pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: OMG America!!!  (Read 61485 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: March 19, 2016, 01:20 »
+1
One thing we can be sure of is that the day after he wins the nomination, Trump starts dramatically changing his pitch and showing us Trump 2.0.  He knows that to get the Republican nomination, you run off the rails to the right, but to win the election you move back to the center.  So expect to see an all new Trump, more mainstream and less crazy, and also expect the news media to continue to play right along with him and give him exactly the sort of coverage he wants - while at the same time badgering Clinton about an email server.


After the election the lefties move to the right, forget their promises and it's politics as usual. None of this is unexpected from either party.

Clintoon has many skeletons in her closet, financial insider stock trading, but putting national secrets on a server in your basement to hide the rest of your underhanded dealings email is wrong.

Trump could forget half of what he promises and still start turning the country around, run like a business, and I'd be happy. Build that wall, stop illegals from draining the system, lower taxes and the reduce freeloading people. Ask somebody who lives near the South border, in AZ or in LA CA. The ones who pay the taxes, have the crime and are mad as hell. Melting pot means joining and becoming part, not refusing to become part of the nation, or learn the language, but taking free medical and education, without paying taxes.


"Insider trading", "underhanded dealings", what are you referring too, specifically, and where is there a scrap of evidence for any of it?   Are you imagining that Trump would even bring up the "wall" again after being elected?   Or that there are no skeletons in Trump's very large closet? Or that a guy who's been through 4 bankruptcies is the one to run the government "like a business"?
When I was doing a bit of trading on the stock market, I read a book and was surprised to see the author put in print that Hillary Clinton had been doing illegal insider trading.  I can't remember the book, it was over 10 years ago.  The author challenged her to sue him if she thought his accusations were false, as far as I know, she didn't do anything to clear her name.  Then there's the Bosnia sniper story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html

I don't think she's a fit person to be president of the US but if Trump is the only other alternative, she is by far the better option.
[/b]


Hmmm...  8)

More on her...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCYI7rppBOE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNVi1wXPEto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfgTcgk8-mFPE3FGuO3I6ig

And Trump Steaks etc ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFz-XpHTqI4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_mTiDeQvWg

Great weekend u ALL!
« Last Edit: March 19, 2016, 04:30 by KnowYourOnions »


« Reply #126 on: March 19, 2016, 04:30 »
+1
Looks like Trump even cheats at golf.  I wonder who would win between him and Kim Jong-un :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/hateful-eight/samuel-l-jackson-donald-trump-photo-golf-cheat/

And the Simpsons did Trump as president 16 years ago.
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/mar/17/simpsons-president-trump-prediction-was-meant-as-warning-to-us

« Reply #127 on: March 19, 2016, 05:24 »
+11


I know that this is a stronghold of socialist do-gooders here .... kind of loser thinking ....   from socialist Denmark who said as much in one of his blog posts last year because he's talking from experience he must have gathered back in his home country


And what precisely is wrong with 'socialist do-gooders'? Say, for example in terrible Denmark which you mention? The country which has once again been assesed by those crypto-communists at Forbes Magazine as the best country in the world to do business (with USA falling for the 6th consecutive year to 22nd) http://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/ And it seems to suit the do-gooders as the annual Happiness Index from the UN's Sustainable Development Solutions Network http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35824033 has it as the happest country in the world followed by four other Nordic countries. 

These seems to be the models Mr Sanders is enthusiastic about, Ridiculous - why would anyone want happiness and economic success, must be a * commie.


@douglas -- I'll tell you what's wrong with socialist do-gooders: it is that they are usually freeloaders and want more free lunches no matter whether society can pay for them or not, just like so many on this nice forum here.

As for your glorifying Denmark, I am asking myself whether you are only regurgitating statistics you learnt  (as most Scandinavians do) or if you actually have any real-life knowledge of your own (as, for example, Yuri Acurs who, quite tellingly, preferred moving his business from  socialist Denmark to South Africa because splendid Denmark does not work out so good in the real world with its darn taxes and big government and 25% moms, or "VAT" -- it did almost the same thing for the same reasons as Arcurs)...

