I couldn't disagree more. The fact that we're American means we SHOULD discuss this.
True, Kerry supporters shouldn't whine, but they should voice their opinion in a respectful mannor if they aren't happy. That is their right, and they should execute it if they feel it will make a difference.
True, Bush supporters shoun't gloat, but they should be proud that their candadate made it. It was a close race and in the end they boy pulled it out.
We are still Americans (readers), and though the system for electing our president worked as it was originally designed, it is outrageously flawed. And don't even get me started on the primaries.
The electoral college system is vastly out of date and needs to be updated so it more accuratly reflects the popular vote. I don't have so much of a problem with it this year as I did 4 yrs ago because the popular vote went to Bush this time around. So I don't feel robbed or as upset that he'll be president for the next 4 years.
Regardless, I just hope some of the bills in congress to change the system are taken seriously, instead of shooting them down like it always happens.
Is it me, or does the picture on the main page "whatever it takes" look extremley photoshopped? Like not just a "oh, that is nice" kind of photoshop, but a "my god, that looks totally fake kind of photoshopped...
That is no good beceause then states like North Dakota with a population of 10 is just as important as california or New York. That doesn't come close to fairly representing the entire population of the country.
What I think shoudl be done is keep the electoral college, but get rid of the all or nothing system. If 30% of Illinois votes for Bush, let Bush get 30% of those electoral votes.
This will allow every vote to count. Staying with IL... IL almost no matter what goes democrate on presidental elections. If you are republican...forget about it. That is why Bush and Kerry don't campaign here... it doesn't matter.
With the new system, it gives new insentives for the politions to visit all the states, so the population can actually hear and see them. It also lets the higher pop. states keep more votes, while still allowing the smaller states to have a say.
I agree. I've been saying this for years. They have great talent, and did the FPS thing... I'd like to see them try a RTS or RPG or try and break into something never-been-done before.
But no, they have to sell out and go with "what works". Blah.
The war in Iraq isn't perfect, but according to a lot of interviews with soldiers and stuff, it's not as bad as NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN wants you to believe.
Even though Iraq doesn't have nukes, Saddam was an insane asshole who would've tried as hard as possible to get them -- several reports show that he was using the oil-for-food program to bypass UN sanctions
You're right. It isn't perfect, and it isn't as bad as NBC says...but that is irrelevant because it shouldn't have happened the way it did. The president was so sure about Iraq from day one. He knew what he and the VP wanted to do, and listened only to the facts to get them to that conclusion.
There is no doubt that Saddam was an insane asshole. But there are a lot of dictators who are insane assholes. But why Iraq? "They posed a threat to the US!" Yes, but so do a dozen other countries who actually HAVE nukes or other WMDs. So I ask again, why Iraq? "Because saddam committed genocide!" Yes, but so do a dozen of other countries...some much worse than Iraq. So I ask again, why Iraq?
The war was against terrorists, not Iraq. The more that I hear about this the more I hate the situation Bush put us in.
I know the job market isn't that great. Hell, I'm only working part time. But I ALSO know that Bush inherited a HORRIBLE economic situation and managed to turn it into the smallest recession in US history.
HE turned it into the smallest recession? Really? He did? Greenspan had nothing to do with it? If you think his tax cut saved this country, you don't know much about economics. The majority of people who got those cuts didn't spend the money. They put it in the bank. The reason IMO and from what I've read is that the recession was so short was because our economy was so strong at the start of it (since we're assuming the president controls this) thanks to Clinton.
Now then, the recession is technically over...but the state of the union is still questionable. The stock market is way down, jobs on average pay less now than they did, less people have health-care, the price of oil is going to kill the operating income of most companies, people (in general) have less money. If this is what you classify as "isn't that great" (implying average), then I'd hate to see your definition of a bad market.
I know the world doesn't agree with us. People: THIS IS OKAY. The world looks out for the world. The US needs to look out for the US.
I agree with you here. It is okay that the world doesn't agree with us. But it is NOT OK to have the world HATE us. Have people cringe when they hear the name of the United States in other countries.
You think this helps us beat terrorism? You think this will make us safer? Alienate our allies? Piss off other nations? This is in the United States interest?
The US does need to look out for the US, but somewhere in there Bush crossed the line and his actions are no longer in sync with what the US needs.
