I don't know where or when that photograph was taken, but it has a great New Year's Eve look, and Melania perfectly embodies Trump's well-known taste for gold. I love the dress. Is the photograph (with that headline) "provocative"?
ADDED: Results:
December 31, 2017
"I wonder if you might comment on Drudge FP photo of him and the missus. It's pretty cool and pretty provocative. (Also her dress alone deserves a blogpost) 2PM in Paris."
Emails a reader, presumably from Paris. Here's the referenced pic, which I screen-grabbed minutes before Drudge bumped it to highlight the story in the previous post:
I don't know where or when that photograph was taken, but it has a great New Year's Eve look, and Melania perfectly embodies Trump's well-known taste for gold. I love the dress. Is the photograph (with that headline) "provocative"?
ADDED: Results:
I don't know where or when that photograph was taken, but it has a great New Year's Eve look, and Melania perfectly embodies Trump's well-known taste for gold. I love the dress. Is the photograph (with that headline) "provocative"?
ADDED: Results:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
259 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 259 of 259Of course I'm "provoked"!
Any male above room temperature would be.
Someone knows something, and I'm assuming ignorance is bliss where Obama is concerned.
It's interesting to see what is happening in DC and also the Iran developments. The last of Obama's "accomplishments" is fast disappearing.
I have been looking for a reaction by Michael Ledeen or Reuel Marc Gerecht about the present situation but nothing yet. They may be off the line for the holiday.
I disagree that Patterico is a leftist and I hope eventually he will get over his TDS but he is unhinged right now. He and I were friends of Cathy Seipp and we both went to her funeral. The NeverTrumpers at Ricochet are posting again.
The signal to noise ratio here has crept up toward my tolerance level but as long as there are commenters who want to discuss serious things and are not into poo throwing, I'll be here,
Trump derangement Syndrome" because it implies the person involved is "normal" . . .
Nobody would ever say you were normal, Dipshit.
“...but he is unhinged right now.”
I suspect he thinks the same of you.
How the Right lost it’s mind.
By Trump’s inauguration, the GOP had morphed from the party of the right to the party of the Donald. Conservatives who had previously agreed that Russia posed a global threat pivoted to embrace Putin as an exemplar of white Christian civilization; Tea Party activists who had railed against deficit spending accepted calls for a massive stimulus; the party of free markets endorsed protectionism and an economic policy that seemed driven by personal fear and favor; constitutionalists watched silently as the rule of law was undermined and norms of public integrity ignored.
After Trump won the presidency, activists who had clamored to “burn it all down” suddenly pivoted to demand party loyalty and virtual lockstep support of policies, even when they conflicted with fundamental principles or contradicted what Trump had previously said.A movement once driven by ideas during the Reagan era—back before the advent of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News—now found itself dominated by Kardashian-like hosts, intellectually dishonest shills, cynical careerists and alt-right bullies. Recent debates among conservatives, one commentator on Twitter quipped, “show[ed] the nuanced differences between a YouTube comments section and a chain email to your grandfather.” This has paralleled a surge in the anti-intellectualism in American life, perhaps aided by compromises among the people whose judgment and ideas I once relied upon and trusted.
Thomas Aquinas warned of the dangers of the “man of one book.” This now seems quaint. We live in an age where political leaders such as Trump no longer read books at all. They just watch television and tweet, rallying supporters with outrage and misspellings.This is the covfefe we created.
"Those who are aversive to Trump had to withdraw." Yeah, they probably went over to another legal blog that has been quite hostile to Trump and especially to those who support him, from the get go; that other blog shall remain nameless, as it does have some other redeeming values (On rare occasions).
Yet, this blog has a good (Really?) balance, exceptions do happen (Darnit all!); not too much infighting over phases of the Moon nor over shades of lightness.
At CNN, Truckgate has morphed into Treegate. Yes, that environment-hating, climate-denying President has had trees planted on his property, obscuring the previous view that CNN had of him golfing! Of all the nerve! Couldn't he just have bought some climate indulgences from Al Gore?
Patterico used to be pretty well balanced with a few lefties.
Not now. A few are still there but the left right ratio has flipped.
With anger and bravado, Trump had declared war against Reaganism (the Gipper had been pro-immigration too)—and some people loved the brash new candidate for it.