If Sanders is your idea of "happiness and freedom" or if you vote for him out of pity for the old Joe-Biden-style fool then you might as well vote for someone who promotes outlawing gravity :)

Try to make sense of your obscure feelings before participating in the political process.


Perhaps English is not your first language, neither is it mine, but I fail to understand what you mean by obscure feelings. 

Posting a response to an ill-informed rant on a photography forum does not in my book qualify as engaging in the political process.  I will not be voting for any of the candidates in the US election as I am neither a citizen nor a resident.  I did live and work in the US for some years and later founded a company there and this, with having worked in around 30 countries (including Denmark), been a resident and taxpayer in eight and running businesses in four is my real world experience. However, rather than rely on that subjective experience I provided you with independent data from Forbes Magazine and the United Nations.  You have not challenged its validity, merely accused me of memorising statistics which you suggest is a heinous crime characteristic of Scandinavians (with the grasp you appear to have of the world perhaps you classify my birthplace of Scotland within that grouping) and relied on Yuri Arcurs move to encapsulate the countrys entire economic history.

I dont hold up Denmark as an example of anything: I simply pointed out the inaccuracy of your remarks.  Furthermore, Mr Rasmussen, the current prime minister of that country, would likely take umbrage at your remarks about socialism, he being the leader of the centre-right liberals who chose to govern as a minority government after failing to form a right-wing coalition most notably with the extreme right-wing (OK, maybe not in Trump terms) anti-immigration DPP, the parliaments second largest party.

Your objection to VAT is strange. Its a business neutral tax where effectively the company collects tax from consumers for the government whilst being able to claim back the VAT it pays on the goods and services it buys so the rate is irrelevant.

My own real-world experience of Mr Trump is the way he treated the residents of the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire, Scotland (see the award-winning film Trumped if you want to know the story) where the half-developed golf resort should give you a feel for what to expect from his promises. Further experience came from my attempt to return my post-graduate degree to the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen which foolishly awarded Mr Trump an honorary doctorate.  Many others felt the same as I did and his degree was revoked. 

Were your postings typical of the level of political discourse in the United States then the country probably would deserve President Trump.

« Reply #128 on: March 19, 2016, 09:58 »
+8
Don't forget - Two-thirds of Trump's wives are/were immigrants.

« Reply #129 on: March 19, 2016, 10:01 »
+5
to me, a non="american" (ie mexico, usa, cda)...
bill gates is the best person to be president.
he knows what it's like to be a person who works to be great at what he does.
he has track record of philantropy
he can reduce cost by firing all the corrupted politicians
he can run USA with robots

he is already ruling the world with his compute;
why not his own country???

this must be a joke, right?

- so you think Windows is great? Then why do advanced users -- most notably photographers -- use MacOS (not to mention Linux)?
- his "track record" is bullying an industry with a little help from his father shelling out some dubious license depriving a poor little programmer guy of his (not Gates'!) invention
- his "track record" of "philanthropy" is contaminating the world with Zica (his mosquito experiment in Panama went sour), abusing little girls in India as guinea pigs for his questionable HPV vaccines, and dodging U. S. taxes by way of thinking up some "foundation" that really is nothing more than a tax shelter for his billions not to go to Uncle Sam (the latter part I don't mind, but it's not "for others" either)
- reducing cost by firing people is usually not the way to improve the outcome (surprised that "firing" all of a sudden should be an acceptable thing to do in this union-friendly underdog forum her -- what a laugh),
- do you want to live in a world "rulded" or rather controlled by robots?! I am an IT systems developer but have quite enough of this pseudo-technophile attitude...
- that "rule of his computers" is, thank God, diminishing for the benefit of better solutions than an insecure monolithic OS like Windoze
- and finally (and for your information), the U. S. is not "his" country, nor anyone else's. Where I come from, countries are not owned but civil servants and politicians are supposed to serve the electorate in a political system

As for the bullying part and for (ab)using mechanisms in order to see his stuff through Gates would be "qualified" though for fighting a few more wars, occupy countries "for democracy" and unilaterally "change regimes" at will, I grant you that much, @etudiante_trop_lentement

While there is no conclusive evidence, all signs points to the Gates funded project that caused the outbreak. It's quite disturbing and people are not aware of it. I agree with a number of your points and I'll add one more.