After 9/11 almost every nation was behind the US. As long as we carried out just actions with strong reasons, we would have had support the whole way. But Bush didn't lead that way. He decided to go unilaterally. Ignore the world, act as the US alone. I've never seen the world so close to together as it was right after 9/11...and that has been squandered away.
No thank you. I won't vote to re-elect George W. Bush. He had his chance, and he blew it.
Or the "George Bush" wonder...oh wait, that divides your empire in two and turns the whole world against you, while 15% of your workforce is 'laid off'.
I agree. Before 2000, their OS was crap. I remember before I knew what linux/unix was and win95 came out. It blew me away. I coulnd't believe it...and then the problems started. Crashes, lockups etc... Then I went to college and was exposed to what is a stable OS: Linux. As soon as I could I threw that puppie on there and was very happy. Had to keep Windows around for Quake II, but that was the only time I booted into it. But yea, 2000, and XP are MUCH better, but it should not have taken them that many years to get to it.
I'm not sure if is because they were trying to build off of DOS or if they just didn't know what they were doing yet...
They did / are losing a lot fo money on the XBOX. But I think that was there plan. Speaking from an economics standpoint, it is very hard to break into a new industry and be successful right away. It is generally acceptable to lose money the first year...sometimes two depending on the market in order to gain some market share. I think looking back on it, MS lost more money than they wanted to, but they have the money to lose, so as long as they come close to breaking even next year I think the XBOX will be here to stay. If they don't, it'll be questionable.
IMO it truly isn't a bad system. I do own one and get a lot of flack for it (depending who I'm talking to) because it is a MS product. But IMO it is one of the better MS products. Never had a problem with it. It has good games, and the graphics look excellent. I just hope XBOX 2 is backward compatable so I can mod my current XBOX into a media center or something.:)
I'm not saying Open Source is bad. I like the idea of open source. I just don't think it has proven itself yet, which is why it is slow to gain acceptance and change the business model.
Apache is an excellent example, but we need more than one to really be proven.
Once a few more successful ventures with Open Source have been made, then I think we'll see the revolution take off.
But that wasn't the issue. The issue is to the current business models, which still apply. The other issue was if MS adapts or note, which I think they do. So if things like open source take off, we'll see MS move that way. They will probably (unfortunately) have their own twist to it, but you'll see it more readily.
Unfortunately I don't have enough time to properly respond to this, but I'll do my best...
The Administrator Point This is a problem. And I hope they do fix it. I wouldn't be surprised if Longhorn is set up this way, at least I would hope so.
Ease of use Apple is relatively easy to use, though IMO not nearly as easy as MS Windows. I've taught people to use both OS's and people always catch onto to Windows faster. Maybe it is because I'm a little biased, or maybe not, but I've never liked the feel for how things flow on the macs... It just seems counter-intuitive to me. So I can't say much here than this aspect is really a personal opinion.
Security Argue this as much as you want, but I'm a firm believe that one of the reasons why there are so many security issues is because MS is so widely used. They control so much of the market, why wouldn't the person who writes virus' or other 'naughty' programs write it for windows? It has been proven time and time again, that there are vulnerabilities in OSX and BSD and the other flavors of Linux. To me it just seems like they get patched a bit quicker.
You also have the issue of setting all the third party software. Sure Mac has them too, but not to the extent as the PC does. Windows is a cash cow, and MS needs to be sure that it is as easy as possible to write apps for it. This unfortunately causes security issues. But look for this to improve greatly with Longhorn. The problem won't be solved, but it'll be a lot better.
Quality I wouldn't say the quality is crap. MS makes some VERY excellent software. A lot of their stuff leaves things to be desired, but not all of it.
Take MS Money and Excel for example. These two apps, hands down, kick ass. XP is also very good as far as the Windows OS goes. Very, very stable. IE is like a rollercoaster. It used to be crap, then it became excellent, and now it is crap again. So this is a bit relative.
Other Stuff Let's see...MSN. MSN grew to near AOL size in no time. It was easier and better to use than AOL. At the time before broadband became cheap, I encouraged my parents to switch over. There was no bloated program needed to access email and the web. You just dialed in and went.
