Just a few minutes into that 90-minute horror show by an American president, I could feel my heart pounding, I was trying to calm my thoughts down and my hand was on my chest. That is how something as routine and traditional as a Presidential Debate affected me for the first time, ever, last night. I managed (with great effort) not to turn off that annoying, interrupting man and watched the entire debate. I watched one man act calm, intelligent – the way someone acts when they want a particular job. I watched another man so out of control his face stayed sweat-drenched and who performed like an out of control toddler in serious need of a firm little smack on his bottom.
President or not, Trump should have been hauled off the stage after ten minutes by one of those long Vaudeville Hooks from cartoons we all watched in our youth. I wondered many times in those 90 minutes why his mic WAS NOT simply silenced once Chris Wallace had told the president to stop talking again, again and AGAIN.
Was that performance supposed to make anyone who loves America feel – in any way – good? I don’t think so. If he was courting votes, well perhaps he got a few from some deaf person who couldn’t here Trump’s long-winded screaming or read lips.
Notice here, that I am not using my regular handles for Trump – “little ‘djt'”, “hoople-head”, “empty suit”, etc. No. None of my usual silliness or humor. The reason being that this president, illegitimately elected, is no longer even worthy of being called any of those. No, he’s now just a run-of-the-mill embarrassment to America. Trump, being president, should have afforded me a reason to at least give a gussied up “run-of-the-mill”, but I have not an ounce of humor to waste on this man now. He’s too dangerous to the United States of America. Our beloved country.
He’s just a sad, pitiful man who thought he could successfully bring his bombastic, nasty ‘show’ to Washington, DC and get rave revues and lots of awards that in his eyes would be the equivalent of Emmy’s. The only thing he’s really acquired is a following of way less than 1/2 of Americans.
There was not one single candidate during the 2016 Republican primary that would have brought this utter shame on our country the way Donald J. Trump went for AND RECEIVED last night. I doubt that Trump got any new vote-yielding supporters to hop on his Halloween decorated train.
Donald Trump was rude, loud, obnoxious, insulting and forgot what a debate was.
He wasn’t smart, wasn’t calm, wasn’t helpful and, needless to say, certainly wasn’t ‘presidential’ last night.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
It is pretty obvious that Trump’s strategy, such as it was, depended upon keeping the spotlight on him at all costs.
And from what I can gather, those costs were high for him.
Incoherent ramblings are not the signs that Americans can find confidence in. That he could pick out an elephant and draw a clockface in a dementia test are not necessarily the only qualities we want in leadership.
In my opinion Trump has “lost it”…mentally, emotionally, the Presidency and the Senate. His base may have loved his truculence, though most of us thought of his actions and words as a tantrum.
We’ll see. As president, Trump has a lot of power to conjure up October surprises. His Senators are trying hard to rehash Russian disinformation with little or no success. Durham has nothing now, or after the election. But there are still ways to screw the nation for personal, political gain.
He has rallied his supremacist gangs to the point of changing their logos and intimidating voters at polling places.
And his battery of attorneys are suing everything and everyone in all states to foul up our elections with endless litigation to stall a count.
And we know he is threatening violence should the votes go against him.
Difficult times for Americans, no doubt.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yep. For someone who thinks he’s ALWAYS the smartest person in the room, he is acting more and more every day like someone who has “lost it” to a very scary degree. This man should not have “THE CODES” within a mile of his fingers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very well said!
Besides his unbridled boorishness – which was simply embarrassing for our country – there was signaled his very clear intent to somehow take this election out of the hands of the electorate. That threatens the end of the country as the Founders imagined it – a place blessed by the rule of law.
If the Republicans have an ounce of patriotism left, they would ask Nancy Pelosi to send them a new Bill of Impeachment, hold the trial tomorrow and remove him from office. They could take their chances with the voters with President Pence. They would not do any worse than the train wreck they are barreling towards now.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree.
I’m offended that he thinks he needs to send his people to make sure we vote correctly. He seems to think the voting process is rocket science and only ‘his’ people know how or can be trusted to use a machine or black-out squares on a piece of paper. Not to mention that every precinct is not huge enough for such BS.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Donald’s most truthful moment…
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Just a few minutes into that 90-minute horror show by an American president, I could feel my heart pounding.”