- MS's monopolistic IE and their dirty tactics caused the death of Netscape. From 2001-2005, in which many called it the "Dark Ages of the Internet", little to no progress was made to internet browser technology and it was all because of the man pulling the strings behind Microsoft.

The idea that the Gates Foundation had anything to do with the spread of this virus is complete nonsense, as a minute spent Googling the issue - and reading actual news sources - makes clear.   

« Reply #130 on: March 19, 2016, 12:20 »
+4
The idea that the Gates Foundation had anything to do with the spread of this virus is complete nonsense, as a minute spent Googling the issue - and reading actual news sources - makes clear.   

agree.
why would gates do such a thing???
i am speaking not from stories, of the man. ..
i actually met and work with people who worked for the man,
and not one of those people had anything bad to say about bill gates.
he was always the one to help someone who wants to succeed, because he was a self-made man himself.

if he really wanted to spread some silly virus, he does not have to do it in such a way
that it all ends up in your face. bill gates has better things to do.

anyway, sorry to get a bit off-topic.

« Reply #131 on: March 19, 2016, 16:54 »
+4
So people are still buying stories about different sides in high politics knowing that governments budgets are nothing more than corporate or private properties and the countries them self are registered companies ?

Chill down, they are just picking a face thats gonna stare at you from the screen more frequently announcing decision which will empty your pockets more explaing how you are gonna benefit from that in the future.  ;D

« Reply #132 on: March 20, 2016, 16:53 »
+3
So people are still buying stories about different sides in high politics knowing that governments budgets are nothing more than corporate or private properties and the countries them self are registered companies ?

Chill down, they are just picking a face thats gonna stare at you from the screen more frequently announcing decision which will empty your pockets more explaing how you are gonna benefit from that in the future.  ;D

How do you know when a politician is lying? answer, their lips are moving. I trust none of them to be doing anything except what is for their own ego, power and financial gain. Noone with any sense would run for President.

« Reply #133 on: March 21, 2016, 02:19 »
+1
So people are still buying stories about different sides in high politics knowing that governments budgets are nothing more than corporate or private properties and the countries them self are registered companies ?

Chill down, they are just picking a face thats gonna stare at you from the screen more frequently announcing decision which will empty your pockets more explaing how you are gonna benefit from that in the future.  ;D

How do you know when a politician is lying? answer, their lips are moving. I trust none of them to be doing anything except what is for their own ego, power and financial gain. Noone with any sense would run for President.

I agree, but still ... still curious to see would Bernie be any different.  :-\
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 04:35 by KnowYourOnions »

« Reply #134 on: March 21, 2016, 05:24 »
+1
Bernie Sanders might be almost as bad for the US as Trump.  High taxes on the rich looks like a good idea but it doesn't work because they get around them and don't pay them.  He wants to spend more and wont be able to get more in.  So the US would soon be in a mess, as the debt is already $19,135,778,280,520 (will be more by the time you read this :) ).  No idea why people would want to implement something that has already been proven not to work?  As the great philosophers Benny Andersson, Bjrn Ulvaeus and Stig Anderson wrote "The history book on the shelf, is always repeating itself"
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 05:30 by sharpshot »

« Reply #135 on: March 21, 2016, 08:39 »
+8
Bernie Sanders might be almost as bad for the US as Trump.  High taxes on the rich looks like a good idea but it doesn't work because they get around them and don't pay them.  He wants to spend more and wont be able to get more in.  So the US would soon be in a mess, as the debt is already $19,135,778,280,520 (will be more by the time you read this :) ).  No idea why people would want to implement something that has already been proven not to work?  As the great philosophers Benny Andersson, Bjrn Ulvaeus and Stig Anderson wrote "The history book on the shelf, is always repeating itself"

What's been proven not to work is the Republican idea of cutting taxes for the rich and increasing spending on the military - we did that under Reagan, and Bush II did the same thing on steroids and it was a disaster for the debt both times.  Bush I called Reagan's plan "voodoo economics" and when he tried to make things better was voted out of office.  Now his sons and all of the Republication candidates have embraced voodoo economics as their main platform - I guess due to the backlash against Bush I, even though what he did was working (and got even better under Clinton and now Obama).