XBOX... I don't know how you can call this 'their biggest failure'. Of course it wasn't' going to do well in Japan...nothing will except the established companies. It'll take years to break into that market. But look elsewhere. It has done excellent in the US and Europe for a new first-generation consol. Good games, some exclusive deals, best graphics on the market for a consol. The question is will they be able to improve it with XBOX 2. If not, then it will fail, yes...but if it gets even a little better, then the XBOX will be here to stay.
Also, look at XBOX live. It is HUGE! That is why I bought the box over PS2. Games were comparable to me...the networking is what sold me.
That is a good point, and you might be right. I'm not extremely knowledgeable about the subject, I just know what I've read and what my experience lets me extrapolate... Windows is bloated and getting to the point where it is unmanageable. I think I read somewhere that this was one of the objectives of Longhorn...that is to say it was going to try to scale down where it could. Then again, I could be pulling things outta my butt.
The proprietary software model still works. IMO, it works well. You still see it everywhere and a lot of people seem to be making money off of it. So I'm not sure that it is all that bad that they are still holding onto it.
Open Source has its benefits, but I don't think it has proven itself in the main-streem market yet. IBM will definitely help it, if it turns out to be a success. I just think it is still too early to tell if this type of business model will become preferable.
If so, I can see MS and a bunch of other companies ditching their traditional models for it. After all, the idea or a corperation is to make money however you can...
But aren't they adapting? Here are some of their major complaints:
1) Criticized of security problems
-- Put a team of developers on making XP more secure. Release SP2 with focus on security. It isn't perfect, and there are still flaws, but they are listening to the critics and working on the public's number 1 concern. I believe we'll see Longhorn as a very secure. Does that mean it will be full-proof? No, that would be impossible, but I do think that it will be much, much better. After all, Linux has security problems. Mozilla has security problems. They just don't get as much attention and are fixed slightly quicker.
Look for this as the number 1 improvement in the coming months / years.
2) Product Quality
-- In the past MS has sacrificed security and to some extent quality for ease of use. I think they will still but ease of use as a top priority, but look to see the quality level increase. They have already delayed Longhorn and cut feature in order to really nail down the important ones.
It is very hypocritical to read here how people blast MS for their quality problems and then blast them again for delaying a future product in order to enhance the quality. I just don't get that.
3) This article talks about apps being sucked away
-- I fail to see this. It will happen to some extent. That is inevitable. MS can't do everything (nor do I or anyone else want them to). So they have to pick and choose.
So let's take a look at a few things they have done: - MSN - recognized the AOL threat and jumped in to compete - online music - recognized a growth opportunity so they are now competing with iTunes - XBox - jumping into the home gaming / entertainment center market
Again, note the hypocrisy. Blast MS for being a monopoly. Blast them for not adapting to the business market...effectively losing market share. So what do you want? A monopoly or a competitor?
To me MS screams adaptation. Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I'm just a little dense. Or maybe people just love to hate MS...no matter what.
Before I get modded down let me also say that I'm not advocating MS. There are many, many superior products on the market than theirs and I urge everyone to use the better products. After all, why not use the best? I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy.
What are you talking about? Netscape rocked when it first came out, but was then soon surpassed by IE. Netxcape 4.x was terrible. It crashed ALL the time, style sheets sucked with it. Writing web pages for it was horrendous. Often one would have to write two completely different pages, 1 for IE and 1 for Netscape...and from what I remember it was MUCH easier to write for IE.
Anyway, IE blows now as it is laden with security issues. So now Mozilla is top dog.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all.
The number of votes not counted as of yet are not enough to evercome the bush lead.
It isn't "hundreds of thousands". It is more like "thousands".
I couldn't disagree more. The fact that we're American means we SHOULD discuss this.
True, Kerry supporters shouldn't whine, but they should voice their opinion in a respectful mannor if they aren't happy. That is their right, and they should execute it if they feel it will make a difference.
True, Bush supporters shoun't gloat, but they should be proud that their candadate made it. It was a close race and in the end they boy pulled it out.
We are still Americans (readers), and though the system for electing our president worked as it was originally designed, it is outrageously flawed. And don't even get me started on the primaries.
The electoral college system is vastly out of date and needs to be updated so it more accuratly reflects the popular vote. I don't have so much of a problem with it this year as I did 4 yrs ago because the popular vote went to Bush this time around. So I don't feel robbed or as upset that he'll be president for the next 4 years.