Just a few minutes in I fell asleep.
My wife and I have been anticipating the debate eagerly, but when it finally happened I immediately found it too boring to keep my eyes open.
From the reviews I’m reading today I take it Joe Biden proved his strengths: experience and reliable political instincts. Good for him. And Trump was Trump. Good for him, too. I have the impression there was no clear winner, if that is even the question.
To each his own, I guess. I’ll get around to watching the replay at some point, but I doubt it will change my vote. I am categorically opposed to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. And, for that matter, Chris Wallace.
LikeLike
I doubt if many votes were changed.
Like last time, it comes down to voting against the greater evil.
The country can survive Trump’s thin skin and hyperbole, but I don’t think it could survive Democrats gaining control of the courts.
So, Trump could do nothing but tell fart jokes at the next debate, I still won’t vote for Democrats.
LikeLike
“I doubt if many votes were changed.”
On that we can agree. And that represents a victory for the front runner – Joe Biden. Trump HAD to change some votes, Biden didn’t.
As for the nation surviving Trump’s “thin skin and hyperbole,” you left out far more important threats such as gross incompetence, destruction of civic norms, nepotism, corruption, inciting of division and violence, denigrating the value of science and objective evidence, harnessing the DOJ to harass opponents, disparaging the free press and, last but not least, selling out our national security to the highest bidder.
Are you really so fearful of a little bit of possible Constitutional gun control that you want to see this ass-hat stay in the oval office a minute longer? Is maybe possibly being required to register your guns (as you do your car) more of an imposition on you than the state taking control of every young woman’s uterus and forcing them to endure unwanted pregnancy? Those two issues are a package deal.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The two issues are of course, unrelated.
The privacy right alluded to in Roe had to be conjured from the non-specific 9th Amendment. (I don’t disagree that it exists, though there are limits to it.)
The right to keep and bear arms is specifically spelled out in clear language, A court that denies it is rewriting the Constitution by edict, and cannot be tolerated.
LikeLike
The two issues ARE tied together. When you choose to ignore the criminality of Trump for the sake of protecting your guns, you are, in practical effect, throwing the rights of women to be equal and autonomous citizens under the bus.
Our next Justice, Ms. Barret has written very clearly what a strong “originalist” she is and does not accept modern people trying to extend the meaning of the specific words in the document beyond what they meant to the authors at the time. You say the Second amendment is written in clear language? “Arms” in 1789 did not refer to weapons 100x as lethal as anything that existed then. You want to apply a modern meaning of “arms” to their words. That is a no no.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arms in 1789 meant the equivalent of what the government had, which is what the right was intended to deter.
But you still provide no linkage between abortion and the RTKBA.
The problem with Roe v Wade, and it’s vulnerability, is not the substance of the decision but whether the court should have ruled against the legislatures at all.
With a few tweaks, the substance of Roe v Wade would be acceptable to me IF it had been passed by the legislature.
LikeLike
My point was that the two issues are a package in that you get both with any Trump appointee. I am not going to debate a different subject with you. It would be pointless. I believe the role of the Constitution and of SCOTUS is to protect individual rights against the will of the majority. That is what Roe v Wade did. The legislatures of many states might indeed have come to a similar position but that is not a reason why generations of women in say Louisiana should be oppressed as second class citizens waiting for that to happen.
As for “arms” you are applying a definition that you made up. “Arms” in 1789 referred to weapons that existed at the time. Period. No Founding Father gave a thought to your sort of argle bargle about what the government had or didn’t have. By your logic, you have an individual right to a nuclear weapon because, gee, the government has them and they are “arms.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I believe the role of the Constitution and of SCOTUS is to protect individual rights against the will of the majority.”
In that case Roe v. Wade is about the legitimate police powers of the state. Do they extend to the protection of human beings who are alive, but not yet born?
