at a minimum we would at least have a leader in the WH that knows hard decisions that have to be made, like fixing sick companies in his past.

And getting ANY leadership, ANY what so ever will be better for the country.

Which is the bigger risk? Continuing with the do nothing congress and aloof amateur in the WH or putting a businessman in that might try to do too much (which wouldn't by the way take much).

My personal philosophy of removing non performers makes my decision so very easy.

btk