This shift took many by surprise. In the 1980s, after Reagan became the face of the right, conservatives seemed like a united, monolithic force (especially to liberals who never really listened to what we had to say). The truth is, we have long been a jumble—a contentious collection of disparate, often querulous factions: libertarians, evangelicals, traditionalists, chamber of commerce types. As far back as the 1950s, there have been deep fissures in the movement. We called ourselves conservative, but supported the creative destruction of capitalism; we championed limited government, but also traditional values. We were the party of freedom, but also national security, law and order.
Over the past 50 years, conservative leaders had sought to knit together those ideological strands. It hasn’t always been easy. In the 1960s, Buckley, the conservative author and founder of the National Review, went to war with both the far-right libertarian writer Ayn Rand and the extreme anti-Communist crackpots at the John Birch Society. Those divisions and others carried over into the Richard Nixon era in the 1970s. It wasn’t until the early 1980s that Reagan managed to control these contradictions with a combination of charisma and competent governance.
Trump, however, exploited such divisions for his own gain. He tapped into something disturbing that we had ignored and perhaps nurtured—a shift from freedom to authoritarianism, from American “exceptionalism” to nativism and xenophobia. From his hard line on immigration and rebuttal of free trade to his strange fascination with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump represented a dramatic repudiation of the values that had once defined the movement.If Reagan were alive, he would hardly recognize his party—or the walls it had erected.
This is the covfefe we created.
Only an idiot would think a typo indicates a lack of intelligence. Especially since Trump corrected his post within seconds and posted another Tweet asking for people to proffer definitions for "covfefe."
FullMoon said...
The Kennedys were just as noveau, its members were personally enormously more crass, even barbaric, than the Trumps, and old Joe's fortune was far less legitimately acquired,
Surprising they are/were not all multi billionaires. All it takes is a million dollar loan from dad to make a fortune.Easy-peasy. According to anti Trumpers, anyway."
Correct me if I am wrong but prior to Trump the richest president upon taking office was JFK who in today's money was worth a hundred million. JFK never worked a private job in his life. he got his money from dear old dad who earned his money as a war profiteer, stock market manipulator, real estate developer using government sweet heart deals and was involved with gangsters. Also bought his son an election. Easy peasy on JFK's part.
In private, conservatives who knew better justified their return to the dark fringes on the grounds that it fired up the base and antagonized liberals. Or as Palin put it so memorably in 2016, “It’s fun to see the splodey heads keep sploding.” The result was a compulsion to defend anyone attacked by the left, no matter how reckless, extreme or bizarre. If liberals hated something, the argument went, then it must be wonderful and worthy of aggressive defense. So conservatives embraced the likes of Christine O’Donnell, a failed Senate candidate who ran a curious ad denying rumors she was secretly a witch. They defended Todd Akin, a former Missouri congressman who said female victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant. We treated these extremists and crackpots like your obnoxious uncle at Thanksgiving: We ignored them, feeling we could contain them or at least control their lunacy.We were naive. By failing to push back against the racist birther-conspiracy theory—among other harmful, batty ideas—conservatives failed a moral and intellectual test with significant implications for the future.We failed it badly.
I am pleased to hear that she and my son in law cannot stand Trump now and have said they would no longer vote for him.
They must have reasons. What are they? I am still curious to hear someone who has been negatively affected by something Trump has done, as opposed to what he might do in the future.
Since the 1950s, conservatives have criticized the bias and double standards of the mainstream media. And much of the criticism has been deserved. Conservatives may exaggerate media bias, but they do not imagine it. The double standards made for daily fodder on my radio show for the past 23 years.During much of that time, I was proud to be part of the conservative media. I frequently shared the latest column by Charles Krauthammer or set up topics by reading a Wall Street Journal editorial on the air. Other hosts provided a broad forum for conservatives to share their views. Sure, we had our problems, our excesses—particularly during the Bill Clinton years. But I genuinely believed we were helping people become savvier, more sophisticated analysts of current affairs.
