“This Parrot is no More”: The 2016 Presidential Election did not Take Place

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment)

The French sociologist and philosopher Jean Baudrillard wrote a book in 1991 entitled The Gulf War did not Take Place .

In the same way, the 2016 presidential election did not take place.

Baudrillard did not mean to say, of course, that no war was prosecuted by the US and its allies, positioned in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, against the Iraqi occupation army in Kuwait, eventuating in the expulsion of the Iraqi tank corps.

He did think that for Western audiences, the war was a staged television conflict, an imitation of reality or simulacrum–a phony copy of reality. The weeks of US bombing of Iraqi lines that kicked off the war beginning in mid-January left behind black carbon dust. Iraqi soldiers, many of them poor Shiite conscripts, might have wanted to surrender. But they weren’t allowed to raise a white flag to the F-16s pulverizing them from 30,000 feet. That isn’t a war, that is shooting fish in a barrel. When the land war did begin, it was clear that the war directors connived at having the handful of Egyptian troops drive into Kuwait City first, for the cameras, so that Kuwait was liberated by the Arab League, not by 600,000 Western troops.

In some ways Baudrillard’s point goes back to an insight of the early twentieth century Belgian painter, René Magritte, who adhered to the surrealist school. His 1928-29 painting, “The Treachery of Images” shows a pipe, but then underneath it Magritte wrote in French, “This is not a pipe.” Of course it is not a pipe. It is just an imaginary copy of a pipe. It now hangs in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.


If the Gulf War was a television spectacle, the 2016 election is much more of one, with the added phony copies of reality flying around on social media. Not only did the election not take place, Donald Trump did not run. He has virtually no campaign machine, few functioning district offices. He holds rallies, which are dutifully televised by the cable “news” networks– they actually just turn their airtime over to him on a regular basis (while not doing any such thing for Hillary Clinton). His campaign is his staged rallies, which then are piped out to millions gratis. Trump is given free airtime because he is a creature of television, a reality show star, famous for being famous (i.e. for no particular reason; lots of real estate magnates are not famous, e.g.) He is given air time because viewership rises when he is on tv, and networks can charge advertisers more if they have more viewers.

Trump, in other words, functions for cable news in the same way as the ghostly Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 did for CNN in particular. Apparently hundreds of thousands of Americans were riveted by 6 months of rank speculation as to whether the airliner had landed in Tibet’s Shangrila or been kidnapped by Vladimir Putin’s air force. We are told that

“From 10pm-12am, [CNN’s] All Business: The Essential Donald Trump ranked #1 among adults 25-54 with 448k, beating the combined delivery of Fox News and MSNBC. Fox News averaged 193k. MSNBC trailed with 101k.

Let’s repeat that. A quick and dirty basic cable documentary on Trump outdrew both Fox and MSNBC live magazine news shows among the target demographic (the elderly, from a marketing point of view, do not actually exist). The non-Trump, the copy of Trump over at CNN, overshadowed Greta van Susteren and Lawrence O’Donnell’s news shows, which faded into unreality in comparison. Van Susteren demonstrated her own inability to grasp reality when she doubted that Fox poobah Roger Ailes had been a serial sex harasser; but then as reality sank in, she began to flicker and after a while, when she had accepted the non-televised non-Fox reality, she could no longer be found on the airwaves herself. Not only is there no election, but those who acknowledge the hard facts obscured by the 24 hour “news cycle” also come not to exist.

Did the press demand that Trump, the oldest person ever to have the prospect of taking office as president for a first term, reveal his physician’s health report?

Trump has an eccentric doctor write up a very brief one-pager, and then Trump shows it to Dr. Oz, Oprah’s physician, on afternoon television. Done. The health report is “public” because televised. No matter that it was a skeleton report, and raised questions about weight and cholesterol. There was no real health report of the sort the reporters had in mind, and which past candidates had released. There was only a phony copy of such a report in the form of a t.v. broadcast with a t.v. quack, half of whose statements about medicine and treatment appear to be ungrounded in reality.

