monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Why don't you direct your question to your compatriots, eternally attacking your president?

Albright was the SoS for the nation, and so was HRC.

See the connection?

If the current president ceased saying stupid things and began to actually govern the entire country

Trump, if he doesnt win this election, is probably going to jail.

We can be certain that he's guilty of much criminality including money laundering and that once his exemptions from prosecution are gone there will be a serious threat of jail.

Tell us how we can be certain?

We can be certain Obama illegally spied on Trump's campaign and through the transition period.

We can be certain the media lied like the Democrats for three years with no evidence to support their claims.

We can be certain Killary paid for a pack of lies that was used to get a FISA warrant.

So, again, how can we be certain? Accusations have never been guilt.

They never will be as long as our justice system remains in tact.

Obama did his best to destroy that system.

Trump has appointed people that will restore it to its original purpose.

There's no one named "Killary", nor was money spent to obtain any warrant.

Grinding him down over the years and out of his pockets will have its own satisfactions, too.

The concept of brand is increasingly accepted in academic circles as a productive way to think about politics and politicians. But there are still, according to professors Christopher Pich and Bruce I. Newman in the Journal of Political Marketing,

very few pragmatic models—frameworks that can be used by political brands to assess their identity, image, reputation or position that will ultimately support the development of strategy and political brand management.

In other words, there are no branding handbooks for political operatives in the way there are for businesspeople. There are books about effective political language—for example, the GOP consultant Frank Luntz’s Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear (2007)—but these largely focus on messaging for campaigns, not on the question of how to build a lasting party brand. Corporations have long understood the importance of managing the social and cultural meaning of their products. They don’t think of a brand as an analytic tool but as an actual thing—an intangible asset, capable of being valued by accountants, that can make or break a company’s fortunes. The stakes are no different for political parties.

What are Democrats doing about this? Very little, so far as one can tell. For years, their party-branding strategy, to the extent that one existed at all, has been to rely on the personal qualities of the president, or the quadrennial presidential nominee, to confer brand value on the party’s other candidates: the “coattails” effect. Even someone as charismatic and competent as President Obama couldn’t make that work after the 2008 election. When the White House is occupied by a Republican, Democratic branding is left even more to chance. A miscellany of liberal personages (the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, John Lewis) serve as the faces of the party while they pursue their differing political and messaging agendas. From the point of view of branding, the Democratic Party is a mess.

Republicans, by contrast, understand the importance of party branding. They understand that favorable generic perceptions are crucial to the success of their candidates. As a result they are highly disciplined and highly aggressive communicators who notoriously stick to their partisan “talking points.” When Obama was president, the economy was always a “disaster.” When Trump became president, the same economy was instantly touted as an “amazing” triumph. This cohesion had an effect: within a month of Trump’s moving into the White House, Americans held their most positive opinion of the US economy in a decade.