During the Obama era, however, we crossed a line. The right’s echo chamber didn’t just remain silent about the crackpots in our ranks, it embraced them, exploiting their insanity for clicks and ratings. Take Matt Drudge. His site, the Drudge Report, consistently ranks as one of the top five media publishers in the country, often drawing more than a billion page views a month. Media critic John Ziegler describes him as the tacit “assignment editor” for conservative talk radio, right-leaning websites and a significant portion of Fox News.But at some point in the past decade, Drudge began linking to Infowars, a website run by Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist extraordinaire. On his site, Jones has suggested that the U.S. government was behind the September 11 attacks, the Oklahoma City bombing and the Boston Marathon explosions. He would be hilarious if people didn’t take him so seriously. And in linking to his stories, Drudge broke down the wall separating the full-blown cranks from the mainstream conservative media, injecting a toxic worldview into the right’s bloodstream.
The copying and pasting is tedious to those of us who read extensively, which is most Althousians.
But your own words have become so disgusting, I suppose it's better to use someone else's words.
Another leftist comment deluge, this time with unattributed quotes.
Judge Smails said best:
Don't you people have homes?
LOL. That's a peach, hon!
Drudge broke down the wall separating the full-blown cranks from the mainstream conservative media
There never was a separation between the various Lefty cranks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc
“....copying and pasting is tedious to those of us who read extensively, which is most Althousians.
But your own words have become so disgusting, I suppose it's better to use someone else's words.”
Then stop being so debilitated by epistemic closure. If I wouldn’t have posted his words here, you never would’ve gotten out of your tiny little head to read them, because he’s a Never Trumper. It’s hard to believe you read “extensively”, you sound like one of the more ignorant ones every time you comment.
“Another leftist comment deluge, this time with unattributed quotes.”
Read more carefully. I linked to the article at 4:01 PM.
Inga said...
Hate? Look at the comments directed at Obama, his spouse, and his kids.
You’re a hypocrite.
12/31/17, 2:16 PM
Yeah, look at all the MSM , celebrities, reporters, columnists and celebrities who called O crazy, senile dangerous greedy misogynist sexist racist etc. Quite a long list, eh Inger?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTfmuLm56yQ&t=225s
Oh my. Struck down by another Inga inanity.
I'm somebody now!
“I'm somebody now!”
Yes, the fish lady, extensively read no less!
Mmmmm. Fish. Brain food!
There's broiled fish, fried fish, fish tacos, stuffed fish, fish and chips, fish soup, fish stew, sauteed fish, fish meuniere, fish patties, fish sticks, fish on a stick.
Best part is I catch them myself.
I almost forgot my favorite. Smoked fish!
Hi Inga, I know you are just cutting and pasting stuff that you would like to be true, but:
"GOP had morphed from Conservatives who had previously agreed that Russia posed a global threat pivoted to embrace Putin as an exemplar of white Christian civilization;"
How so? Trump did say he considered Putin a "strong" leader and wanted a "better relationship". You consider that an embrace? The GOP was pretty adamant that Russian sanctions be put in place, and we seem to be more at odds with Russia than at any time in the past 3 decades. You are past hyperbole on this.
"Tea Party activists who had railed against deficit spending accepted calls for a massive stimulus;"
Tea Party in Congress goes by the name of the Freedom Caucus these days. Take a closer look at their actions and votes. You will see they are still railing against deficit spending. A stimulus bill will need Dem help because there will be a lot of "Tea Party" members calling for a means to pay for it.
"the party of free markets endorsed protectionism"
This is just talking point nonsense. Any market transactions are going to be "protectionist" under this definition. A good example would be China's manipulation of its currency. Any available action the USA takes to correct this non-free market transaction would fall under the aegis of "protectionism". Any regulated transactions (NAFTA) would be the same.
"and an economic policy that seemed driven by personal fear and favor;"
I don't even understand this part other than "Trump and Repubs are Nazis". Maybe you have a different interpretation?
"constitutionalists watched silently as the rule of law was undermined and norms of public integrity ignored."
And yet I'm sure you are aware of unconstitutional spending that Obama put in place to prop up the ACA (which Trump has told the Congress to go through the constitutional process to make it 'legal'). Examples abound if you need them supplied, but dig a bit on your own first. After Obama's terms the difference in 'legality' is nothing short of astounding.
"Norms of public integrity". I don't care who you are, that's funny.
But if you have Aquinas on your side you must be the smartest person in the room.