Before Reagan, the rich paid more of a fair share of taxes and the economy seemed to work pretty well.  As far as I know the US has never tried the kinds of things Sanders is proposing so there is no way to know whether it will work.  I have been very skeptical about whether he can come even close to paying for some of the things he wants - free higher education, expanded social security, etc - but a couple of independent economic analyses have said that his education plan might work (although I am still skeptical).  Of course that assumes that Congress would cooperate and help out instead of actively trying to sabotage everything as they have done against Obama the past seven years.

For economic policies, all of the Republicans are proposing the same old voodoo economics that we know doesn't work.  Sanders is proposing something entirely different and wants to make radical changes that would be almost impossible to get through Congress with very unpredictable results - we could make some analyses based on other countries, particularly Europe, but trying such things on a larger scale here would be a huge experiment that very few would be wiling to test.  That leaves Hillary as proposing to mostly continue the policies of Obama and make some incremental changes.  For some reason I have never liked Hillary and the Clintons are just too enamored of their celebrity status for my taste.  She hasn't driven a car in 20 years - totally out of touch with real life for most of us, despite what she tries to say.  Not driving may be true of many top members of Government, I don't know, but the idea of someone who always has a driver seems very elitist to me.  However, she is the only one in the middle between the extremes of the Republicans and Sanders so to me seems to be our best choice among the available options.  I have been on her side since she survived 11 hours of grilling by Grand Inquisitor Gowdy during the Benghazi show hearings in Congress - the Republicans went way over the top on that one wasting over $5 million in taxpayer dollars for no benefit except to further their political goals.  Such nonsense does not happen (or at least not very much) when the Democrats are in charge of Congress - they usually actually try to govern, unlike their Republican counterparts nowadays.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #136 on: March 21, 2016, 08:56 »
+2
For some reason I have never liked Hillary

If Bill was running against Drumpf, would you vote for him?

« Reply #137 on: March 21, 2016, 11:05 »
0
Bernie Sanders might be almost as bad for the US as Trump.  High taxes on the rich looks like a good idea but it doesn't work because they get around them and don't pay them.  He wants to spend more and wont be able to get more in.  So the US would soon be in a mess, as the debt is already $19,135,778,280,520 (will be more by the time you read this :) ).  No idea why people would want to implement something that has already been proven not to work?  As the great philosophers Benny Andersson, Bjrn Ulvaeus and Stig Anderson wrote "The history book on the shelf, is always repeating itself"


What's been proven not to work is the Republican idea of cutting taxes for the rich and increasing spending on the military - we did that under Reagan, and Bush II did the same thing on steroids and it was a disaster for the debt both times.  Bush I called Reagan's plan "voodoo economics" and when he tried to make things better was voted out of office.  Now his sons and all of the Republication candidates have embraced voodoo economics as their main platform - I guess due to the backlash against Bush I, even though what he did was working (and got even better under Clinton and now Obama).

Before Reagan, the rich paid more of a fair share of taxes and the economy seemed to work pretty well.  As far as I know the US has never tried the kinds of things Sanders is proposing so there is no way to know whether it will work.  I have been very skeptical about whether he can come even close to paying for some of the things he wants - free higher education, expanded social security, etc - but a couple of independent economic analyses have said that his education plan might work (although I am still skeptical).  Of course that assumes that Congress would cooperate and help out instead of actively trying to sabotage everything as they have done against Obama the past seven years.

