Christians Love A Whiner - er - Winner

Several days ago I posted the following on Facebook and Twitter: "President Trump is the winningest President ever! He is the ONLY President to be impeached ... TWICE! Now THAT'S winning! Let the door hit you in the a** on the way out!"

I admit, my Facebook and Twitter feeds aren't my blog; however, the "My Humble But Accurate Opinion" theme does tend to carry over to other parts of my online life. 

I really don't get that much social interaction from my posts on Twitter. On Facebook I get loads. Especially when they have even a hint of a derogatory emphasis on President Trump. And mostly from my friends of Christian faith. Which got me to thinking: why are so many Christians so enamored with President Trump?

Before I go any further, I want to state that I am a Christian. If you have read some of my older blog posts, you will also realize that I am not a "religious" Christian. I do recommend you check out some of those posts if you need more of an explanation. Go ahead. I can wait.

Finished? Okay, I'll continue.

From what I can tell, Christians (I'm going to use them as a group - even though I know many Christians do not consider President Trump to be all that awesome. If you are a Christian and don't think Trump to be the Second Coming, don't worry - I'm not referring to you.) think that Trump is the most Christian President we have ever had as a nation. He stands for family. He's pro-life. And he stands against evil (the mainstream media, Democrats, China, etc.) Any comment that would detract from that message is considered anathema. 

Well, if you ARE a Christian who believes Trump walks on water, you may want to stop reading.

(As you might have noticed, I dropped the "President" and refer to him just as "Trump". No disrespect is meant by this. It is simply to tighten my verbose writing.)

I believe that if you ARE a Christian, Trump should be the LAST person you should adore. And here's why:

Let's start with the "stands for family" bit. Trump has the honor of being the President with the MOST divorces - more than any other President in history. To quote the Elite Daily, "In 1990, Trump's first wife Ivana divorced him after his affair with model Marla Maples was revealed. Trump later married Maples in 1993, three months after she gave birth to their daughter Tiffany Trump. The couple was married for four years until they separated in 1997. That brings us to first lady Melania Trump, previously Melania Knauss, who met Trump at a party in 1998. The couple dated for six years before tying the knot in 2005. Melania gave birth to their son, Barron, nearly a year later." Tiffany was conceived and born out of wedlock. A very Christian ideal indeed.

Okay, let's look at his being "pro-life". This may come as a shock, but Trump was pro-choice (for Christians "PRO-ABORTION") up until he decided to run for President in 2015. Why the big change? Did he suddenly decide that every sperm is sacred? Doubtful. More likely he decided that he had a better chance of winning as a Republican than as a Democrat, and running as a pro-choice Republican would not even get him out of the Primaries.

How about that he stands against evil? Surely, that's a good reason to faun over him. Actually, no. The very Democrats that he calls evil were his brothers and sisters up until he decided to run for President in 2015. Again, see the above paragraph.

The only thing Trump values is Trump. His name is the sweetest sound in the world. That's why he puts it on his steaks and the top of towers. As President, he even refused to use the official @POTUS Twitter account, preferring his @realDonaldTrump account BECAUSE it had his name in it.

I also find it difficult to "worship" the guy who said it was okay to "grab them by the p*ssy", and use chemical agents against protesters to make a path for him to go to a church he never attended for a photo op of him holding up a Bible UPSIDE DOWN.

I think it's not too far from golden toilets to being a "golden calf". (I know, he didn't actually have a gold toilet, but it makes this funny!)

Was he an idiot? No. Actually, he was quite smart. One of the main ways to unite people is to give them a common enemy. Trump provided them in truck loads, and his "followers" gobbled them up. One of my Facebook friends made it a point to tell me that they were at the pre-Capitol riot speech and that he did NOT incite the crowd to insurrection. I'm sure the members of Jeremiah Wright's church didn't hear any "god damn America" language either. I got through about half of the transcript of Trump's speech. I gotta say, there was a quite a lot of "enemy" language spouted. Of course, about a quarter of the way through I kept getting mental images of Jim Carrey's Ace Ventura:

The Bible says that a person is "…not to think of himself more highly than he ought…" (Romans 12:3). Yet, Trump thought so highly of himself that BEFORE the 2020 election even happened he was stating that he won the election, and the only way he could lose was by voter fraud. Maybe he was a prophet too.