Inga, I read most of your posts, and follow the links I haven't already seen. How much critical thinking do you do when you post something like that?
Inga admits her quotes were unattributed. If they had been attributed she wouldn’t need to now cite one comment at one time. But even if they were attributed they're still just spam.
Don’t forget the fish rots from the head.
Don’t forget the fish rots from the head.
That doesn't make you a fish, though. . .
Trumpit said: " Trump upsets thinking people constantly with his lying and inanities, but, make no mistake, he's the crazy, amoral, & imbecilic one."
I love this, I really do. According to you, Trump is all things and making correct policy decisions across the board. Why how can this be? Could it be the policy decisions Trump has executed so enrage you, you are the ones ...... who are out of control?
I think you know the answer.
"We have a Trump supporter, a Neo Nazi who ran down, an innocent young woman, killed her while she was peacefully protesting in the street."
1). I think that, if you check, you will see that she died of a heart attack, and was actually unhurt by the car. As to the car, if you bring a lawless crowd of fascists into a city and threaten everyone with violence, you might expect that a few drivers will panic. For a lefty to complain about violence in Charlottesville is . . . amusing.
2). Paterico has indeed become unhinged in his rage against Trump. As a government employee, I suspect he hangs with enough Swamp denizens so that he needs to deplore Trump's outsider status to maintain his social circle. Watching him since the election has almost seemed like watching the self-destruction of CJ at Little Green Footballs. If you oppose him in any small way, you are a vile deplorable cretin and he will drive you away simply through the ugly foam that comes out of his mouth.
3). I would take an uncivilized, deplorable President Trump any day over a civilized, socially-acceptable liar and thief such as Hillary.
Inga says: "Don’t forget the fish rots from the head."
You continue to make a fool of yourself. It's obvious to anyone to who taken a rudimentary biology class that a fish rots from the guts out. Try another catchy saying. One that is accurate.
Humperdink: "You continue to make a fool of yourself. It's obvious to anyone to who taken a rudimentary biology class that a fish rots from the guts out. Try another catchy saying. One that is accurate."
Geez, Inga is thinking like one of those filipina nurses she hates so much.
Inga has no issue with islamists blowing people up and bringing them over here, but filipina nurses? That's where she draws the line!
Since people are posting silly things in long quotes, I thought I would add a pretty good, month by month, analysis of 2017.
Here it is.
Example Our sexual horizons were broadened in September when we learned of the phenomenon of “ecosexuality” and the orgasmic delights of rock rubbing, tree licking and frottage al fresco. Meanwhile, academia’s Clown Quarter continued to bewilder. Dr Michael Isaacson, an adjunct professor specialising in “anti-capitalist economic theories” at CUNY’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice, repeatedly tweeted his enthusiasm for the murder of random police officers, and of future officers, including his own students. And Harvard-educated sociology professor Crystal Fleming championed the looting of trainers while the law-abiding were distracted by an oncoming hurricane.
More great stuff at the link.
“I think that, if you check, you will see that she died of a heart attack, and was actually unhurt by the car. As to the car, if you bring a lawless crowd of fascists into a city and threaten everyone with violence, you might expect that a few drivers will panic. For a lefty to complain about violence in Charlottesville is . . . amusing.”
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/heather-heyer-s-cause-of-death-ruled-as-blunt-force/article_cf362edc-b2c6-11e7-bfa4-8749ed76aae2.html
“Heather Heyer’s cause of death was blunt force injury to the chest, according to the Central District Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Richmond.
Heyer, a 32-year-old paralegal who was protesting the white nationalist Unite the Right rally in downtown Charlottesville on Aug. 12, died after a car rammed a crowd of pedestrians gathered at the intersection of Fourth and Water streets. Dozens more were injured.“
Now I’ve got a party to get ready for. Happy New Year Trumpists!
Just think, all the driver of the car that struck heyer would have to do is convert to islam to get the entire left on his side!
Better yet, if you want to strike lefty protesters, just hire an illegal alien who has been deported multiple times!
Not only will the left not complain, they will start calling the driver a "Dreamer" and offer to pay his college tuition!
Heyer, a 32-year-old paralegal who was protesting the white nationalist Unite the Right rally in downtown Charlottesville on Aug. 12, died after a car rammed a crowd of pedestrians gathered at the intersection of Fourth and Water streets. Dozens more were injured.