As with a scripted reality show, Trump creates and keeps tension in his story line. His character is the grumpy anti-immigrant who shouts, “You furriners get off my lawn!” But if he does that consistently there is no tension. So in late August he asked the audience at a “town hall” (a phony t.v. town hall) whether he should “soften” his stance. He created a frenzy. Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter, bit players in the reality show, are stricken, in tears, angry and betrayed. Donald, you were our great white hope– how could you do this to us. Serious journalists were made to sit in televised roundtables (phony t.v. substitutes for actual reportage) and discuss ad nauseam whether Trump was “softening.” Or the serious journalists were switched out for campaign “surrogates” like Corey Lewandowski, hired by CNN to parrot Trump even though he was still on Trump’s payroll. Cable news journalism made its own journalism disappear. “This is not a journalist,” the ticker underneath should read.

Then the scripted reality character grumpy Trump comes out and gives a fiery speech denouncing immigrants, resolving the tension he had artificially created.

The one-week “softening crisis” never actually took place. There was no softening. Just as there is no election.

The unreality of the election is easily demonstrated. The controversies broadcast both on television and radio and on social media do not refer back to any verified, reasoned facts. More dramatic tension was introduced just yesterday when the Trump campaign (which doesn’t really exist) announced that Barack Obama was not actually born in Kenya. But the star, Trump, is sulking and won’t say that, won’t allow the concrete reality of the hospital in Hawaii in 1961 to seep into the televised rally, the holodeck of Trump’s spaceship.

The controversies are not about farm policy or who will be appointed to the Treasury, as in the actual elections of the past. They are over whether Hillary Clinton has a brain tumor, or whether her cough indicates she might expire any moment, like Monty Python’s parrot (which the pet shop owner insisted was alive, insofar as it was only a television simulacrum of a parrot, sort of like Magritte’s non-pipe).

The controversies are over whether Trump is a Manchurian candidate being run by Russian President Vladimir Putin or whether Hillary Clinton deliberately endangered national security with classified emails (not marked classified) that would inevitably fall into Putin’s hands.

The figure of Putin as the eminence grise of the non-election underscores its unreality, since Putin has nothing to do with the “election.” Aside from a few ineffectual sanctions over Crimea (increasingly resisted by the Europeans), the Washington power elite has acquiesced in eastern Ukraine as a Russian sphere of influence, and increasingly in Syria as a Russian sphere of influence. Trump and Clinton may talk a different game around these realities, but neither of them is likely to depart dramatically from Obama’s current course. Putin is irrelevant to domestic politics But in the un-election of 2016, he is elevated to a spectral presence standing behind everything from Trump’s hotel deals to Clinton’s fiendish email ploy.


Likewise with climate change, which Trump and most of the Republicans insist is a mirage, just as the pet store owner insists that the parrot is alive. Although Hillary Clinton says she believes in the reality of climate change, she has given no indication at all of wanting to move dramatically to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. When she gave conditions under which she would now not support fracking, she did not bring up its CO2 emissions! She seemed to want localities to make the decision (but many Red states are forbidding localities to make the decision). Hydraulic fracturing is the single biggest threat to climate change amelioration, but that doesn’t cause her simply to call for it to be banned. What is the difference between denying that human beings are altering the climate with their emissions and acknowledging it but doing nothing significant about it?

In short, friends, this is not a pipe. As for the parrot, it “is no more”, “has ceased to be”, is “bereft of life”, and “this is an ex-parrot.”

39 Responses

  1. Professor, in your excellent piece you leave out the one thing that matters most and that is, “why are the public at large taken in by this stuff”? I have an average British education and I make no claim to have any superior intellect than anyone else, but I see how silly it looks when Clinton constantly refers to Putin this and Putin that. The same applies to wild statements made by Trump. Are the public so ill informed that they just can’t see the absurdity of media and politician’s claims which bear no reality to whats is really happening? The public seem like a flock of sheep to be herded by the farmer’s dog into any way the farmer wants them to go. What kind of democracy is it when the individual voter can be so easily manipulated?

    • Did I just imagine the Brexit vote ? The average British education doesn’t seem to amount to much.

  2. The mass media’s choices of what to promote, and what to ignore — always understanding that this”promotion” and “ignorance” is a matter of proportions and of emphasis — do seem to be strongly in favor of “superficial coverage of the controversy of the day,” as opposed to “deep analysis that illuminates our understanding of why people are making the choices they seem to be making in this situation.”