Regardless, I just hope some of the bills in congress to change the system are taken seriously, instead of shooting them down like it always happens.
Long wait...
I waited for just over 2 hours to vote in Chicago. I woulda killed for a 30 min wait.
No no no, your sig should say...
"In Soviet Russia, you don't find The Grail, The Grail finds you!"
Is it me, or does the picture on the main page "whatever it takes" look extremley photoshopped? Like not just a "oh, that is nice" kind of photoshop, but a "my god, that looks totally fake kind of photoshopped...
Well, I just had sex with your wife!
Isn't that a perfect situation for IRV?
That is no good beceause then states like North Dakota with a population of 10 is just as important as california or New York. That doesn't come close to fairly representing the entire population of the country.
What I think shoudl be done is keep the electoral college, but get rid of the all or nothing system. If 30% of Illinois votes for Bush, let Bush get 30% of those electoral votes.
This will allow every vote to count. Staying with IL... IL almost no matter what goes democrate on presidental elections. If you are republican...forget about it. That is why Bush and Kerry don't campaign here... it doesn't matter.
With the new system, it gives new insentives for the politions to visit all the states, so the population can actually hear and see them. It also lets the higher pop. states keep more votes, while still allowing the smaller states to have a say.
I agree. I've been saying this for years. They have great talent, and did the FPS thing... I'd like to see them try a RTS or RPG or try and break into something never-been-done before.
But no, they have to sell out and go with "what works". Blah.
I'm no longer impressed.
The jerk story just called, they said they were runnin' out of you!
The war in Iraq isn't perfect, but according to a lot of interviews with soldiers and stuff, it's not as bad as NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN wants you to believe.
Even though Iraq doesn't have nukes, Saddam was an insane asshole who would've tried as hard as possible to get them -- several reports show that he was using the oil-for-food program to bypass UN sanctions
You're right. It isn't perfect, and it isn't as bad as NBC says...but that is irrelevant because it shouldn't have happened the way it did. The president was so sure about Iraq from day one. He knew what he and the VP wanted to do, and listened only to the facts to get them to that conclusion.
There is no doubt that Saddam was an insane asshole. But there are a lot of dictators who are insane assholes. But why Iraq? "They posed a threat to the US!" Yes, but so do a dozen other countries who actually HAVE nukes or other WMDs. So I ask again, why Iraq? "Because saddam committed genocide!" Yes, but so do a dozen of other countries...some much worse than Iraq. So I ask again, why Iraq?
The war was against terrorists, not Iraq. The more that I hear about this the more I hate the situation Bush put us in.
I know the job market isn't that great. Hell, I'm only working part time. But I ALSO know that Bush inherited a HORRIBLE economic situation and managed to turn it into the smallest recession in US history.
HE turned it into the smallest recession? Really? He did? Greenspan had nothing to do with it? If you think his tax cut saved this country, you don't know much about economics. The majority of people who got those cuts didn't spend the money. They put it in the bank. The reason IMO and from what I've read is that the recession was so short was because our economy was so strong at the start of it (since we're assuming the president controls this) thanks to Clinton.
Now then, the recession is technically over...but the state of the union is still questionable. The stock market is way down, jobs on average pay less now than they did, less people have health-care, the price of oil is going to kill the operating income of most companies, people (in general) have less money. If this is what you classify as "isn't that great" (implying average), then I'd hate to see your definition of a bad market.
I know the world doesn't agree with us. People: THIS IS OKAY. The world looks out for the world. The US needs to look out for the US.
I agree with you here. It is okay that the world doesn't agree with us. But it is NOT OK to have the world HATE us. Have people cringe when they hear the name of the United States in other countries.
You think this helps us beat terrorism? You think this will make us safer? Alienate our allies? Piss off other nations? This is in the United States interest?
The US does need to look out for the US, but somewhere in there Bush crossed the line and his actions are no longer in sync with what the US needs.
After 9/11 almost every nation was behind the US. As long as we carried out just actions with strong reasons, we would have had support the whole way. But Bush didn't lead that way. He decided to go unilaterally. Ignore the world, act as the US alone. I've never seen the world so close to together as it was right after 9/11...and that has been squandered away.
No thank you. I won't vote to re-elect George W. Bush. He had his chance, and he blew it.