I had friends that showed up to cause violence too. We all went to various shit holes around the world to fight with enemies of freedom. We knew what was possible and accepted the risk.
Heyer showed up to fight for her cause too. As an enemy of freedom. She showed up to fight a bunch of people unlawfully and fully intending to do violence. She showed up to fight a small group of people organized by occupy wall street. She got her violence.
My friends were all better people than her and much more deserving of sympathy. But we know Inga sided with al quaeda and the taliban against us then as well. Heyer and the taliban and the mullahs of Iran are all on the same side. That is why Inga knows Heyer's name. Because Heyer is a symbol in the fight against freedom.
It's a good picture of FLOTUS, from 6 years ago when she was 41. Not a good picture of POTUS, when he was 65 and already looking older than his age.
Hey readering, thanks. They are at the Met Gala in 2011. I was trying to find her in that dress, but you figured it out. She looked great then and still does.
As for POTUS, ah, to be 65 again...to appropriate a phrase, MeToo!
Hillary Clinton (and Bill) also looked better in 2011. Life is funny: you look better and better, and then after a while, you don't.
readering: "Not a good picture of POTUS, when he was 65 and already looking older than his age."
LOL
Sure readering, sure.
Check the mirror, you're looking a bit green behind the gills...
We have a Neo Nazi Trump supporter, a young man who murdered his girlfriends parents because they wouldn’t allow her to go out with a Neo Nazi.
I checked articles of this double-homicide at ABC News, the Washington Post, Fox News, the Huffington Post, NY Daily News, MSN, Time, the Daily Mail, CNN, the Independent, for the word "trump" and guess what, the word "trump" cannot be found in any of the articles.
Either post a link substantiating your accusation that the perpetrator is a "Trump supporter" or admit that you are a liar.
Heh,
I block commenters who don't make a lick o' sense, but some folks believe that rational engagement with the mentally ill will wise them up or shut them up.
'Taint possible.
Ignore. The. Trolls.
Peace.
"They must have reasons. What are they? I am still curious to hear someone who has been negatively affected by something Trump has done, as opposed to what he might do in the future."
I'm curious about this as well. Anyone that voted for Trump, even on a goof, couldn't possibly have a problem with him now. He's exceeded all expectations.
neo-Nazi... the perpetrator is a "Trump supporter" or admit that you are a liar
Does it matter?
Trump is not a neo-National Socialist of the German or contemporary variety. He is not a diversitist (i.e. racist or sexist). He does not support political congruence ("=") or selective (unprincipled) exclusion. He is not Pro-Choice, and does not Plan lives deemed unworthy in the privacy of abortion chambers or in fields. He does not indulge in redistributive change (e.g. "the Jews have too much") . Nor do most Americans.
If the principles don't fit, then it's a color judgment, and you must acquit.
In any case, A National Socialist or its contemporaries would not find comfort at the American center (i.e. conservative), and would have no institutional support from the American right.
I voted the smug one because I just like to watch the world burn.
244 comments and nobody has corrected Althouse?
"Those who are aversive to Trump had to withdraw." Maybe just "averse?" Or possibly "averted" but "aversive" is either simply wrong-Trump is aversive to 'those', not the reverse-or at best, reminiscent of the use of "coronated" for the simple, correct "crowned."
Inga said...
Hate? Look at the comments directed at Obama, his spouse, and his kids.
You’re a hypocrite.
12/31/17, 2:16 PM
Shorter Inga: I desire a civil war in this country, which I will lose as soon as my foes take it seriously.
As for the "necessity" of your cut and paste abuse, Inga: it may has been necessary for you to smash that jewelry store window, otherwise you would not be wearing that pretty tennis bracelets, but it was still wrong. All kinds of wrong, including the subset known as illegal.
""Those who are aversive to Trump had to withdraw." Maybe just "averse?" Or possibly "averted" but "aversive" is either simply wrong-Trump is aversive to 'those', not the reverse-or at best, reminiscent of the use of "coronated" for the simple, correct "crowned.""
Did you look up "aversive" before writing that?
Merriam-Webster: "tending to avoid or causing avoidance of a noxious or punishing stimulus; behavior modification by aversive stimulation."