    • TV is more suited to government by sound bite than in-depth analysis. In an electorate of short-attention-span low-information voters, the master of slogans is king.

  3. Many have been conscious of an evolving disassociation from traditional ideas of reality but it is conceptually elusive and hard to pin down. Spiegel had an interesting reference in a recent article on Merkel:

    On the flight back from the G-20 summit, Merkel was asked if she was concerned that politics have reached a post-fact era — that parties like the AfD or politicians like Donald Trump have found success with slogans that are completely disconnected from reality. With an inquiring gaze, Merkel said that she first had to integrate “post-fact” into her vocabulary. But it was clear that the expression sparked her imagination.
    In a speech to parliament two days later, she said: “When we begin participating in a situation where facts can be shoved aside, responsible and constructive answers on the issue are no longer possible. When we begin aligning ourselves, both linguistically and literally, with those who are not interested in a solution, we will ultimately lose our orientation.”

    link to spiegel.de
    Post fact may more meaningfully be seen as post reason or post rational. Facts are necessary for reason but not of emotion which responds to raw input. What is called the Age of Reason is a relatively recent period, and reason anyway has always been the province of a few. It is also a tool, a problem solving tool, and like any tool has fairly specific functions which make its application cumbersome in other areas, like trying to employ it against the Zionist claim their God gave them Palestine. Wars are indeed a kind of entertainment for those who follow them distantly. That is something reason finds uncomfortable because it doesn’t known what to do with it. People long functioned without reason by relying on instinct, intuition and accumulated experience and they can do so again. Facts are useful but they are not Holy Grail.

    • One thing I have noted for some time is how widely the verb believe has come to be used, even, or especially, in the news media. Thus, the issue of climate change is expressed in terms of whether one “believes” in it or not. Or, to cite another issue, whether one “believes” that Obama was born in the US, as if it is a question of belief instead of one of fact. It’s like saying you believe there is gravity or you believe that 2+ 2=4. We are in an age where things have become a matter of belief–the opposite of the Age of Enlightenment. I try to correct this misuse of the term whenever possible, but I feel like King Canute trying to hold back the tide.

      • I couldn’t agree more with your comments on the use of “believe” vs. a statement of “fact.” It is the same with those who state “I feel” vs. “I think.” On important issues I don’t care how you “feel.” I care about what you “think.”

        More evidence of the sloppy use of imprecise language.

      • If someone states something they consider a fact, then, one can believe it’s a fact, or not believe it/s a fact, so, if they say, I believe you are wrong, or, I don’t believe you, they are saying I think you are in error, or even, I think you are lying. I believe believe is being used as a short hand for these possibilities. Do you know believe me? I personally, believe this to be the case, but you may not.

      • This is the product of assuming that “consumer choice” is the basis for legitimate government, as opposed to an informed citizenry searching for secular causality for improvements in our society.

        There was a time when calling ordinary citizens “consumers” was subversive; it appeared with Ralph Nader and the movement to ensure safe products at the end of the ’60s. But the idea was co-opted by the retailers. Instead of a consumer being a citizen demanding that the government perform investigatory and regulatory tasks that he could not practically do in an increasingly bewildering world of goodies, it became a celebration of the goodies.
        The idea that we could shop for belief goes back further, to the all-important decision to disestablish state churches and allow a “free market of ideas” in religion. But by the late 20th century this hardly seemed to have political implications. Until the Evangelical movement arose and made one’s choice of faith a matter of political outcomes, as in the right to demand that schools teach a fake science financed by Evangelicals. This spilled out into more and more areas of politics, abetted by fake and front advocacy groups funded by a network with an agenda of removing secular democracy from our lives.

        The sum of these manipulations is the idea that a citizen is merely a pliable consumer of goods and faith, both controlled by right-wing oligarchs who themselves collaborate in every area of politics. The American heresy of this faith is the Gospel of Prosperity, where one pleads with God for wealth in exchange for overlooking the crimes of the wealthy. The choice of goods and the choice of “facts” thus merge into one act of submission to the Patriarchy of “entrepreneurs” from whom all earthly goods flow.

  4. -It’s just pinin’ away for the fjords.
    –Beautiful plumage, the Norwegian Blue.

    I apologize if I didn’t quote precisely.

  5. I hope this means that in the future the U.S. will not have to spend two years out of every four listening to the campaign rhetoric for Presidential elections.

  6. Fallon mussed Trump’s hair! See…see…it is real. Whew! Mika and Joe have a grand laugh. The campaign is so funny. Argh…

  7. Trump’s surrealism is an almost perfect caricature of the USA’s surrealism in the ME. The main difference is that Trump hasn’t spent 5 trillion dollars killing people and destroying property in the ME.

    • You write as if he is incapable of this or uninclined. If Trump had been in a position to do something of the sort and thought it would benefit him, I have no doubt he would have gone ahead and done it. He is the ultimate narcissistic conman.

  8. Bolstering the unreality of the reality of things, Trump has a VERY real chance of winning this thing via the electoral college:

    link to politico.com

    While this article shows the plausibility of a Trump pathway to victory, the mechanics of how things would unfold over the next 6-odd weeks is quite real, given how it’d play to the weaknesses of the system’s design.

    Politico’s swing-states voting laws will vary, but by district, precinct or country there are winner-takes-all accounting practices that could lead to a winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes. Hence, by strategically appealing to a relative handful of critical voters in the right areas of the right states, Trump might well be able to tip the balance in his favor against the majority of the voters in that state.

    This would be nothing more than a more consciously and strategically implemented scenario than what we saw in Florida in 2001. Campaign strategists have always taken this approach, but at this point in time the technology allows allows for executing such a strategy far more deliberately.

    HRC is of course free to combat him using the same tools and techniques and she is undoubtably doing so. The point, however, is that this election is not necessarily going to be about whether the people overall want to choose Trump, but rather the decision may go to who maneuvers the legalities of the contest with the most guile. And on that basis its a very, very open question of who will prevail.

  9. At least on the climate front, you’re engaging in false equivalence. Clinton’s position on global warming may be inadequate, but her administration is likely to continue Obama’s policies which at least support modest efforts to deal with the situation. A Trump administration will blow up existing international agreements and probably ensure that we’re in for more than three degrees of warming. There’s a difference between a bad outcome and a catastrophic outcome. There are realities behind the simulacra.

    • Part of Clinton’s platform from the start is her pledge to have 500 million more solar panels installed at the end of her first term. Also, she has shown she welcomes the demise of the coal industry, which I would like to point out, is due largely to fracking. I don’t like fracking one bit, but if it ends the use of coal, then it is a net gain and can be seen as a bridge until green technology is ready to take over.

      • You can’t end CO2 emissions by fracking for gas and petroleum; the extra methane released may well make it more lethal than coal. Not to mention the extensive water pollution as in upstate New York.

        • Natural gas emits 20% less CO2 than coal and coal also requires transportation by rail, increasing its carbon footprint. And, as you have pointed out, coal has other serious pollutants such as mercury and arsenic, serious carcinogens. Nobody says you end CO2 with fracking. This is a bridge until there is enough green energy. Professor, you should know that politics is about choices and often the choices are between bad and worse. Not only Obama, but also Governor Brown in California have done little to nothing to limit fracking and they both have excellent environmental credentials. California has the most aggressive climate change policies in the country and maybe in the world, but until the new, green technologies can take over we have to rely on fossil fuels for a while. Additionally, fracking has led to a boom in US oil production which reduces our dependence on overseas oil, lessening the incentive for involvement in the Middle East. At the same time Obama has greatly increased CAFE standards and included about $50 billion for green energy in the stimulus bill. It also has blunted the Republican call for drill, baby drill, which would mean more new wells, many in environmentally sensitive areas. When you consider the alternatives for the near term of 10 or 20 years, fracking is, in my opinion, a necessary evil where the benefits outweigh the liabilities. I liken it to wind turbines. Wind power kills a lot of birds, but if they can slow climate change, then that is an acceptable price to play since it is loss of habitat that is the greatest threat to wildlife.

  10. Might as well follow this to its logical conclusion: we are not a real country anymore.

  11. Thank you, Juan, for taking the time to pull back the curtain and give us a brief glimpse of the reality behind this supposed “exercise of democracy.”

  12. Yes indeed. This whole thing is becoming quite silly, isn’t it?

    Personally I think the blame lies with the lock-in which the Republican-Democrats have on US politics. Without any viable competition, the pair have mutually evolved into the trash heap we now face as our two choices.

    Let’s remember too, that if it wasn’t for Trump’s unexpected-and-disturbing success, we would be facing a Clinton-Bush general election, which would be just as pathetic a failure of the US political system to advance our “best” to the top, if you ask me it.

    The two-party duopoly system itself has let us down. It is a structure that promotes the “Idiocracy” model of national government.

    • That’s like comparing the elections of Weimar Germany that left the German people so dissatisfied… with the election that gave the German people the Fuhrer they wanted and doomed them and hundreds of millions of others to destruction.

      Ultimately, Trump’s ideology and bigotry is the fault of one political party in particular that chose to embrace that long ago to attract a certain kind of voter who was leaving the other party. The two-party system accurately reflects the division of Americans into those who want to bring back the inequalities of the past for some perceived self-advantage and those who oppose that or prefer to focus on other bases for governance.

  13. International corporate capitalist – owned main stream media has left the building. The lights are out. Go home.

  14. Hydraulic fracking is not “the single biggest threat to climate change amelioration” You have engaged in false equivalence, just as the media does… HRC has a detailed clean energy policy statement, Trump doesn’t believe in a changing climate…shame on you.

  15. In Chile we say “and I’m the Pope” when something is so unreal that does not seem to be. I’ll just add: Its the culture stupid plus the non existing political culture.

  16. Thank you for this truly remarkable and enlightening piece. As Orwell wrote during a very dark period in European history, “We are in a strange period of history in which a revolutionary has to be a patriot and a patriot has to be a revolutionary.” Our modern politics as a whole seems to reflect a world of unreality. Words have lost their meanings. “Fair is foul, and foul is fair,” the witches in Macbeth said. “Hover through the fog and filthy air. From that spring whence comfort seemed to come, discomfort swells.”
    To quote Orwell again, “Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

    Sadly, this tragic situation is not only true of the United States, best represented by the latest election primaries, but is also true of most of modern politics. We must try to change this dangerous situation if we wish to survive as rational human beings.

  17. Okay Juan, point taken on the Middle East and Climate – though on the last point I think you are wrong. We’d like more daylight between the candidates on this issue. But here are some other “This is not a pipe” moments we could add . . .

    “This is not a representative people’s Congress” . . . because, well, they really haven’t done their job to represent the people’s interest.

    “This is not journalism” . . . because, well, the task of a journalist isn’t to present false balance but to challenge power and authority.

    “This is not the Constitution” . . . because, well, it’s been shredded for a long time now (oh dear 4th amendment and war powers, we hardly knew ye!).

    “This is not the Second Amendment” . . . because, well, it says well-regulated, not unregulated.

    “This is not an education system” . . . because, well, the GOP constituency especially speaks for itself.

    “This is not a democratic assembly” . . . because, well, we’ve devolved to ochlocracy (or plutocracy, or oligarchy, or idiocracy, or a combination thereof).

    “This is not racism” . . . because, well, if we don’t condemn it we accept it.

    “These are not war crimes or crimes against humanity” . . . because, well, the Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg Principles have been laid by the heel.

    “This is not torture” . . . because, well, it is not prosecuted or universally condemned by those who know better and are disingenuous in their defense and use of it. Plus, it’s the crudest of ways to treat any living thing.

    “These are not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead” . . . because, well, we don’t report it ergo, in a horrific perversion of Descartes, if we don’t think about it, the dead don’t exist, (except our own, and those are the only dead that count).

    “This is not a Muslim/Mexican/Insert Name of Hated Group Here” . . . because, well, half the voting population will cast their ballot for a man who wants to expel the Other.

    The republic is now a dead letter. How does this all shake out? Tyranny? Civil war? The whole thing defies the law of historic gravity – usually things need to be genuinely – and I mean genuinely – very very bad for the injection of either into society. Now it appears all you need to be is stewed and stoked up on a hefty rich diet of lies and slime oozing out of the goddam television screen to make you think taking arms up against the government a good idea (because you’ve lost . . . what? Or are going to lose . . . what?)

