mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770 
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 5, 2016 17:29:19 GMT -5
Please, all of you, stick to the subject of the thread. Any posts directed at posters will be removed without notice from this point forward. Enough is enough! mmhmm, Administrator Does that include the ones you and DJ made a few posts back? Your bias is showing... 'Fraid not. What's showing is my aversion to broken rules - like insisting on posting personal insults and whining about moderation outside the "I've got a Beef..." thread provided for that purpose. Neither dj, nor I, insulted you. The rules are there for a reason and you're expected to follow them just as is everyone else. The bias here appears to be yours. Everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't biased. Their opinions simply differ from yours. That said, if you feel someone insults you, personally, you are welcome to report the post. mmhmm, Politics Moderator |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 5, 2016 17:32:34 GMT -5
Please, all of you, stick to the subject of the thread. Any posts directed at posters will be removed without notice from this point forward. Enough is enough! mmhmm, Administrator Does that include the ones you and DJ made a few posts back? Your bias is showing... if you are referring to post 4716, i think it would be very instructive for you to understand why that passed muster. to wit: you are free to pass whatever aspersions you wish on a posters COMMENTS but not on the poster. if it is a lesson you can take to heart, you will do well here. if not, you can expect more deletions, etc. try not to take it personally. it's just business. it also happened to be accurate. that helped.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 5, 2016 17:35:22 GMT -5
example #2: post 4717 is a different matter, and got a very different response.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 5, 2016 17:42:09 GMT -5
'Fraid not. What's showing is my aversion to broken rules - like insisting on posting personal insults and whining about moderation outside the "I've got a Beef..." thread provided for that purpose. Neither dj, nor I, insulted you. The rules are there for a reason and you're expected to follow them just as is everyone else. The bias here appears to be yours. Everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't biased. Their opinions simply differ from yours. That said, if you feel someone insults you, personally, you are welcome to report the post. mmhmm, Politics Moderator Have a good afternoon  . I have, Ratchets, and I've got a great evening planned. Thanks! |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 16:50:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2016 21:04:14 GMT -5
But my point of those "qualifications" are utterly meaningless also stands. Yes... she has them. So what? all of them? REALLY? I own a washer and dryer... does that mean I'm qualified to pilot an airplane... just because I apply for the job? i asked you before what qualifications WOULD be meaningful. you didn't answer. please do so now, because i really can't figure it out. Of the ones he listed... yes... all of them, really. For the reasons I listed. As to your non-inline question: Things that show she's fit for the job... like thing that prove her honesty and integrity. Things that prove her willingness to put the country before herself. Things that show why she's worthy among others that are also worthy (case in point: Time's 25 women of the century had many that were definitely NOT worthy {not even counting Clinton}... so that whole list can be discarded as irrelevant}. I'd also like someone that's never been investigated for wrong-doing (not as part of a necessary background check... but because it appeared they were doing things that were at best "on the shady side")... but I'll admit that that's somewhat "pie-in-the-sky" thinking. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 5, 2016 23:32:39 GMT -5
i asked you before what qualifications WOULD be meaningful. you didn't answer. please do so now, because i really can't figure it out. Of the ones he listed... yes... all of them, really. For the reasons I listed. we are past that, now. fine. those are not meaningful TO YOU. got it. i am asking you what IS meaningful to you.As to your non-inline question: Things that show she's fit for the job... like thing that prove her honesty and integrity. Things that prove her willingness to put the country before herself. Things that show why she's worthy among others that are also worthy (case in point: Time's 25 women of the century had many that were definitely NOT worthy {not even counting Clinton}... so that whole list can be discarded as irrelevant}. I'd also like someone that's never been investigated for wrong-doing (not as part of a necessary background check... but because it appeared they were doing things that were at best "on the shady side")... but I'll admit that that's somewhat "pie-in-the-sky" thinking. no, sorry, that is not an answer. you are telling me what is NOT meaningful, not what is. i blame myself. let me try again. this is not a question about Clinton, either. here it goes again: what qualifications for president would you consider meaningful? |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 5, 2016 23:52:20 GMT -5