Speaking of the 2020 election, I'm not at all surprised that it has become the clusterf*ck that it is. Trump repeatedly told his followers that they should vote in person and not by mail. Since the coronavirus was of no concern to Republicans, all the Democrats would be too scared to go out and vote. And since Democrats would then vote by mail, all of their votes should be considered invalid. 

No surprise then, when after the polls closed many states then started counting the mail-in ballots and most went for Biden. Which is why Trump's "lead" started to disappear. That's not fraud. That's the system working as designed.

By the way, in the typical "do as I say, not as I do" Trump mentality, he voted BY MAIL.

When it comes to election fraud, I'm going to quote NPR: "The largest case of election fraud in recent U.S. history took place during the 2018 midterm elections and involved third-party ballot collection. A GOP operative illegally collected and potentially tampered with ballots in a U.S. House race in North Carolina, eventually leading state authorities to overturn the election results." As you can probably guess, Trump voted by third-party ballot collection for the 2020 election.

Of course, this also means Trump got all his election fraud tips from a reliable source: the GOP! (Or, did the GOP get the tips from Trump? Chicken? Egg?)

As far as the voter fraud allegations are concerned, Trump and his legal team have failed to provide ANY credible proof of fraud. Oh, they had a lot of theories, but no proof. During that pre-Capitol riot speech he mentioned the list of inmates who voted. To quote Monty Python in "Life of Brian" when Brian said to the crowd, "A man had two sons," and a member of the crowd yelled out, "What were their names?", I ask concerning those inmates, what were their names?

The list of individuals Trump has fired (or have "requested" letters of resignation from - same thing, by the way) since losing the 2020 election is quite extensive. If you weren't completely loyal to him, you were on the short list. 

As an example of Trump's inability to accept defeat, Chris Krebs, formerly the most senior cybersecurity official, was fired by Trump (via Twitter, no less) when he declared the election secure. Why? Because Trump wanted him to find proof of election tampering and he didn't. Because it's all about Trump, and Trump cannot stand to lose.

But firing people should come as no surprise. I think Trump may still believe he is in his reality show. 

Dominion Voting Systems has been so disparaged by Trump and his team, that they are suing. And unlike Trump's legal team, this isn't a frivolous lawsuit. We're talking defamation and slander.

Trump says that there is no way "Sleepy Joe" got more votes than him. And I have to agree. There is nothing about Biden that makes one think, "Now THERE'S a leader!" But that's the thing: people didn't vote FOR Biden; they voted AGAINST Trump. In 2016 we had to choose between two terrible candidates. Not so in 2020. 

(Full discloser: I didn't vote for Biden and I didn't vote for Trump. I believe that voting Democrat or Republican only reinforces bad behavior.)

Think about it. In order for the Democrats to overthrow the election in the way Trump says they did, it had to be a coordinated effort that knew WHICH counties would need to be impacted to turn the election, WHICH courts the legal team would file charges against so they could be thrown out, and how to get even the Trump-loving FOX News to admit that Biden won. Seriously, if the Democrats are THAT coordinated, maybe they SHOULD be in charge! 

Back during the 2016 election, Pastor Max Lucado posted the following to his blog:

"I don’t know Mr. Trump. But I’ve been chagrined at his antics. He ridiculed a war hero. He made a mockery of a reporter’s menstrual cycle. He made fun of a disabled reporter. He referred to the former first lady, Barbara Bush as “mommy,” and belittled Jeb Bush for bringing her on the campaign trail. He routinely calls people “stupid,” and “dummy.” One writer catalogued sixty-four occasions that he called someone “loser.” These were not off-line, backstage, overheard, not-to-be-repeated comments. They were publicly and intentionally tweeted, recorded, and presented.

Such insensitivities wouldn’t be acceptable even for a middle school student body election. But for the Oval Office? And to do so while brandishing a Bible and boasting of his Christian faith?" Read the rest here.

I find Max Lucado a much better example of Christianity than Donald Trump. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

I know of quite a few Christians who have left churches over less anti-Christian behavior, yet still suck from the "Trump teat" on a regular basis. (You know who you are...)

I’m not a perfect example of Christianity. I like the philosophy of "not perfect, but forgiven". The Bible says we are to be "…living epistles, read of all men" (J.P. paraphrase of 2 Cor. 3:2). I don't have a fish symbol on the back of my car because I know how I drive. And I don't have a Trump bumper sticker either!

Why do Christians insist that Trump is the best thing since unleavened bread? Maybe it's because they are tired and angry and want a change from the usual. The rhetoric, no matter how divisive, is captivating to them.

I don't know. But I can say for certain that the only thing Trump and Jesus have in common is the number of letters in their name.

©Emittravel 2021

Stuff My Brain Says #79

Maybe what the American people are lacking is not confidence in the electoral process, but confidence in the way the polls were reported. The major discrepancies between what the polls said and what the final election results were are what are driving the recount campaign. It has little to nothing to do with who got the majority of the popular vote.

Besides, even Hillary Clinton accepts the Electoral College, since she conceded the election to Donald Trump based on the results.

©Emittravel 2016

I'm No Political Pundit, But . . .

The 2016 Presidential Election is “finally" over. I put “finally" in quotes, because according to my Twitter feed, it ain’t over yet.

As of today, November 13, 2016, Donald Trump won the election with 290 electoral votes, to Hillary Clinton’s 228. Now, according to the U.S. Constitution, Donald Trump won. But, according to my liberal friends, Hillary Clinton won because she got the most popular votes. They think that the Electoral College should either go away, or that the Electoral College should ignore the states and vote for Hillary Clinton on December 19.

Now, I’m not going to go into a long dissertation on why we have the Electoral College. I may save that for a “It’s Broke . . . Time to Fix It" article. Or, you can just go ahead and read the U.S. Constitution. What I do want to do is hopefully give everyone something to grasp that is positive, and allow everyone to finally move on.

To start, let me remind you that I voted for Gary Johnson. You can go back through some of my recent posts to get an overall picture of why. Let’s just say if you think I voted to spite the parties, you are wrong. If you think I threw my vote away, you are also wrong. If you think that my vote gave your opposing candidate the win, you can stop thinking: you are also wrong.

The reason I voted for Gary Johnson was that, based on his policies and record, I believed he was the best person for the JOB we the people were hiring for. And that’s it in a nutshell.

I say that to make sure you understand that I am NOT a Trump supporter, and I am NOT a Clinton supporter. I’m a registered Independent, so I don’t have a party line to hoe.

I’d like to say this was the nastiest election ever, but from what I’ve read, our earlier Presidential candidates were barrel-scum flingers. And that’s far before our lifetimes. So, nasty elections are nothing new in our history. It’s unfortunate that this process cannot be handled with the same decorum as the Office of the President is supposed to present.

(Maybe that should be a criteria for winning?)

As far as Clinton winning the popular vote is concerned, let’s look at the numbers. More than 40% of registered voters did not participate in this election. You can scream voter intimidation if you want, but the truth is, many people that I talked to felt that neither “major" candidate was worth voting for. (Most people had no idea about any third-party candidates, since their 24/7 news channels gave them so little free advertising, compared to the Republicans and Democrats.) Many people - over 40% - decided not to vote. THAT is a major declaration by the people. Either run a candidate that they would hire for the JOB, or they aren’t voting. Not voting is as much a statement as voting.

As far as voter intimidation is concerned, I’ve never seen it. I’ve been voting in elections since 1984 and I’ve never seen it. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. I’m almost positive it does. If the elections of old were as nasty as this one was, I’m sure voter intimidation took place. I am saying that I’ve never seen it. Maybe that means I’ve lived in areas that are just too wholesome for the practice, or more likely, I’ve lived in areas where the electorate is considered of no value. But this election was filled with screams of Trump supporters intimidating voters. I remember cries over alleged Black Panthers intimidating voters in the previous two elections. So, it either is happening, or the concept gets a lot of press.

So, subtracting the over 40% of voters not participating, the remaining popular votes were almost evenly divided between Clinton and Trump. Clinton DID receive the mathematical majority of popular votes. But since NEITHER candidate was able to break the 48% mark, you need to accept that Clinton was .2% (that’s point two percent) LESS UNPOPULAR than Trump. That’s not a majority, that’s splitting hairs. And if you are making the popular vote your argument, maybe you should just stop.

As a side: If Clinton had won the Electoral College but lost the Popular vote by the same .2%, would liberals be shouting that Trump should have won? Maybe it’s time to stop whining.

As far as the people who did vote for Trump: The media has been harping most of this election that he is a bigot, womanizing, pig (amongst many other derogatory adjectives). Because of this, the same descriptors have been placed upon those who voted for him. This needs to stop, people. Do you honestly believe that the majority of people who voted FOR Trump are bigots? I’m sure you do see in the media (social and otherwise) instances showing this to be true, but like the “man on the street" portions of late night TV shows, those are selected instances for impact. NOT the norm.

I saw two maps of the country showing you what it would look like if certain groups had voted. One was hysterical. It represented what it would look like if 3-year olds had voted (completely covered in crayon scribbles). Look for that one. It was the best!

The other map showed the actual results of this election by counties. The majority of Clinton voters were in urban counties, whereas the majority of Trump voters were in rural counties. Now, the media likes to divide that between educated and uneducated. I like to look at it as if those in urban counties live in their own bubbles. Why? Because maybe, just maybe, those in rural counties cared more about the fact that many are either without jobs (never returned to the workforce since the last recession), or are under employed (making less money, or working in jobs that pay less than they had), than whether or not a trans-gendered person used a certain bathroom (if you look at the stories in the media over the last four years or so, the emphasis on such stories was abnormally high). And it’s not that rural folks are bigots against transgenders, it’s that when it comes to their lives, those folks are a minority of a minority of the population.

Maybe, just maybe, those in the rural communities were tired of being left out.

I say this to tell you that I’ve never talked to ANYONE who said they voted for Trump BECAUSE they were bigots. If you think that is the reason why people vote in elections, maybe you need to go and talk to someone . . . professionally.

So to close:

Donald Trump has been elected President of the United States. If you were electing a President, you have nothing to worry about. If you were electing a King, be afraid. Be very afraid.

©Emittravel 2016

Get Out the Get Out the Vote

“Get Out the Vote.” Remember that? It came about a few election cycles ago. The idea was to get as many people to the polls as possible. Now, at first glance that seems a great idea. But when you give it a little more thought, like me, you discover it is not such a good idea. Especially when it comes to this current election.

I've joked that my Twitter feed seems to be all liberal and my Facebook feed seems to be all conservative. My social networking is a bit bipolar. And since I'm the same guy in both networks, the algorithms seem to be a bit . . . off.

Now, in both the emphasis is the same: you have to vote for one candidate to make sure the other candidate doesn't win. And if you are thinking of voting for a third-party candidate, you are guaranteeing the other candidate will win. In all cases, I see very little convincing for you to vote FOR a candidate, only AGAINST the other one. This tells me that people really don't like the candidate they are voting for, but the other candidate is so much worse and needs to be stopped.

As I've written previously, this is a job interview, and we are the potential employers. We are trying to find the best person for the job. When you hire someone, you not only look at their background and opinions, but you look to see what their job qualifications are. You don't have to go much further than the last three Presidential debates, to know that the emphasis of this particular job interview has very little to do with qualifications.

So, if your intention is to vote for someone only in order to vote against someone: DON'T VOTE!

If your intention is to blindly vote along party lines: DON'T VOTE!

“J.P., are you seriously telling us not to vote?” Yup. Absolutely. What's more dangerous than a wasted vote? A vote made in ignorance.

I don't care how many women Trump may have groped. I don't care how many emails Clinton may have deleted. I don't care if Johnson can't find Aleppo on a map. If you can't honestly say you are voting FOR someone because you AGREE with MOST (not necessarily ALL) of what they have stated their POLICIES are, DON'T VOTE!

Now, you'll notice I did not say to stay home. Go! Vote! There are usually local issues and candidates on the ballot, and those you need to vote for. Oh, and as in the above, if you can't honestly say you agree with most of what the candidate's policies are, you don't for them either.

Here is what I do: I read the ballot carefully. If I do not know enough to make an informed decision on an issue, I skip it. A non-vote is not counted as For OR Against. If I cannot say I agree with a candidate based on their policies, I skip them too. I do NOT vote along party lines (to be honest, I'm a registered Independent, so I don't HAVE a party line to vote for). And that includes those situations when there is only one candidate running for a position.

I hear that voting is one of the most important things an individual can do, outside of running for office. I say that is wrong. INFORMED voting is one of the most important things an individual can do. UNINFORMED voting is one of the most DANGEROUS things an individual can do.

So, get out and vote, or get out the get out the vote. This is too important for an emotional decision.

Our democracy depends on it.

©Emittravel 2016

Is the Game Rigged?

Donald Trump has been all over both (so called) main stream and social media shouting that the whole election process is rigged. You know Donald Trump: the guy who didn't pay taxes in about 18 years. Or did he?

Now that I have your attention, let's try to decipher both of those accusations.

First off, is the election rigged? I've written quite a few posts where I go into the election process ("Does the RNC WANT Me to Vote with the DNC?"; "I'm Bushed: Have We Ben Trumped?"; "What's a Reagan Conservative?"; "Independent Influence"; "Thank You Obama?"; "Stuff My Brain Says #77"; "A Dress or a Pantsuit - Your Choice"; "Vetting - Not Just for Pets Anymore"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #8"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #9"; "Stuff My Brain Says #78"; "Repeat After Me"; "What Are You Afraid Of?"; "It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #10"; and "It Just Doesn't Matter!"), so you can take some time and read those. One aspect I haven't given time to is the “early voting" process. I mentioned previously that I didn't know much about it, but I've done a little digging since. And what I've found seems to support Donald's cries.

Several states have the option to vote early. Those votes are not counted UNTIL election day along with all of the other votes (not including Absentee Ballots). So, what's the point of early voting? Polls, my dear friends. Polls.

Once people have voted, whether via early voting or on election day, pollsters like to ask immediately to whom did a person vote. They are then able to report this information as “news". This is helpful in that people tend to vote for those whom they believe are going to win. If they hear that a certain candidate looks to be winning, they tend to vote for that person (so they can say they supported the winner). Or, if they were going to vote for another candidate, they don't vote at all ("What's the point?")

This is especially an issue on election day, as those in the Eastern Time zone tend to close their polls earlier than those in the Pacific Time zone. Reports of those results have the ability to have an effect on voting results in other states voting later. And the polls don't have to close to be impactful, as pollsters report on what the trends are based on those leaving the voting stations say they voted for.

(Personally, I believe that it should be illegal for any results reporting to take place until AFTER the last state has closed their polls. This would eliminate such voting influence on election day.)

Hillary Clinton has been pushing promoted tweets on Twitter encouraging people to vote early in states that can. The (so called) mainstream media report the polls of those individuals asked after voting early whom they voted for. Why is she pushing the early vote? Because a lot of the reporting says that she is the one winning in those states who vote early.

Now, as far as Donald Trump paying, or in this case not paying, taxes goes…

Donald Trump reported a very large loss about 18 years ago. According to tax LAW, that loss can be written off over subsequent years, especially if the loss amount is far greater than the amount paid in taxes in any given year. And since the U.S. government won't give a refund covering that loss (the government hates having to return any of OUR money), the loss is divided over the number of years it takes in “paid" taxes to cover the loss. More like credit than "cash back".

Hillary Clinton used the legal polling system to show herself the winningest candidate that you should vote for, and Donald Trump used the legal tax code to not pay taxes. Both functioned within the law.

If you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the (so called) mainstream media who uses polls as news, and be mad at those very leaders in our government who WROTE the tax laws that people can use to not pay taxes.

Is the game rigged? That depends on your perspective. Are you playing the game?

©Emittravel 2016

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #8

It's broke . . .

Every four years we go through the same thing: A bunch of rich people spend all kinds of money running advertisements, traveling all over the country giving speeches, and holding massive conventions, all to convince the populous that they are regular people like you and me, and to convince us to go into a small booth and choose them for President of the United States. And each election cycle the amount of money spent - nay WASTED - could be invested for far more beneficial ends; like, say, the very things they want to spend money on once in office.

I’m a Clevelander. I love this city. And not just because the Cavaliers won the NBA Finals this year (breaking a 52-year curse over the town) either. This year we are to hold the Republican National Convention in our town.

And it makes me sick to my stomach to think about it.

With all of the recent shootings by and of police in the last few weeks, one thing we in Cleveland don't need is a bunch of Trump hating protesters coming to town and possibly stirring up trouble. And why? Because the GOP chose to allow Donald Trump to run in the primaries as a Republican, and now regrets that they did it. They want a do over. They call "mulligan"!! And frankly, if something doesn't happen soon to correct the Good Ship "Grand Old Poopheads" they will be handing over the election to Hillary Clinton.

Though, from what I remember, Hillary Clinton may be the cheapest to elect anyway. After all, doesn't she already come with a bunch of (stolen) White House / Air Force One towels and cutlery?