LikeLike
Roe v Wade addresses the question. A human being becomes a “person” under our law when it reaches a stage of gestation where it actually is an independent living being capable of survival outside of the womb. There is no point in rehashing anyone’s religious beliefs on whether that is moral or not. Everyone is free to follow their own religious beliefs, but they are not free to use the power of the state to force others to do the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has nothing to do with religion for me, it is about self awareness. But that’s just where I draw the line, The legal threshold of when life begins is philosophical. perhaps guided by science, but still a threshold that should be determined by the people, speaking through their legislatures, which are responsible to the people.
It is not a line that should be drawn by lifetime appointed judges.
LikeLike
Roe v. Wade
Let the legislatures decide?
That is a fancy way of saying that the majority should have a right to force a minority or an individual to conform to its religious doctrines. I will continue to disagree.
Maybe this is a reason we need a fundamental new amendment to the Constitution – an Equal Rights Amendment – so that legislatures that would never dream of forcing men to undergo risk and pain to meet the medical needs of another person will give up the idea that it is okay to force women to do exactly that.
LikeLike
It has nothing to do with religion.
Such matters of definition as determining when life begins are best determined by the people. Once the people decide what is a person and what is not, then the courts can weigh any conflict between those persons.
But the court should not define who is a person.
LikeLike
You are still saying the same thing only in different ways. What if “the people” decide that a person of, let’s say, Jewish ancestry, is not a person under the law. Is that okay? Is there no fundamental law that says “That can’t be right.” We are blessed with such a fundament law. It is the Constitution and it says there are limits to what “the people” can decide when other people are affected.
We are going in circles. I believe that a woman’s right to dominion over her own body is a fundamental right that cannot be abridged by popular vote. The Justices who rendered Roe v. Wade agreed and found support in the Constitution. You disagree and think that there is no such right and that women can be forced to give up their autonomy if the “people” say so. There is no bridging that gap.
LikeLike
A woman’s dominion over her own body is not at issue, the question is solely whether there is another human life their worthy of the protection of the Rule of Law. All else is distraction.
That is a question for the people themselves to decide.
You are close to Godwin’s law there with the question of ethnic Jews humanity. There is a very large difference between declaring a person to not be a person and declaring that at some point before birth, a fetus is a person.
LikeLike
“A woman’s dominion over her own body is not at issue”
Uh, that is the entire issue.
You cannot be forced by the state to sacrifice your body for another person.
Why should a woman have less rights than you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If a stowaway is found on a ship, you can’t just throw him overboard, you must tale to the next safe port to eject him.
The unborn child isn’t even a conscious stowaway. It is there through no fault of its own. So, yes, there is an obligation on a woman’s part to finish the pregnancy once there is a person there, unless there is a sufficient threat to her that would justify killing a born child.
LikeLike
The “child” is now a stowaway?
Nice try, but we have now gone full circle. What is a child.
Let me put this in terms you will understand.
The Constitution is written in words. But words evolve over time. So what to do? Let the courts sort it out or put it to a vote.
The Constitution uses the word “person” or “persons” 49 times. It is these “persons” who have rights and responsibilities. Furthermore there are at least two references to those persons being “born.” The word “person” in 1789 did not refer to fetuses. Now, you say, only the people can interpret that word for modern times, not the courts.
The Constitution famously used the word “arms”. The word “arms” in 1789 did not refer to handheld machine guns. Now, you say, only the courts can interpret that word for modern times, not the people.
See the problem? Probably not.
To my mind, this discussion of stowaways is a diversion. The issue is not the “rights” of a fetus. The issue is the rights of the woman who finds herself pregnant. Her right to control her own body trumps any right of ANY other “person.” You cannot be forced to give blood to save another person and punished if you choose not to. You have dominion over your body. Why should a woman have less rights than you? The answer is pretty obvious. She shouldn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Women do not “find” themselves pregnant.
Unless they are victims of rape, they were a party to putting that person in there.
In effect, they invited the fetus to be there and be dependent on them. Having done so, the baby is more than a stowaway, it is an invited guest on board.
It may well be that the woman would like to rescind the invitation, but she cannot do so until the stowaway is safely put ashore.
LikeLike
“Women do not “find” themselves pregnant.”
Uh, that is pure nonsense.
Many a pregnancy is unexpected, unintended and/or accidental.
So, now you are wandering off into a logical, legal and moral quagmire. It is not okay to “murder” a “person” if the woman was a willing participant in sex. But if she was raped it IS okay to “murder” that “person?” The “person” did not do anything either way.
Then there is the fact that the “murder” of and the conspiracy to murder a “person” is a serious – even capital – offense. Should the woman, the doctor, the husband who drove her to the clinic, the nurse who helped with the “murder” be punished severely? If not, why not if a “person” has been murdered?
Doctors helping performing in vitro routinely dispose of fertilized eggs. Are they to be considered mass murderers?
These are the kinds of question that arise when calling a thing a “person” is forced into the law.
LikeLike
I did not say that it was OK to abort the children of rape.
We do not execute children for the crimes of their fathers.
Birth control is cheap and available OTC. So, yes a woman has an obligation to the child she carries if she becomes pregnant.
LikeLike
“I did not say that it was OK to abort the children of rape.”
No, you did not. I guess I assumed you did not want to dig that hole you are in any deeper. But, okay.
It is your view is that a raped woman MUST carry to term the offspring of her rapist.
I think we are done.
LikeLike
Is it too much to ask for a bit of logical consistency?
If the fetus has reached the threshold of being a legal person, can it be executed for its father’s crime or not?
Certainly the woman is being victimized, but by her rapist, not the innocent child.
It’s an awful situation, but if she continues the pregnancy to the point where a person is present, yes, she must carry to term.
The question is at what point a person is present, and that is not a question of science or religion but a definition, and thus, the provenance of the legislature.
My personal view derives from Decartes. “I think therefore I am” once self awareness at any level can be demonstrated, there is a person, which happens at about 5 months.
But my personal view does not make law, the consensus of the legislature does.
LikeLike
Logical consistency is good. I agree. And therein lies the problem.
If a fertilized egg is a “person” then lots of things follow that are not acceptable to most people.
A woman who terminates a pregnancy with a morning after pill should be punished as a murderer.
A doctor who performs an abortion at 12 weeks is a hitman and should be punished.
A doctor performing in vitro fertilization is a mass murderer and should be punished.
A spouse or friend who drives the woman to the clinic has aided and abetted and should be punished.
There is no logical way out of these conclusions and yet those trying to control women generally do not subscribe. They are throwing out “logical consistency.” They are therefore tacitly conceding that a fertilized egg or fetus is NOT a “person” in the same way that baby in a cradle is a “person.”
Your views on who is a “person” are fine with me. They are about the same as the settled law of Roe V. Wade. We are not discussing that. We are discussing who decides. You say it should be left to a vote. I say that a basic right just as fundamental as Freedom of Religion is at stake. You are therefore denying that a woman has an inalienable right to make her own very personal decisions – a second class citizen. Like I said, we are done. There is no bridging that difference.
You seemed to have dodged a question. If we should define the 19th century word “person” for modern times by popular vote, why not the 19th century word “arms?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
We know the intent of the writers of the 2nd Amendment was for the citizens to be as powerful as the government.
I am not denying a woman has the right to do as she chooses with her own body. It is what she does with the body of an innocent person that is of concern.
Consider. A woman certainly has the right to evict a tenant from her property, but is she authorized to use lethal force to do so absent a threat to her own life?
So, understand my position.
Prior to a person being present, it is no one else’s business. Once a person is there, that person deserves the protection of the Rule of Law, though a woman retains the right to defend her own life, but the standards for self defense are the same as for any other person. There must be an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.
The central question is when a person is there, and that is a question of law, not interpretation, and thus the provenance of the people, through their legislatures.
LikeLike
There is nothing you have said that supports the idea that the definition of a “person” should be determined by popular vote other than your opinion. Here in reality we have much evidence that when left to legislatures the rights of women will be abrogated based on the religious convictions of fanatics. Worse, our political systems are so broken that those fanatics are almost always NOT a majority. It is very clear that you think women are somehow not the equal of men under the law. That might have been mainstream in the 19th century. It is now anachronist extremism.
As for your obvious double standard about whom should interpret words from the Constitution – people vs courts – it is abased on this statement . . .
“We know the intent of the writers of the 2nd Amendment was for the citizens to be as powerful as the government.”