i asked you before what qualifications WOULD be meaningful. you didn't answer. please do so now, because i really can't figure it out. Of the ones he listed... yes... all of them, really. For the reasons I listed. As to your non-inline question: Things that show she's fit for the job... like thing that prove her honesty and integrity. Things that prove her willingness to put the country before herself. Things that show why she's worthy among others that are also worthy (case in point: Time's 25 women of the century had many that were definitely NOT worthy {not even counting Clinton}... so that whole list can be discarded as irrelevant}. I'd also like someone that's never been investigated for wrong-doing (not as part of a necessary background check... but because it appeared they were doing things that were at best "on the shady side")... but I'll admit that that's somewhat "pie-in-the-sky" thinking. Shady? Let's talk about Trump, shall we? From not paying his workers to being a BFF with known pedophiles to renting an apartment to Osama bin Ladens' brother to stiffing his creditors....the list is endless. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 6, 2016 0:29:51 GMT -5
And killing the USFL because he was both greedy and insulted that the NFL owners didn't want him in their league. Tried to force the issue years before they were ready and put the entire league out of business, including teams in well over a dozen cities, a thousand players, thousands of other associated workers, and disappointing millions of fans. Ego and greed. They were his failings decades ago just as much as they are now. Not only that, but when asked if he thought he was in any way responsible for the league's demise, he instead answered that he was probably responsible for taking it as far as it went, and that they wouldn't have made it that far without him. Sound familiar to anyone?  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 16:50:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 0:32:50 GMT -5
Of the ones he listed... yes... all of them, really. For the reasons I listed. we are past that, now. fine. those are not meaningful TO YOU. got it. i am asking you what IS meaningful to you.As to your non-inline question: Things that show she's fit for the job... like thing that prove her honesty and integrity. Things that prove her willingness to put the country before herself. Things that show why she's worthy among others that are also worthy (case in point: Time's 25 women of the century had many that were definitely NOT worthy {not even counting Clinton}... so that whole list can be discarded as irrelevant}. I'd also like someone that's never been investigated for wrong-doing (not as part of a necessary background check... but because it appeared they were doing things that were at best "on the shady side")... but I'll admit that that's somewhat "pie-in-the-sky" thinking. no, sorry, that is not an answer. you are telling me what is NOT meaningful, not what is. i blame myself. let me try again. this is not a question about Clinton, either. here it goes again: what qualifications for president would you consider meaningful?Things that show she's fit for the job... like thing that prove her honesty and integrity. Things that prove her willingness to put the country before herself. Things that show why she's worthy among others that are also worthy (case in point: Time's 25 women of the century had many that were definitely NOT worthy {not even counting Clinton}... so that whole list can be discarded as irrelevant}. I'd also like someone that's never been investigated for wrong-doing (not as part of a necessary background check... but because it appeared they were doing things that were at best "on the shady side")... but I'll admit that that's somewhat "pie-in-the-sky" thinking. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 6, 2016 0:33:30 GMT -5
And killing the USFL because he was both greedy and insulted that the NFL owners didn't want him in their league. Tried to force the issue years before they were ready and put the entire league out of business, including teams in well over a dozen cities, a thousand players, thousands of other associated workers, and disappointing millions of fans. Ego and greed. They were his failings decades ago just as much as they are now. Not only that, but when asked if he thought he was in any way responsible for the league's demise, he instead answered that he was probably responsible for taking it as far as it went, and that they wouldn't have made it that far without him. Sound familiar to anyone? i think i'd rather avoid the US succumbing to the same fate. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 16:50:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 0:33:37 GMT -5
Of the ones he listed... yes... all of them, really. For the reasons I listed. As to your non-inline question: Things that show she's fit for the job... like thing that prove her honesty and integrity. Things that prove her willingness to put the country before herself. Things that show why she's worthy among others that are also worthy (case in point: Time's 25 women of the century had many that were definitely NOT worthy {not even counting Clinton}... so that whole list can be discarded as irrelevant}. I'd also like someone that's never been investigated for wrong-doing (not as part of a necessary background check... but because it appeared they were doing things that were at best "on the shady side")... but I'll admit that that's somewhat "pie-in-the-sky" thinking. Shady? Let's talk about Trump, shall we? From not paying his workers to being a BFF with known pedophiles to renting an apartment to Osama bin Ladens' brother to stiffing his creditors....the list is endless. Please show me where I EVER said Trump wasn't shady... I'll wait. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 6, 2016 0:34:39 GMT -5