Or the "George Bush" wonder...oh wait, that divides your empire in two and turns the whole world against you, while 15% of your workforce is 'laid off'.
I agree. Before 2000, their OS was crap. I remember before I knew what linux/unix was and win95 came out. It blew me away. I coulnd't believe it...and then the problems started. Crashes, lockups etc... Then I went to college and was exposed to what is a stable OS: Linux. As soon as I could I threw that puppie on there and was very happy. Had to keep Windows around for Quake II, but that was the only time I booted into it. But yea, 2000, and XP are MUCH better, but it should not have taken them that many years to get to it.
:)
I'm not sure if is because they were trying to build off of DOS or if they just didn't know what they were doing yet...
They did / are losing a lot fo money on the XBOX. But I think that was there plan. Speaking from an economics standpoint, it is very hard to break into a new industry and be successful right away. It is generally acceptable to lose money the first year...sometimes two depending on the market in order to gain some market share. I think looking back on it, MS lost more money than they wanted to, but they have the money to lose, so as long as they come close to breaking even next year I think the XBOX will be here to stay. If they don't, it'll be questionable.
IMO it truly isn't a bad system. I do own one and get a lot of flack for it (depending who I'm talking to) because it is a MS product. But IMO it is one of the better MS products. Never had a problem with it. It has good games, and the graphics look excellent. I just hope XBOX 2 is backward compatable so I can mod my current XBOX into a media center or something.
I'm not saying Open Source is bad. I like the idea of open source. I just don't think it has proven itself yet, which is why it is slow to gain acceptance and change the business model.
Apache is an excellent example, but we need more than one to really be proven.
Once a few more successful ventures with Open Source have been made, then I think we'll see the revolution take off.
But that wasn't the issue. The issue is to the current business models, which still apply. The other issue was if MS adapts or note, which I think they do. So if things like open source take off, we'll see MS move that way. They will probably (unfortunately) have their own twist to it, but you'll see it more readily.
Unfortunately I don't have enough time to properly respond to this, but I'll do my best...
The Administrator Point
This is a problem. And I hope they do fix it. I wouldn't be surprised if Longhorn is set up this way, at least I would hope so.
Ease of use
Apple is relatively easy to use, though IMO not nearly as easy as MS Windows. I've taught people to use both OS's and people always catch onto to Windows faster. Maybe it is because I'm a little biased, or maybe not, but I've never liked the feel for how things flow on the macs... It just seems counter-intuitive to me. So I can't say much here than this aspect is really a personal opinion.
Security
Argue this as much as you want, but I'm a firm believe that one of the reasons why there are so many security issues is because MS is so widely used. They control so much of the market, why wouldn't the person who writes virus' or other 'naughty' programs write it for windows? It has been proven time and time again, that there are vulnerabilities in OSX and BSD and the other flavors of Linux. To me it just seems like they get patched a bit quicker.
You also have the issue of setting all the third party software. Sure Mac has them too, but not to the extent as the PC does. Windows is a cash cow, and MS needs to be sure that it is as easy as possible to write apps for it. This unfortunately causes security issues. But look for this to improve greatly with Longhorn. The problem won't be solved, but it'll be a lot better.
Quality
I wouldn't say the quality is crap. MS makes some VERY excellent software. A lot of their stuff leaves things to be desired, but not all of it.
Take MS Money and Excel for example. These two apps, hands down, kick ass. XP is also very good as far as the Windows OS goes. Very, very stable. IE is like a rollercoaster. It used to be crap, then it became excellent, and now it is crap again. So this is a bit relative.
Other Stuff
Let's see...MSN. MSN grew to near AOL size in no time. It was easier and better to use than AOL. At the time before broadband became cheap, I encouraged my parents to switch over. There was no bloated program needed to access email and the web. You just dialed in and went.
XBOX... I don't know how you can call this 'their biggest failure'. Of course it wasn't' going to do well in Japan...nothing will except the established companies. It'll take years to break into that market. But look elsewhere. It has done excellent in the US and Europe for a new first-generation consol. Good games, some exclusive deals, best graphics on the market for a consol. The question is will they be able to improve it with XBOX 2. If not, then it will fail, yes...but if it gets even a little better, then the XBOX will be here to stay.
Also, look at XBOX live. It is HUGE! That is why I bought the box over PS2. Games were comparable to me...the networking is what sold me.