For economic policies, all of the Republicans are proposing the same old voodoo economics that we know doesn't work.  Sanders is proposing something entirely different and wants to make radical changes that would be almost impossible to get through Congress with very unpredictable results - we could make some analyses based on other countries, particularly Europe, but trying such things on a larger scale here would be a huge experiment that very few would be wiling to test.  That leaves Hillary as proposing to mostly continue the policies of Obama and make some incremental changes.  For some reason I have never liked Hillary and the Clintons are just too enamored of their celebrity status for my taste.  She hasn't driven a car in 20 years - totally out of touch with real life for most of us, despite what she tries to say.  Not driving may be true of many top members of Government, I don't know, but the idea of someone who always has a driver seems very elitist to me.  However, she is the only one in the middle between the extremes of the Republicans and Sanders so to me seems to be our best choice among the available options.  I have been on her side since she survived 11 hours of grilling by Grand Inquisitor Gowdy during the Benghazi show hearings in Congress - the Republicans went way over the top on that one wasting over $5 million in taxpayer dollars for no benefit except to further their political goals.  Such nonsense does not happen (or at least not very much) when the Democrats are in charge of Congress - they usually actually try to govern, unlike their Republican counterparts nowadays.
I don't think the rich paid a fairer share before Reagan.  There was a much higher top tax rate but just look at the last graph here, they found ways not to pay it.
http://mercatus.org/publication/tax-rates-vs-tax-revenues 
It isn't just right wing people that use schemes to avoid tax, lots of wealthy people with more socialist views have done it as well.  So I think anyone proposing to raise income tax to bring in more money either hasn't done their research or is trying to fool people.  Lots of politicians have said they will close the loopholes and make people pay what they should but they haven't succeeded for at least 50 years so why do they think they will do it now?

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #138 on: March 21, 2016, 13:22 »
+2
Feel the Bern!
Feel the Bread Line!

Hongover

« Reply #139 on: March 21, 2016, 23:09 »
+2
Trump is starting to change his strategy. It's been happening in the last couple of weeks and it seems like I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

The 'angry' Trump is starting to fade away and he's showing off his presidential side. His speech to the AIPAC tonight basically confirms this shift in strategy. I expect him to start gaining more and more support in the upcoming weeks and it wouldn't surprise me if he starts to warm up to the Republican establishment as well.

« Reply #140 on: March 21, 2016, 23:47 »
0
Bernie Sanders might be almost as bad for the US as Trump.  High taxes on the rich looks like a good idea but it doesn't work because they get around them and don't pay them.  He wants to spend more and wont be able to get more in.  So the US would soon be in a mess, as the debt is already $19,135,778,280,520 (will be more by the time you read this :) ).  No idea why people would want to implement something that has already been proven not to work?  As the great philosophers Benny Andersson, Bjrn Ulvaeus and Stig Anderson wrote "The history book on the shelf, is always repeating itself"

Great ABBA reference. :)

Other problem with Bernie is there is no way a republican congress will implement any of the promises he's making.  Unlikely even if there was a democrat majority.  Presidents arent dictators or kings.  They cant do much unless they can get congress on board.

« Reply #141 on: March 21, 2016, 23:55 »
0
For some reason I have never liked Hillary

If Bill was running against Drumpf, would you vote for him?

Been watching John Oliver?  That was a great piece he did on his show.  Hilarious!

« Reply #142 on: March 21, 2016, 23:57 »
+1
Trump is starting to change his strategy. It's been happening in the last couple of weeks and it seems like I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

The 'angry' Trump is starting to fade away and he's showing off his presidential side. His speech to the AIPAC tonight basically confirms this shift in strategy. I expect him to start gaining more and more support in the upcoming weeks and it wouldn't surprise me if he starts to warm up to the Republican establishment as well.

Wonder how David Duke and the KKK will feel about his Jewish grandkids? 

« Reply #143 on: March 22, 2016, 01:59 »
+1
Bernie Sanders wins global primary of Democrats living abroad

"With turnout up 50% from 2008, 34,570 US citizens living in 38 countries voted by internet, mail, fax or in person. Sanders took 69% of the vote to earn nine delegates to the national convention in August; Hillary Clinton took 31% and four."

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/21/bernie-sanders-wins-global-primary-democrats-abroad?CMP=fb_gu

« Reply #144 on: March 22, 2016, 03:54 »
+3
Trump is starting to change his strategy. It's been happening in the last couple of weeks and it seems like I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

The 'angry' Trump is starting to fade away and he's showing off his presidential side. His speech to the AIPAC tonight basically confirms this shift in strategy. I expect him to start gaining more and more support in the upcoming weeks and it wouldn't surprise me if he starts to warm up to the Republican establishment as well.
If he pulls back from the extreme views, he will look like a hypocrite.  Every stupid comment he has made in the past will be used against him and I don't think his ego can take admitting that he has done anything wrong.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #145 on: March 22, 2016, 08:47 »
+4
For some reason I have never liked Hillary

If Bill was running against Drumpf, would you vote for him?

Been watching John Oliver?  That was a great piece he did on his show.  Hilarious!