We do NOT know that at all. Just like you don’t get your own “alternative facts”, you don’t get your own “alternative history.”
The Constitution of 1789 came about because the citizens were too powerful compared to the government that was created by the Articles of Confederation. Armed rebellions such as Shay’s Rebellion made that painfully clear and the Constitutional Convention was called to strengthen the national government.
The role of the “well-regulated militia” was NOT to intimidate the government but to support it. That purpose of arming citizens is made explicit in the words of the Second Amendment that you simply want to ignore. That intent was made doubly clear in the historical record when President Washington called on the militias to suppress yet another armed uprising – The Whiskey Rebellion. Which they promptly did.
Furthermore, the Constitution does not cover many specific crimes, but the Founding Fathers did speak forcefully on one – Treason, making war on the United States, the country created by the Constitution. Treason is punishable by death. That alone puts the lie to the idea you keep pushing and the threats you keep making.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” I am categorically opposed to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. And, for that matter, Chris Wallace.”
OK. I’ll alert the media.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I have the impression there was no clear winner, if that is even the question.”
I watched the entire debate. There may not have been a clear winner, but there was a very clear loser. That loser was Donald Trump. Since he is on a steep slope to a resounding defeat he absolute had to do something to win new supporters. He did not.
Biden (“Sleepy Joe”) had a very low bar to jump thanks to Trump constantly denigrating his intelligence and mental acuity. Not very strategical, I might add. Generally you should try to raise expectations for your opponent, not lower them. As the run away front runner, all Biden had to do was stay awake and avoid any gaffes. In that he succeeded. No need to say he won. He didn’t lose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “That loser was Donald Trump. Since he is on a steep slope to a resounding defeat…”
So you say, but we’ve heard that before and it turned out to be wrong. The prediction can’t be taken seriously.
I think Trump is one of the better presidents of my lifetime. The election obviously will test whether others agree.
LikeLike
Yes, so I say. And so do a wide variety of polling organizations. Trump obviously thinks so too which explains his unwillingness to abide by the choice of the voters.
By the way, national polls about the 2016 election were very accurate. At this stage Clinton had a 3% edge and went on to win by 2%. Obviously, the polling in 2016 missed the Electoral College but as I pointed out in another piece, Trump is about 5 points off his razer thin margins in ALL of the so-called battleground states from 2016. Plus, there are new battleground states that he won comfortably last time.
I am sure there are others who agree with your love of Trump, but after his years in office, his boorish behavior and his never ending parade of scandals there will be fewer than there used to be. IMHO. And that is not to mention his fumbling of the coronavirus pandemic and his apparent willingness to kill off his strongest supporters – old people. A lot of them are not pleased with that attitude.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Blah, blah, blah. You still don’t know the future.
LikeLike
True enough. The polling was spot on, but the predictions were not because the idea of Trump prevailing after his various scandals and insults was, to say the least, an unexpected event. That was part of the disastrous decision by the Clinton campaign to ignore and take for granted some key Democratic strongholds, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to be precise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Blah. Blah. Blah.”
Your response reminds me of the spoiled child who reacts to something he does not want to hear by putting his fingers in his ears and saying “Blah. Blah. Blah.” until it is gone.
No, I do not know the future but if you pay attention to the past and look at the evidence around you anyone can make a pretty good guess. In this case my “guess” is that Trump is going to lose and lose bigly. The debate was his best chance to turn things around. By simply acting Presidential. He could not do it. His kind of freak show is good entertainment for some people who pay their money to see a WWE exhibition. It was out of place in this venue.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “In this case my ‘guess’” is that Trump is going to lose and lose bigly.”
We’ll keep this on file. As I recall, you also predicted Hillary would win last time out, first on election day, then after the recounts, and then because faithless electors would do the right thing.
LikeLike
Your memory is wrong. I did predict Clinton would win on election day. I was wrong for reasons that we all know. The further predictions you list, may have been someone else. Or maybe you are confusing some expression of hope for a prediction.
With SC and maybe Georgia now a toss-up states, I will say again – Trump is losing bigly. And he has no idea what to do about it. Hunter Biden? Really? Pathetic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Your memory is wrong.”