That is a good point, and you might be right. I'm not extremely knowledgeable about the subject, I just know what I've read and what my experience lets me extrapolate... Windows is bloated and getting to the point where it is unmanageable. I think I read somewhere that this was one of the objectives of Longhorn...that is to say it was going to try to scale down where it could. Then again, I could be pulling things outta my butt.
The proprietary software model still works. IMO, it works well. You still see it everywhere and a lot of people seem to be making money off of it. So I'm not sure that it is all that bad that they are still holding onto it.
Open Source has its benefits, but I don't think it has proven itself in the main-streem market yet. IBM will definitely help it, if it turns out to be a success. I just think it is still too early to tell if this type of business model will become preferable.
If so, I can see MS and a bunch of other companies ditching their traditional models for it. After all, the idea or a corperation is to make money however you can...
But aren't they adapting? Here are some of their major complaints:
1) Criticized of security problems
-- Put a team of developers on making XP more secure. Release SP2 with focus on security. It isn't perfect, and there are still flaws, but they are listening to the critics and working on the public's number 1 concern. I believe we'll see Longhorn as a very secure. Does that mean it will be full-proof? No, that would be impossible, but I do think that it will be much, much better. After all, Linux has security problems. Mozilla has security problems. They just don't get as much attention and are fixed slightly quicker.
Look for this as the number 1 improvement in the coming months / years.
2) Product Quality
-- In the past MS has sacrificed security and to some extent quality for ease of use. I think they will still but ease of use as a top priority, but look to see the quality level increase. They have already delayed Longhorn and cut feature in order to really nail down the important ones.
It is very hypocritical to read here how people blast MS for their quality problems and then blast them again for delaying a future product in order to enhance the quality. I just don't get that.
3) This article talks about apps being sucked away
-- I fail to see this. It will happen to some extent. That is inevitable. MS can't do everything (nor do I or anyone else want them to). So they have to pick and choose.
So let's take a look at a few things they have done:
- MSN - recognized the AOL threat and jumped in to compete
- online music - recognized a growth opportunity so they are now competing with iTunes
- XBox - jumping into the home gaming / entertainment center market
Again, note the hypocrisy. Blast MS for being a monopoly. Blast them for not adapting to the business market...effectively losing market share. So what do you want? A monopoly or a competitor?
To me MS screams adaptation. Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I'm just a little dense. Or maybe people just love to hate MS...no matter what.
Before I get modded down let me also say that I'm not advocating MS. There are many, many superior products on the market than theirs and I urge everyone to use the better products. After all, why not use the best? I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy.
You're right.
"You stole our game! We'll ban you from playing it!"
Assholes...
Thoughta what? The Pentium M kicks the shit outta P4. Once it is brought to maturity it'll kick the shit outta anything AMD has either.
:)
The only reason AMD is a competitor right now is the fact that P4 have a few problems that limited it when all things were said and done.
As for as the pipeline, Intel has the best branch predictor out there. Yes the pipeline is a bit bloated, but again, that'll be fixed in the M.
You just wait and see.
What are you talking about? Netscape rocked when it first came out, but was then soon surpassed by IE. Netxcape 4.x was terrible. It crashed ALL the time, style sheets sucked with it. Writing web pages for it was horrendous. Often one would have to write two completely different pages, 1 for IE and 1 for Netscape...and from what I remember it was MUCH easier to write for IE.
Anyway, IE blows now as it is laden with security issues. So now Mozilla is top dog.
What will overtake Mozilla in the future?
Bzzt. Wrong.
The preseident of the US is often refered to as "Leader of the free world." As well as "Most powerful man in the world".
The USA is often looked at as the "alpha" dog of the world...whether or not it should be is another story.
That may have been true when it first came out, but it hasn't been the case for a long time now.
Yea! Mech Assault and UT!
Or did you mean KOTOR and Ninja Gaiden?
Or did you mean NFL Streets and Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance?
Or did you mean the Splinter Cell games?
Or did you mean Prince of Persia and -- wait wait --
You meant Halo and Halo2. Gotcha.
But that's impossible! ... Oh I get it. :)
I know. It's nuts...
Get a BJ...get impeached.
Fuck up the country and take part of the world with you...4 more years?
I'll never understand.