no, sorry, that is not an answer. you are telling me what is NOT meaningful, not what is. i blame myself. let me try again. this is not a question about Clinton, either. here it goes again: what qualifications for president would you consider meaningful?Things that show she's fit for the job... try again, one more time, with the pink text in mind. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 16:50:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 0:38:42 GMT -5
Things that show she's fit for the job... try again, one more time, with the pink text in mind. Things that show he/she/it is/are fit for the job... like thing that prove his/her/its honesty and integrity. Things that prove his/her/its willingness to put the country before himself/herself/itself. Things that show why he/she/it is worthy among others that are also worthy I'd also like someone that's never been investigated for wrong-doing (not as part of a necessary background check... but because it appeared they were doing things that were at best "on the shady side")... but I'll admit that that's somewhat "pie-in-the-sky" thinking. The answer is still the same... just the pronouns change. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 6, 2016 0:40:50 GMT -5
And killing the USFL because he was both greedy and insulted that the NFL owners didn't want him in their league. Tried to force the issue years before they were ready and put the entire league out of business, including teams in well over a dozen cities, a thousand players, thousands of other associated workers, and disappointing millions of fans. Ego and greed. They were his failings decades ago just as much as they are now. Not only that, but when asked if he thought he was in any way responsible for the league's demise, he instead answered that he was probably responsible for taking it as far as it went, and that they wouldn't have made it that far without him. Sound familiar to anyone? i think i'd rather avoid the US succumbing to the same fate. Does it occur to anyone else that his campaign and the relationship with the Republican National Committee and the party leadership is analogous to the earlier debacle? And that the GOP can be sacrificed to his ego and desires just like the USFL was and it wouldn't bother him a bit? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 6, 2016 0:46:30 GMT -5
try again, one more time, with the pink text in mind. Things that show he/she/it is/are fit for the job... like thing that prove his/her/its honesty and integrity. Things that prove his/her/its willingness to put the country before himself/herself/itself. Things that show why he/she/it is worthy among others that are also worthy I'd also like someone that's never been investigated for wrong-doing (not as part of a necessary background check... but because it appeared they were doing things that were at best "on the shady side")... but I'll admit that that's somewhat "pie-in-the-sky" thinking. The answer is still the same... just the pronouns change. ok. you will forgive me for thinking this was STILL a conversation about Clinton. these are very general standards, imo- but thanks. i can see why you don't like Clinton, Trump, or pretty much anyone else who is likely to run, now. candidates are generally powerful and ambitious, which make them selfish, and also make them targets for lawsuits. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 6, 2016 0:48:30 GMT -5
i think i'd rather avoid the US succumbing to the same fate. Does it occur to anyone else that his campaign and the relationship with the Republican National Committee and the party leadership is analogous to the earlier debacle? And that the GOP can be sacrificed to his ego and desires just like the USFL was and it wouldn't bother him a bit? it also reminds me of Sarah Palin, which is probably why those two holier than thous get along so well. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,667
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 6, 2016 0:59:19 GMT -5
I'm finding that a much tougher choice than it should probably be: Which one of those worthless twits would be a bigger disaster for this country?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 16:50:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 1:13:22 GMT -5
Things that show he/she/it is/are fit for the job... like thing that prove his/her/its honesty and integrity. Things that prove his/her/its willingness to put the country before himself/herself/itself. Things that show why he/she/it is worthy among others that are also worthy I'd also like someone that's never been investigated for wrong-doing (not as part of a necessary background check... but because it appeared they were doing things that were at best "on the shady side")... but I'll admit that that's somewhat "pie-in-the-sky" thinking. The answer is still the same... just the pronouns change. ok. you will forgive me for thinking this was STILL a conversation about Clinton. these are very general standards, imo- but thanks. i can see why you don't like Clinton, Trump, or pretty much anyone else who is likely to run, now. candidates are generally powerful and ambitious, which make them selfish, and also make them targets for lawsuits. Well... it was a conversation about Clinton (and that's why I tailored my answer with feminine pronouns and the example of throwing out that "Time's 25 best" as irrelevant)... but I don't have to make my standards fit ONLY her... do I? And yeah... those standards pretty much do eliminate all politicians... but... I have to judge who fails at reaching the criteria the LEAST. In order, that would be Johnson, Stein, Trump, Clinton. (the last two are FAAAAAR behind the first two, and almost tied. Trump is literally just a fraction of a hair ahead) |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 16:50:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 1:17:19 GMT -5
I'm finding that a much tougher choice than it should probably be: Which one of those worthless twits would be a bigger disaster for this country? Tough question. Hillary has PROVEN based on her work in the political arena that she'll be a disaster. Trump hasn't proven himself as anything in the political arena... but in the business arena he's proven that he's seriously unsuited for the job (not necessarily as unsuited as Clinton has PROVEN herself to be... but... he might be... he might also be worse...) The devil you know... or the devil you don't? which one do you choose and how do you make the right choice? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 6, 2016 1:18:27 GMT -5
ok. you will forgive me for thinking this was STILL a conversation about Clinton. these are very general standards, imo- but thanks. i can see why you don't like Clinton, Trump, or pretty much anyone else who is likely to run, now. candidates are generally powerful and ambitious, which make them selfish, and also make them targets for lawsuits. Well... it was a conversation about Clinton (and that's why I tailored my answer with feminine pronouns and the example of throwing out that "Time's 25 best" as irrelevant)... but I don't have to make my standards fit ONLY her... do I? no, but again, this is a thread about Trump, and i was asking a generic question about candidates for president. but i digress.....And yeah... those standards pretty much do eliminate all politicians... but... I have to judge who fails at reaching the criteria the LEAST. In order, that would be Johnson, Stein, Trump, Clinton. (the last two are FAAAAAR behind the first two, and almost tied. Trump is literally just a fraction of a hair ahead) in terms of YOUR standards, i don't really know who is ahead. and i am really tired, so i am not going to try doing it right now. g'nite. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 6, 2016 1:19:04 GMT -5
I'm finding that a much tougher choice than it should probably be: Which one of those worthless twits would be a bigger disaster for this country? Tough question. Hillary has PROVEN based on her work in the political arena that she'll be a disaster. Trump hasn't proven himself as anything in the political arena... but in the business arena he's proven that he's seriously unsuited for the job (not necessarily as unsuited as Clinton has PROVEN herself to be... but... he might be... he might also be worse...) The devil you know... or the devil you don't? which one do you choose and how do you make the right choice? i don't think he was talking about Clinton........  |
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,337
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Sept 6, 2016 3:16:44 GMT -5
I am curious if before this election cycle, these were important concerns. While most people say they like honesty and integrity, we have Trump as the nominee pretty much putting that belief to bed. I also think it can be a subjective grading scale. I don't think Trump is willing to put anything before himself. Heck, he pretty much said Ivanka was on her own if sexually harassed. I get how some people are so anti-Democrat and anti-Clinton they feel her lies are worse than Trump's. I don't. She is flawed, but she has shown she has other concerns than herself.
Trump's concerns are pretty much how he is doing and whether he feels liked enough. Slightly OT, I think Rush has gone down the Trump path. I don't think he cares much about the fate of his listeners or the country anymore. He's using his pulpit to make things worse for others but in a way so he stays wealthy. Feed paranoia for income. 
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 16:50:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 4:00:05 GMT -5
Tough question. Hillary has PROVEN based on her work in the political arena that she'll be a disaster. Trump hasn't proven himself as anything in the political arena... but in the business arena he's proven that he's seriously unsuited for the job (not necessarily as unsuited as Clinton has PROVEN herself to be... but... he might be... he might also be worse...) The devil you know... or the devil you don't? which one do you choose and how do you make the right choice? i don't think he was talking about Clinton........ Well... she IS one of the "worthless twits" running... so... |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,763
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 6, 2016 6:50:55 GMT -5
I'm finding that a much tougher choice than it should probably be: Which one of those worthless twits would be a bigger disaster for this country? Tough question. Hillary has PROVEN based on her work in the political arena that she'll be a disaster. Trump hasn't proven himself as anything in the political arena... but in the business arena he's proven that he's seriously unsuited for the job (not necessarily as unsuited as Clinton has PROVEN herself to be... but... he might be... he might also be worse...) The devil you know... or the devil you don't? which one do you choose and how do you make the right choice? Imagine what our country would be like a year after Clinton gets elected, and what it would be like a year after Trump gets elected.