I've been thinking of voting for a third-party candidate this cycle. Why? I can't stand either of these yutzes. I think these guys got it right: Everybody Sucks 2016.

"But J.P., if you vote third-party you will throw your vote away."

Or -

"But J.P., if you vote third-party you might as well vote for Clinton (or Trump), as you will give her (him) the election."

For one thing, you have to realize that your vote means squat. And if you vote absentee ballot, your vote means less than squat (as absentee ballots don't get counted anyway). As much as Americans want this to be American Idol (vote early; vote often), electing a President is not a popularity contest. Just ask Al Gore, who had more popular votes, but still lost to George Bush.

And for another thing, I am not only registered as Independent, I'm also independent of thought. I don't tow the party line. I'm not voting Republican or Democrat because my daddy was a Republican or Democrat and voted Republican or Democrat and so did his daddy and so did his daddy. There is more here at stake than the pride of whether or not your state is red or blue!

If you are reading this and are a U.S. citizen of voting age (and "hello" to all of you not from 'round these parts), you are also a tax payer. That means you pay the salaries of all of those yahoos in government. Which means, you are the President's EMPLOYER. He (or very possibly "she") works for YOU, not the other way around. Which means you are actually in the hiring position right now.

Let that sink in for a minute.

What do you do, as any good employer does, when needing to fill a position? You interview candidates for the position and look for the best.

So, as an employer, you find yourself with two individuals vying for the position that are morons. They are self-serving, rude, lying, and unscrupulous - you know, perfect politicians. So what do you do? Do you chose the lesser of two evils?

NO!

You look for other candidates. You tell both of those to hit the road and you keep looking.

Or, you look at third-party candidates.

So, my voting for a third-party candidate would not be a wasted vote. As a responsible "employer", I'm voting for the person I think is the best to do the job. If the rest don't, and my vote is over-ruled, so be it. At least my conscious is clear.

But to pull this into the title of this article: What we need to do is have all candidates submit a thesis of what they plan to do in office and why they think they are the best person for the job. And NO NAMES. That way all we voters have to work with is legitimate facts and no bullsh**.

Then maybe. Just maybe. We will stop this cycle.

And save a little of this wasted money while we're at it.

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2016

Stuff My Brain Says #53

If the purpose of elections is to win only, the Democrats have proven they are the more capable. But if the purpose of elections is to place representatives into office who will help move the nation in the direction that the founders put in place, with the best long-term interests of its peoples in the foreground, than the Democrats have failed miserably. Or, more accurately, half of the voting populous has.

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #35

Currently, President Obama is pushing for his "Buffet Rule" - a minimum tax rate upon the wealthy. He said that they were not paying their fair share. That's right, with about a $5 Billion/year estimated influx of cash to our oh-so-financially-trustworthy government, the concept is nothing but a gimmick. In other words, just a little class (envy) warfare in an election year. He says it's all in the name of fairness. I say that is a LIE. Mr. President, if you really want to spew such rhetoric with a straight face, how about, in the name of fairness, make the 47% of Americans who pay NO income tax pay their share? That would validate your (faux) sincerity and bring in much more to the coffers than the "Buffet Rule".

Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I forgot: this is an election year. You don't want to piss off all of those folks living off the government (in other words, receiving the benefits of this nation without the same sacrifice as the rest of us) now would you?

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #27

One of the more current events in this election cycle is the amount of money Mitt Romney makes, the amount of taxes he pays, and the amount he is worth. This is being pushed by the media as a negative to Romney, and I find it parroted by people who apparently have difficulty producing anything resembling an original thought. Here's one for you: name me the last presidential candidate that had a gross income of $30k or less (in today's dollars), and STILL became President. That's right: the office of the President is deemed for the wealthy; the, dare I say, "evil one percenters". So, Romney's wealth is NOT news. If he DID make only $30k/yr, THAT would be news. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #20

How about a new amendment to the Constitution:

No one can campaign for public office prior to 30-days from an election.

This is a real winner for a number of reasons:

• No one remember sanything said the two-years prior to the actual vote.
• Think of all the money that could be saved and used for more valid purposes (insert silly ideas here).
• We won't have to listen to all of the mudslinging.
• No chance for flip-flopping on issues.
• More advertising space for Cialis commercials . . . er . . . maybe not . . .

I'm sure there are plenty of other valid reasons. Any suggestions?

© Emittravel 2011