    But – and I say this as one who has voted for Nader and Stein in the past! – does any rational person think Hillary worse than Trump? Really? On race relations? On womens’ health? On education? On health care? Yes yes, she’s a terrible candidate and is fraught in a number of ways. But does anyone seriously think she rises to the level of mendacity, drama, instability, vulgarity of Trump? This is a man who raped his ex-wife, possibly both. This is a man who has cheated thousands of people in search of an education. This is a man who cheats contractors on his properties, who makes anyone who works for him sign off that they will not attack him in any way shape or form, who bilks contributors to his own charity, who incites his supporters to violence, who expresses admiration for dictators, who is Putin’s poodle-bitch, who called for the execution of six African American kids who were later acquitted back in the mid 80s, who says we ought to murder families of terrorists, who embraces his inner Chaos demon by sowing confusion about every policy issue (jejune though these be) he has proposed. While the lurid Clinton Foundation . . . uh, helps kids. Oh wait . . . EMAILS! BENGHAZI!!!! BLOW JOBS!!!!!! Quick, save the Republic and grab your Second Amendment!

    Honestly Juan, I read this post like the New York Times the past few weeks. You have focused on two issues – yes very vital ones – but used them to draw some sort of false equivalency, at least that is how it reads to me. Trump v. the local dog- catcher should be a non-issue. That we are locked in a tie between a know-nothing saddistic ignoramus who enjoyed firing people on Celebrity Apprentice and a former first lady/senator/secretary of state tells me that we are done. I no longer need to call for the destruction of the republican party because . . . well, no republic. We have fulfilled Neil Postman’s prophecy and amused ourselves to death.

    BTW, regarding the Monty Python reference – I’ve used that analogy for about 15 years now. Policy issues . . . pining for the fjords at GOP hands since nineteen sixty f*****g four!

    • “who (Trump) says we ought to murder families of terrorists,” This is what the USA has been doing!

      • Yes I know. Both Clinton and Trump will do it. But do you really think the steamy pile of negatives on Trump’s side are of less heft than Hillary’s? C’mon! I for one will not critique the failings of Weimar and help propel the Reich to power. Trump’s candidacy is an immediate existential threat – to our democracy, our country, our species, our planet. If you can’t see that then you are either not paying attention, immensely foolish, or listening to Fox and reading Breitbart. Trump is – in numerous possible scenarios – an extinction event.

  18. Side issue, nevertheless:

    Fracking was actually first pioneered to develop dry geothermal reservoirs, and if it ever gets back to these roots may very well contribute significantly to CO2 reductions goals.

    link to en.wikipedia.org

  19. Clearly ‘ceci [USA] n’est pas une démocratie’, though it might have the potential to be one.

  20. Excellent post, Juan.
    I now think Trump will probably win. The Democratic Party keeps shooting themselves in the face with hamfisted attempts at manipulation, like lining up rich neocons, then trying to win over rightfully disgusted millenials, then blaming everything on Putin: red -baiting doesn’t work as well when they aren’t reds anymore, just corrupt oligarchs—but you can’t very authentically complain about their very real corruption when your own has become so obvious. Trump is much more dangerous and potentially far more corrupt as President than Hillary but her own disingenuity and political ineptness and his reality-tv sure-footed astuteness make it more likely he will win every day. God help us all.

  21. Although right-wingers have in fact always been hypocrites about free markets, Trump has gathered around him all the factions on the right who are most willing to use governmental power to rig markets to favor White Christian men in all things. He talks airily about banning or expelling all sorts of people.

    So at the very least, it’s not just that he threatens to abolish the EPA and all forms of environmental safety. He may even designate those who reject his “wisdom” and try to push ahead with private alternative energy as enemies of the American Way of Life and punish them. He’s not using market-based arguments like right-wingers have used in the past to oppose government subsidies, he’s using cultural arguments that “real” Americans are those who get their hands dirty doing manly things like digging for coal, and they are owed eternal fealty because the superiority of those fuels and the culture that grew around them are an eternal truth. He’s implying that the people who support alternative energy are somehow alien because they see technology as being able to obsolete a social order that his cultists will kill to defend.

    But then that’s true with lots of other issues. You can’t argue policy with people looking for a real, live, bloody Kulturkampf. Stop looking at Trump’s wildly-flailing policy statements. Look at his followers and ask the question, “Whom do they want him to exterminate?” Because they all know that the only thing Donald Trump is good at is destroying people.

Comments are closed.