It's exactly the right word.
Trumpit:
Althouse can be enjoyed without reading all the insulting and ignorant comments by clearly right-wing partisan hacks, who practically are squatting in her comments section. Althouse provides these deplorable Trump storm troopers with an outlet to express their vileness and pseudo-intellectual nonsense. By doing so, she keeps these stupid and confused trolls preoccupied, so they are less likely to throw a real Molotov cocktail.
Great moments in unwittingly self-revealing projection.
Althouse never answered my question: Why does this story get a "Trump Deranngement Syndrome" tag?
Who was the deranged Trump- hater in this story? There was a simple, non-editorialized photo on the Drudge home page. No TDS.
Then you received an emailed question about your take on the Drudge use/placement of the photo. No TDS.
Then you fashioned your own blog post without any input from any "Trump haters." Still no TDS.
And we ultimately arrive at another one of your insightful polls. With a mixture of your own personalized anti-Trump as well as pro-Trump derangement. (You seem almost oblivious to the pro-Trump derangement components of your poll.)
The entire story, and your complete blog post and poll, were devoid of any evidence of any Trump-hating "derangement." It was all in your head, Althouse.
I'm not sure if this blog has ever so unwittingly and so clearly demonstrated "Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome."
"Althouse never answered my question: Why does this story get a "Trump Deranngement Syndrome" tag?"
I like the spelling, "Deranngement."
I already have a tag "anti-Althousiana," so I don't need a "deranngement" tag.
Anyway, I use the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" for any kind of reality distortion around the figure of Donald Trump. I'm not going to have tag proliferation with all kinds of types and directions of derangement. That would be deranged.
It's my blog and my tag. It works as a comment by me when I add the tag. There may be times when I don't think of it and if I had, I would have added it. And sometimes prompts to add tags cause me to add that tag. Rarely do I create a new tag where somebody says I need another tag. I work at controlling tag proliferation.
You know, you can write your own blog.
Althouse, that definition leaves me, at least, feeling dumber than before. It seems to want to be on all sides of the question. Perhaps you could supply the (unlinkable) OED's contribution?
Althouse is a darned good blog, even considering that it has attracted a few commenters with severe TDS, even a few with a terminal condition, that that renders them into Rags..., the worse of the bunch.
OldGrouchyCranky (name checks out); I think that the sort of reader that Althouse has attracted is seen in her poll results. What better measure could there be? (Although I'd be the first to admit that her polls seem to be part reflections of her own psyche, in the crafting of answer-choices, as well as the psyche of the readership. In any event, it is obvious that Althouse has attracted a peculiarly narrow demographic, based on the numbers.
Again, I love looking at Althouse poll results for all of these reasons.
Chuck, thanks for verifying that my name checks out; I'm highly pleased! :-)
BYTW: Been here before, mid to late Oughts, low teens, and now. Excellent blog, strong view on the law and what lawfulness means to us all, especially as that means to governing, both state and local. Althouse is at the top of the legalbeagles (Blog that is!).
Insty is outstanding yet who can keep up with his machine gun blast of topics and articles; man is truly a gem as is his blog. LI is outstanding except when it comes to one subject, upon which is falters and degenerated into batherness; still its relentless take down of Princess Liawatha was a tremendous public service; other topics, it too is outstanding. Powerline is also outstanding, yet it depends, there's that nasty word again, on using Facebook to verify its commenters (Who over the age of awareness needs social media, anyway?).
LG has devolved into a cage of horrors, yet it had its high point exposing the Rather Mapes forgery, along with PL; agreed, not a legal blog, yet its served a good public need at one time in its life; not so much now except for maybe Hillary's worshipers.
Chuck: Peace out. Be good, now.
Oops, almost forgot! Where's Bob Brown (Aka Hadley5) these days?
Maybe with the end, hopefully of the Obama era (Sorry about that, Inga, it's just that nasty old Constitution still hanging around!), maybe that Fed snooping has gone out of style. Wonder what those old Obama Blueshirts are doing these days, with their El Primo back in civie life?
Of course, there's that strange theory that after DJT is impeached (Really? How, when?), Hillary automatically becomes President, not sure how that works, yet that seems to be their great dream.
Post a Comment