Wull... it's one of those things that's funny but not really, right?

The Clinton Foundation has raised two BILLION dollars. It's sort of a rejection of the Audacity of Hope, right? Eventually Hope isn't going to be President and this money will be worth something to whomever gave it. And in the meantime, whatever you wanted, Hope wasn't getting it for you and so you went to Cash.

I'm not voting* - I would be as likely to vote for Hills, depending on how things shake out, but you can't get much more transparent than this is just a fuckin' shell game and caring about it is kind of a losing proposition. Cast a vote for Cash. The foreign policy goes to the highest bidder and whatever we lead the country to, we will call it success. At least we know how it will operate. Game on.





*Mom's answer to my "I'm not voting" was "I raised you wrong". What makes people say such things to their family? Politics. Have a nice day.

If Hillary becomes president (and it follows, as the vote was bestowed first upon the black man and then women) you will hear thousands upon thousands of white males screaming and wailing over what they will perceive as the loss of some sort of Power of the Penis. And I will laugh and laugh!

Everyone will know that it's really Bill who's calling the shots from his Cabinet position as Intern Czar.

Intern Czar. lol! :)

"She"

Happy Monkey!

Yeah, hi. I've been sporadically lurking recently. Very busy these days.

High, Happy Monkey

Nope, I don't even drink.

Somehow I knew that.

ha! And he's back with a zing :P

Hi HM:) How's tricks?*







* Northern to normal English translation: How are things?

Pretty good, pretty good. Not much to report. Working, sleeping, watching TV, uncleing when I can.

I am highly amused by the current candidates declaring that the Church should keep it's nose out of Government, now that the Pope has made a statement against climate change.

I hope it comes back to highlight their hypocrisy later on in the campaigns.

The OP is interesting. My own 2 cents:


1st cent:
Thinking intelligently requires intelligence...
But nobody owns the exclusive rights for stupid.
How much you are capable of thinking of something is not alone a good indicator for how much you'll be willing or inclined to think about it. Which is why you can have people who's plans and political strategies are very intelligent, and yet their beliefs and motivations behind their political agendas are under very little scrutiny.

2nd cent:
It is all too often that we define intelligence as an attribute for how much do people think like we do, not only because it compliments us, but because it's a stratagy to reaffirm our beliefs, generating our own social echo chambers in which what we say is confirmed by having the approval and agreement of those we view as intelligent... And we view them as such because we approve and agree with what they have to say).
When it comes to politics, ideology and social issues, where the questions and the various stances about them are often very long lasting, the chance that your political stance is a direct result of your intelligence or a demonstration for how intelligent you are is a very slim chance, simply because chances are, every side in the debate has had a very long time for a lot of people to invest a lot more thought and processing time then you have (Though often with an inverse correlation to how objective they are on the matter), including rationals for both your own stance and your opposition's. If someone is unintelligent because they disagree with you on such a matter, consider the likelihood that you might have generated a false feedback loop reaffirming your beliefs through a rather unintelligent understanding of intelligence (Please reference the 1st cent for a pat on the back).