The storied U.K. publication The Economist has weighed in on the background for Donald Trump and the implications for his qualifications for the Presidency. The review is typical British understatement, but can only be read as an ungentlemanly pan.
“Opaque,volatile and contested” they write. “Information about Trump’s business is sketchy”. “Whether he has transcended the business of property to become a global brand is debatable.” The article goes on to challenge a widely held belief he is wildly successful, noting he missed out on opportunities and nearly lost it all in the 1990’s. “Mr. Trump’s performance has been mediocre compared with the stock market and property in New York”.
The guy failed at running casino’s, something the smallest American Indian tribe seems to be pull off without the attitude.
I suppose his supporters would say he is a risk taker. The article quotes an unnamed source that worked for The Donald for a time as saying “He is not stable. He has a nuclear temper.” Emphasis mine. Right, lets elect our own version of Kim Jong-Un but give him lots of warheads with a global reach.
“His clannish management style suggests he might be out of his depth if he ran a larger organization” the paper reports, meaning the United States. Have we so completely lost all sense of what a President should be like that we are ready to sign up a reality TV star for the post?
A lot has been said about the current occupant of the White House. To me BHO was a Woodrow Wilson 100 years later. Are we to follow an erudite, educated idealist with a man who comes off like a thug who really isn’t even that good at muscle? That, it is appears, is the view from across the pond.