Clinton will be focused on the country and our international relations. Trump has a notoriously short attention span and has already stated he will delegate most of the day to day stuff to someone else. Which is better?
Clinton has a lot of experience in politics and knows how to network with other politicians to get deals made. She understands the give and take required. Trump has zero experience with politics, and uses intimidations, threats and lawsuits to try to strong arm people to let him have his way. Clinton will most likely be able to get some changes made. Trump will mean even more gridlock than we have right now. Which is better?
Clinton has a lot of international experience and knows the art of diplomacy. Trump knows nothing about international relations and will use the same strong arm threats and bullying to get his way. Trump has a lot of business ties to Russia and has already demonstrated how eager he is to cozy up to Putin, while at the same time has announced his plans to back away from traditional US allies. Is a Russian alliance better or worse for the US?
If you think that the US government is such a disaster the only thing we can do is burn it to the ground and start over from scratch, I can see how Trump is appealing. There will be no 'politics as usual' if he gets elected. If you're worried about the unintended consequences, both domestically and internationally, of such a disruptive POTUS, then you're going to go with the person who will reliably stick to our current political system, such as it is, in the hopes that some reasonable reforms might be accomplished without the risk of a massive financial crisis or international upheaval.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,841
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 6, 2016 10:46:44 GMT -5
When Ike was President he had a putting green installed at the White House. It is rather flat, and despite a renovation overseen by none other than Robert Trent Jones is a rather pedestrian golfing experience. It is to be taken on faith that the Donald will oversee a complete and beautiful renovation of not only the putting green but also the surrounding ground to make it the best practice facility for the golf short game in the DC area- if not the East Coast north of Mar a Lago! There would be a fine putting surface with variable stimpmeter readings possible to simulate the speeds at any course, and variable surfaces from flat to sloped and even bowl shaped. Of course the grass will be absolutely perfect, and the healthiest and most vibrant grass on any green, anywhere. There would be several nearby bunkers, ranging in type from shallow, to steep lipped, with a Scottish style pot bunker on the south side. All would be kept with immaculate white sand from the finest Caribbean beach stock, sifted and fluffed for consistency and texture. A nearby deep rough would be positioned so that errant "flyers" coming out of it would be directed toward the peasants in the direction of the Mall. All told, the Trump Washington practice facility WOULD BE THE FINEST IN GOLF. As far as how the country would be doing a year on, well, just look at the golf green, will ya? It's gonna be GREAT!  |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,763
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 6, 2016 11:33:04 GMT -5
I especially like the black jockey statue at the front entrance, but I think the design is a little light on the gold gilding.
Remember, the man writes his personal notes with gold ink. I imagine he will want that dull white marble covered in gold leaf before he moves in.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 6, 2016 11:59:49 GMT -5
i don't think he was talking about Clinton........ Well... she IS one of the "worthless twits" running... so... who said anything about running? we were just talking about worthless twits. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,706
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 6, 2016 12:17:50 GMT -5
I especially like the black jockey statue at the front entrance, but I think the design is a little light on the gold gilding.
Remember, the man writes his personal notes with gold ink. I imagine he will want that dull white marble covered in gold leaf before he moves in.
i like the shirtless Putin. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 18, 2024 16:50:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 20:11:03 GMT -5
Tough question. Hillary has PROVEN based on her work in the political arena that she'll be a disaster. Trump hasn't proven himself as anything in the political arena... but in the business arena he's proven that he's seriously unsuited for the job (not necessarily as unsuited as Clinton has PROVEN herself to be... but... he might be... he might also be worse...) The devil you know... or the devil you don't? which one do you choose and how do you make the right choice? Imagine what our country would be like a year after Clinton gets elected, and what it would be like a year after Trump gets elected. That's exactly what terrifies me... BOTH outlooks are horrible. Trump's being just a smidge less so... because he will (hopefully) have gotten rid of Obamacare by the end of that first year. |
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Sept 6, 2016 20:20:34 GMT -5
Imagine what our country would be like a year after Clinton gets elected, and what it would be like a year after Trump gets elected. That's exactly what terrifies me... BOTH outlooks are horrible. Trump's being just a smidge less so... because he will (hopefully) have gotten rid of Obamacare by the end of that first year. please. How many futile votes has Congress had attempting to get rid of the ACA in the last two years? |
|