Yes...love Oliver. Love him even more after the show licensed one of my illustrations. A very pleasant surprise!

« Reply #146 on: March 22, 2016, 09:07 »
+5
For some reason I have never liked Hillary

If Bill was running against Drumpf, would you vote for him?

I live in Indiana where most people are quite conservative and the state almost always goes Republican.  For that reason we usually have almost no ads for presidential candidates and no visits from the candidates - the Republicans take Indiana for granted and the Democrats don't think it's worth their while.  However, in 2008 Indiana actually was in play and Bill Clinton came to give a talk at nearby West Lafayette High School.  My girlfriend and I went to hear him.  Too bad I wasn't doing stock then or I would have tried to get credentials through SS.

He was an incredible speaker and I finally understood what people meant about his personal magnetism.  I'm a scientist in real life and not easily swayed by charisma, but Bill Clinton really made an impression - it was the best political speech I have ever heard and he gave the feeling of really caring about everyone.  My girlfriend wanted to have his baby (just kidding, but she was impressed).  After hearing him in person I would have definitely voted for him again, despite his stupidity with "that woman", Ms Lewinsky.  By the end of his term the economy was doing well, the budget was running a surplus and he almost got Osama with a missile strike - just think how much of a difference a few hours made in that case.  It's too bad George Bush and crew came in next and trashed the economy.  If Hillary can get in and continue many of the policies of her husband maybe we can start having surpluses again and start to pay down some of the debt that has been accumulating since Reagan.  Much as I don't like Hilary, I would vote for any Clinton over Trump - I cannot imagine any scenario that would cause me to vote for Trump for anything, ever.

BTW, when Reagan was President, Republicans were so in love with him that they wanted to change the Constitution to get rid of Presidential term limits.  By the end of his term the economy was starting to have problems and his dementia was really starting to show so it is doubtful whether he would have been elected again.  However, if they had changed it then Bill would have been able to run again and the US might be a very different country.  It just goes to show that you should be careful what you wish for - Republican shenanigans with the current Supreme Court nominee might come back to bite them in their rears in 20 years.

« Reply #147 on: March 22, 2016, 11:21 »
0
Honest, I'm more worried about what's going on in Europe, Belgium, France and with ISIS. The President becomes a figurehead after the election. People overrate the power and control of one person. It's not like the 1800s

« Reply #148 on: March 22, 2016, 11:37 »
+10
I am a neighbor to to the North.  I keep comparing Trump to Toronto's Rob Ford (who passed away this morning).  If you don't remember the name he was the obese, crack smoking, heavy drinking, straight shooting, lovable, hateable, football loving kid next door who became Mayor of North America's 4th largest city.   People loved/loathed how utterly real he was and the $hit that came out of his mouth was deliciously entertaining (even more so because I was not longer a Toronto resident).  He got more than his 5 minutes of U.S. Media and tabloid attention - even appeared on Kimmel.  RIP Rob

And how the heck was a baffoon like Rob Ford elected?  They say that he was elected by people that never vote.  I'm afraid this may happen with Trump.  The haters will get off their lazy boys and vote, because for once there is someone who is as much of a racist and misogynist as they are.

« Reply #149 on: March 22, 2016, 12:19 »
+4
Something similar happened here in Minnesota a few years ago, when we elected former pro wrestler Jesse Ventura as Governor.   Apparently a lot of people thought it would be cool to tell their friends they voted for him.   Actually he was not a bad guy, and he brought some experienced and reasonable people with him to run the government - although as it turned out, he had little interest in doing that himself.

We can elect a celebrity doofus as mayor or Governor and life goes on, because other people can run things for them while they mug for the cameras.   But the Presidency isn't a joke, it's life and death for thousands of people around the world.  You don't vote for some idiot just to "send a message to Washington", that's beyond foolish. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3044 Views
Last post June 30, 2007, 15:06
by Void
13 Replies
10170 Views
Last post October 15, 2009, 19:56
by litifeta
38 Replies
30138 Views
Last post January 01, 2013, 08:00
by sharpshot
6 Replies
5206 Views
Last post November 02, 2012, 16:23
by Poncke
5 Replies
7232 Views
Last post January 17, 2015, 04:45
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors