed office at the far end of the newsroom, CEO Jim VandeHei was hunkered down alongside chief operating officer Kim Kingsley and chief revenue officer Roy Schwartz, hurriedly crafting a statement announcing that they—along with marquee reporter Mike Allen—were leaving the company.
After months of behind-the-scenes drama, Washington’s most successful media partnership in a generation was busting apart. And all the players had to get their stories straight....
Jeff Domansky's insight:
The team that built DC's most unconventional modern media juggernaut is divorcing, thanks largely to the most conventional reasons: ego, power, and money.
For the 2008 presidential race, Barack Obama hired one of Facebook’s early employees, Chris Hughes, to drive the campaign’s technology strategy. Hughes created social tools that saved the campaign millions of dollars and months of grassroots community building, some of which are described in the book Barack, Inc.
Back then however, Hughes’s contribution helped mobilize a relatively small portion of volunteers, those already familiar with social media — mainly young people and early adopters. It’s hard to remember this considering today’s widespread adoption, but the first iPhone only launched in 2007, a few months prior to the start of the campaign; and Facebook had only about 100 million users then, many of them university students.
Today, three out of four American voters have both a smartphone and a Facebook account. How will technology impact the outcome of the 2016 presidential election? In this article, I review three critical aspects to watch: marketing, operations, and profiling....
Jeff Domansky's insight:
For Clinton, digital marketing is a science. For Trump, it’s more of an art. Welcome to the mobile campaign!
For supporters of Britain staying in the EU, a simple question remains this morning: How did we fail to persuade voters of our position? Steve Martin, director at Influence at Work in London and best-selling author of several books on persuasion, spoke with HBR about the ways in which the Remain advocates’ message failed to get through, or even backfired. Martin was joined by Joseph Marks, a behavioral scientist on his team.
HBR: From a persuasion science point of view, how do you explain the vote for Britain’s exit from the EU? Steve Martin: There seems to have been a focusing effect. The Leave side made sure that immigration became a focus. Not only a focus but the focus. And once that’s a focus it’s hard to get other messages through. What we see is all there is. Danny Kahneman said that clearly. We can only pay attention to a limited number of things and if we see that immigration story every day, that’s what affects us more than a rational argument that predicts what would happen if we left.
But they saw the economic arguments every day, too. Why couldn’t the Remain side focus the voters on that? Joseph Marks: I think both campaigns were built around fear of loss. One was what we’re losing in terms of immigration coming in. And one was loss to the economy and your pocket. Normally that wins. That’s number one. But right now, you can see that immigration issue as happening now, in the present, whilst the economy is doing well. In the optimism literature, we’ve seen that people are generally optimistic about their own futures when the economy is good, so that’s maybe how the economic argument lost to something that feels more pressing to people. So ironically the very people who helped get our economy on track created an environment that makes it harder to communicate their message of potential negative impacts of leaving the EU. The health of the economy created a good economic environment that had a disproportionate influence over decision making at that moment....
Jeff Domansky's insight:
Valuable lessons from Brexit for marketers and politicians alike.
Hillary Clinton’s “delete your account” moment was no fluke: Her tweet heard round the world was just the most viral example of her newly aggressive effort to take the 2016 fight directly to Donald Trump on his favorite social media turf.
After a long primary campaign in which Trump has used Twitter to pump out an endless stream of taunts at rivals and gobble up news coverage, Clinton’s campaign has rolled out a strategy in recent weeks to turn the presumptive GOP nominee's own words against him — with some sly sarcasm and snark. Her barbs may appear off the cuff but are sometimes planned and edited well in advance, making the Clinton-Trump war on Twitter an extension of the contrast between their distinct political styles: staff-driven and tightly scripted versus shoot-from-the-hip, aggressive and biting.
Thursday’s skirmish represented the peak Twitter moment of the 2016 campaign so far. When Trump tweeted out an attack on President Barack Obama's endorsement of “Crooked Hillary,” her campaign responded five minutes later with “Delete your account” — a time-honored social media jibe that quickly became her most popular tweet ever, with more than 420,000 retweets and over half a million likes by Friday afternoon. (That far surpassed the traffic of Trump’s infamous “Taco Bowl” tweet from Cinco de Mayo.)
Trump waited more than two hours to tweet a response to Clinton: “How long did it take your staff of 823 people to think that up — and where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted?”...
Jeff Domansky's insight:
If you think it's not busy about politics on social media now just wait a couple of weeks.
The Republican frontrunner met with the editorial board on Monday morning. The full transcript follows at the link above:
FREDERICK RYAN JR., WASHINGTON POST PUBLISHER: Mr. Trump, welcome to the Washington Post. Thank you for making time to meet with our editorial board.
DONALD TRUMP: New building. Yes this is very nice. Good luck with it.
RYAN: Thank you… We’ve heard you’re going to be announcing your foreign policy team shortly… Any you can share with us?
TRUMP: Well, I hadn’t thought of doing it, but if you want I can give you some of the names… Walid Phares, who you probably know, PhD, adviser to the House of Representatives caucus, and counter-terrorism expert; Carter Page, PhD; George Papadopoulos, he’s an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy; the Honorable Joe Schmitz, [former] inspector general at the Department of Defense; [retired] Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg; and I have quite a few more. But that’s a group of some of the people that we are dealing with. We have many other people in different aspects of what we do, but that’s a representative group....
Jeff Domansky's insight:
I thought they had quit making episodes of the Twilight Zone. If you enjoy politics, this will keep you entertained. One lesson though for PR and public affairs pros. Who suggested he meet with an obviously hostile crowd? There was no possible win here for Trump given his lack of substance and who he was meeting. Recommended reading. 11/10 ;-)
I challenge each of the remaining candidates for president. Do you have the courage to make this speech and save America from Donald Trump?
My fellow Americans, today’s speech is not about me. It is about you.
I speak to you today about the greatest threat to America’s future. It’s not ISIS. It’s not gun violence or drugs. It is Donald Trump.
The reason is simple. Unlike every other candidate in this race — and unlike the committed people that make up our government — Donald Trump has only an empty hole where his conscience should be....
The source were I got the article from does not seem to be, any bit reliable because just from reading the entire article and the last paragraph it was a complete biased paper. But, I personally do not disagree with what the writer wrote because I view Trump the same way the writer displayed Trump as a selfish "child" who does not care for the benefit of all of Americans. I chose to read this article because I keep viewing the jokes and certain speeches that Trump has given. Many who say that Trump is such a joke I agree that he is. But, if you have been tuning in to the Republican Debates Trump has won. He up to now has won over FOUR US states. I personally feel like it is becoming more serious every time he wins. Yet, we all know Trump is going to be a horrible president then why are many still voting for him if his tactics are pretty much displayed all over social media?
To get content containing either thought or leadership enter:
To get content containing both thought and leadership enter:
To get content containing the expression thought leadership enter:
You can enter several keywords and you can refine them whenever you want. Our suggestion engine uses more signals but entering a few keywords here will rapidly give you great content to curate.
Your new post is loading...
Gary Johnson's Libertarian campaign finally fesses up to stealing another designers work for their own use. Classic reputation management although a little slow.