In fairness, Gerald Ford had a reputation for being thick, Ronnie was hardly an intellectual and reportedly used horoscopes to make decisions. 'W' was a total ignoramus. The difference was that they had political experience. Trump is flailing about trying to play catch up while at the same time trying to look like he is sticking to his guns.
Accepting his obvious limitations, he is on the receiving end of an unprecedented battering from the media and this will only make him more unpredictable in my view.

I could accept that sort of argument if we were discussing the existence of God for example, where no credible anecdotal evidence exists, but in this example you have police officers coming forward with testimony and riots occurring in immigrant areas.
In your world, nothing is real if it conflicts with you politics.

I wonder why? The same reasons that South African police don't keep statistics on the widespread murder of long-established farmers?

Edited by hedgehog50 (27 Feb 2017 6.55pm)

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Possibly but prisoners who had been found guilty of farm attacks indicated that, in 90% of the cases anyway, access to money, firearms and household goods was the motive rather than ethnic hatred. Black farmers have been killed too. And for some strange reason a 'farm attack' cannot be classified as a crime but what goes on whist said attack takes place can.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

What difference does that make? It is covered up for political reasons.

When I ask for a source I expect to be given something that verifies what someone has claimed. How is that not being interested in the truth?