I don’t think so, but so what? Today you are blowing smoke.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. Roberts, Murphy blowing smoke. Surely you jest.
LikeLike
Blowing smoke?
We are here to discuss public and political affairs. N’est-ce pas? I know that you find it disturbing when I share my opinions because – OMG – they are VERY different than yours. In this case, I state my very strongly supportable opinion that Trump is heading for defeat and in this debate did not help himself. You have any evidence to argue the contrary? Apparently not, since your only comment is that I am “blowing smoke.”
Hey, that’s fine. My name and photo appears above every post. Take that as your cue to move on to something else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t say that Trump is among the best.
But compared to the alternatives in 2016 and even more so, today, the alternatives were so much worse he looks a lot better than he is.
I think of him much as the artillery barrage softening up the battle field for the troops, or if you are of a religious bent, John the Baptist to Rand Paul.
LikeLike
I have made this observation before – you have a rich fantasy life! I guess since Trump does not actually have any principles or stand for anything, you can project on to him your fondest ones. Fantasies that is.
But seriously, if it is the likes of Bernie Sanders or AOC that you fear Trump had done more to soften up the battlefield for them than for Rand Paul. The country is hungry for change. Especially the young. And Trump has made it clear that he is not it. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The young are always hungry for change, and ignorant enough of history to think there is a free lunch.
LikeLike
The young
Yes, obsolescent old men have been saying such things about the young for at least two millennia that we know of.
But whether they are right or wrong, the behavior of the old folks under Trump is bringing their day forward, not Trump Part Deux with the likes of Rand Paul. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I can’t say that Trump is among the best.”
And you hatred … yes I said hatred… of democrats is well known. What is disturbing is you think he is still good for the country in any way shape or form.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You watched the entire debate?
God bless ya, son. There is a soft spot beyond the Pearly Gates for you.
I gave up after about 15 minutes or so. We had a nice dinner a bit earlier, and I wanted to keep it down.
I think the little I saw plus the innumerable rehashes by media across the spectrum tell me I did the right thing.
When I think about the Buckley/Baldwin debate at Cambridge in 1965 on a very controversial subject, race, and the civility versus last night, it saddens me.
Trump’s plan apparently was to not debate, but just bluster and fume and interrupt and whine and complain. Like a recalcitrant, spoiled 5 year old at an adult conference.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I watched from beginning to end. As you say, there was no need really. Trump’s behavior was the same throughout. He clearly came to prevent a debate from happening. And repeat some of his favorite lies ad nauseum.
Many have criticized Chris Wallace for losing control. I don’t. There was nothing anyone could have done other than bringing out a Hannibal Lecter style gag to keep Trump from his constant blathering.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“And, for that matter, Chris Wallace.”
What did Chris Wallace do to deserve that? Oh, yeah. He has definitely tried a few times to inject a little bit of journalistic integrity into Fox News. Bad boy! Bad!
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “What did Chris Wallace do to deserve that?”
I used to make a point to watch his show on Sunday mornings, but Wallace started sounding like David Brooks to me, so I categorically lost interest.
LikeLike
Well, at the risk of encouraging your displeasure, I suggest that you open your mind a little bit. I understand that you do not want to hear what Rachel Maddow has to report or the informed opinions of a Nicole Wallace or a Chris Hayes, but Chris Wallace? Wow.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I prefer to use my mind, not have it filled..
LikeLike
…”not have it filled..”
I could say something very uncivil that would be reason for my dismissal from this forum. But I will refrain and just refer to the opportunity as low hanging fruit.
LikeLike
“I prefer to use my mind, not have it filled.”
Cute construction, but meaningless. We all fill our minds every day. The trick is to avoid filling it with garbage. Many people simply do not want to have what they want to believe challenged. We all suffer from that tendency. But some more than others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “We all fill our minds every day. The trick is to avoid filling it with garbage.”
Yes. That’s why I avoid the media sources you recommend. I do check them out, but consistently find them stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The History of the American Presidency emojified.
👨💼👨💼👨💼…(37more)…👨💼👨💼👨💼👨🏽💼🤡
LikeLiked by 4 people