I laugh at other people's typos, because I make so many, oh so many, of my own. Sometimes I'll go back and read one of my posts and say to myself "What a retard." Then I make a bunch of edits to correct them. This is particularly the case when I post something using the phone. It's how Bret Baier's name becomes Bret Bayer. Sheesh.
Take two ... and call me in the morning !
These are (some of) the stars and celebrities who have said they will move if Trump wins the election (and there they say they'll nove to). I say that we hold them to it.
Lena Dunham (Canada)
Samuel L. Jackson (South Africa)
Miley Cyrus ("out da country")
Cher (Jupiter)
Jon Stewart (some other planet)
George Lopez (South of the Border)
Al Sharpton (reserved plane ticket for another country)
Neve Campbell (Canada (was born there, tho))
Chelsea Handler (already bought a house in Spain just in case)
Amy Schumer (Spain)
Barbara Streisand (Australia, or Canada if Australia won't let her in)
Bryan Cranston (somewhere in Europe)
Spike Lee (Republic of Brooklyn)
Natasha Lyonne (a mental hospital)
Whoopie Goldberg (another country)
Eddie Griffin (Africa)
Rosie O'Donnell (Canada)
Jennifer Lawrence (no point, since the world will end, anyway)
Ruth Bader Ginsberg (New Zealand)
Interesting link and unsurprising. You might have noticed I didn't say one word about Obama in the quote you responded to.
Yes I did ... and your framing of the matter/question was accurate in that quote.
Election Day is upon us. Get out and vote. Who you vote for us up to you.
All I know for certain is, there are two towns that absolutely, positively do not want Trump to win: Washington, D.C. and Wall Street. That's reason enough to want him to win.
Hey, it's my opinion. If I think it's enough of a reason, then it's enough of a reason.Election Day is upon us. Get out and vote. Who you vote for us up to you.
All I know for certain is, there are two towns that absolutely, positively do not want Trump to win: Washington, D.C. and Wall Street. That's reason enough to want him to win.
It is A reason to want him to win, but it may not be enough of a reason to actually want him to win:
Is that an existential tree or a theoretical tree?
I agree Hillary has the knowledge and the muscle to do far more damage in the presidential office than Trump.Election Day is upon us. Get out and vote. Who you vote for us up to you.
All I know for certain is, there are two towns that absolutely, positively do not want Trump to win: Washington, D.C. and Wall Street. That's reason enough to want him to win.
It is A reason to want him to win, but it may not be enough of a reason to actually want him to win:
Clinton = fairly typical politician, same baggage ... just on a greater scale because of who she is and has been
Trump = existential threat to the human species
Neither is good, however one poses a far greater danger than the other
Sometimes you have to take a few steps back from the tree in front of your nose, in order to actually see the forest that you are standing in front of ...
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
No argument with that ... it's certainly enough of a reason for you ... others, well mebbe not so much ...
Logical fallacy isn't very becoming ... but could be said to be somewhat entertaining at least ...
It won't be dull, thats for sureCan't believe no one is going for the entertainment value. Trump will be fun to watch. Can you imagine watching four years of Hillary? It will be brutal. A whole lot of channel changing.
We will have to hope old Bill gets back to his old shenanigins.
Your characterization of Hillary was downplayed to the point of the absurd (or as it would be reported on CNN), as was your overblown characterization of Trump. Then, insinuated that I wasn't able to see your rational and objective forest for the irrational and subjective tree in front of my nose. All I did was illustrate absurdity with absurdity by making equally ridiculous characterizations.
