Who do you want as your next US president?

kayleesgrandma · Mar 8, 2008

Here's a list of the contributor's to Obama, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong...I'm just saying he is a young, ambitious politician--do you REALLY think there is no corruption of principles involved?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638
">http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...trib.asp?id=N00009638
</a><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
">http://opensecrets.org/politic...le=2008&cid=N00009638
</a>
Not only that--both Obama and Clinton have been giving money to superdelegates!http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html
Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.
"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.
About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.
Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
As someone commented:
Obama gave 228K to 34 people that have announced for him. That's an average of over $6700 per person. And Hillary gave 95K to 13 of those who announced for her. That's over $7300 per person. Wow. I'd have to have at least ten grand to vote for either of those clowns.

I don't know what you call it, but in my book, I call it BRIBES. I hate to disillusion you young people--but ALL POLITICS is the same old same old--has been since the begining. Just as Samuel Tilden said in 1876 - "the Presidency will go to the highest bidder...might as well just throw hold a raffle and pick the candiates name from a hat to pick the winner."

After McCain was caught up in his own scandal of the "Keating Five". This is why he backed the McCain-Feingold bill. He has been careful of lobbyists since then.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/campaignfinance/index.asp
">http://www.opensecrets.org/new...aignfinance/index.asp
</a>

kayleesgrandma · Mar 8, 2008

Here's a list of the contributor's to Obama, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong...I'm just saying he is a young, ambitious politician--do you REALLY think there is no corruption of principles involved?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638
">http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...trib.asp?id=N00009638
</a><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
">http://opensecrets.org/politic...le=2008&cid=N00009638
</a>
Not only that--both Obama and Clinton have been giving money to superdelegates!http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html
Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.
"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.
About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.
Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
As someone commented:
Obama gave 228K to 34 people that have announced for him. That's an average of over $6700 per person. And Hillary gave 95K to 13 of those who announced for her. That's over $7300 per person. Wow. I'd have to have at least ten grand to vote for either of those clowns.

I don't know what you call it, but in my book, I call it BRIBES. I hate to disillusion you young people--but ALL POLITICS is the same old same old--has been since the begining. Just as Samuel Tilden said in 1876 - "the Presidency will go to the highest bidder...might as well just throw hold a raffle and pick the candiates name from a hat to pick the winner."

After McCain was caught up in his own scandal of the "Keating Five". This is why he backed the McCain-Feingold bill. He has been careful of lobbyists since then.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/campaignfinance/index.asp
">http://www.opensecrets.org/new...aignfinance/index.asp
</a>

kayleesgrandma · Mar 8, 2008

Here's a list of the contributor's to Obama, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong...I'm just saying he is a young, ambitious politician--do you REALLY think there is no corruption of principles involved?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638
">http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...trib.asp?id=N00009638
</a><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
">http://opensecrets.org/politic...le=2008&cid=N00009638
</a>
Not only that--both Obama and Clinton have been giving money to superdelegates!http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html
Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.
"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.
About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.
Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
As someone commented:
Obama gave 228K to 34 people that have announced for him. That's an average of over $6700 per person. And Hillary gave 95K to 13 of those who announced for her. That's over $7300 per person. Wow. I'd have to have at least ten grand to vote for either of those clowns.

I don't know what you call it, but in my book, I call it BRIBES. I hate to disillusion you young people--but ALL POLITICS is the same old same old--has been since the begining. Just as Samuel Tilden said in 1876 - "the Presidency will go to the highest bidder...might as well just throw hold a raffle and pick the candiates name from a hat to pick the winner."

After McCain was caught up in his own scandal of the "Keating Five". This is why he backed the McCain-Feingold bill. He has been careful of lobbyists since then.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/campaignfinance/index.asp
">http://www.opensecrets.org/new...aignfinance/index.asp
</a>

kayleesgrandma · Mar 8, 2008

Here's a list of the contributor's to Obama, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong...I'm just saying he is a young, ambitious politician--do you REALLY think there is no corruption of principles involved?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638
">http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...trib.asp?id=N00009638
</a><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
">http://opensecrets.org/politic...le=2008&cid=N00009638
</a>
Not only that--both Obama and Clinton have been giving money to superdelegates!http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html
Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.
"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.
About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.
Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
As someone commented:
Obama gave 228K to 34 people that have announced for him. That's an average of over $6700 per person. And Hillary gave 95K to 13 of those who announced for her. That's over $7300 per person. Wow. I'd have to have at least ten grand to vote for either of those clowns.

I don't know what you call it, but in my book, I call it BRIBES. I hate to disillusion you young people--but ALL POLITICS is the same old same old--has been since the begining. Just as Samuel Tilden said in 1876 - "the Presidency will go to the highest bidder...might as well just throw hold a raffle and pick the candiates name from a hat to pick the winner."

After McCain was caught up in his own scandal of the "Keating Five". This is why he backed the McCain-Feingold bill. He has been careful of lobbyists since then.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/campaignfinance/index.asp
">http://www.opensecrets.org/new...aignfinance/index.asp
</a>

kayleesgrandma · Mar 8, 2008

Here's a list of the contributor's to Obama, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong...I'm just saying he is a young, ambitious politician--do you REALLY think there is no corruption of principles involved?
 
 
 <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638
">http://www.opensecrets.org/pre...trib.asp?id=N00009638
</a> <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
">http://opensecrets.org/politic...le=2008&cid=N00009638
</a> 
 Not only that--both Obama and Clinton have been giving money to superdelegates!http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html
 Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.
 "While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.
 About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.
 Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
 Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
 As someone commented:
 Obama gave 228K to 34 people that have announced for him. That's an average of over $6700 per person. And Hillary gave 95K to 13 of those who announced for her. That's over $7300 per person. Wow. I'd have to have at least ten grand to vote for either of those clowns.
 
 I don't know what you call it, but in my book, I call it BRIBES. I hate to disillusion you young people--but ALL POLITICS is the same old same old--has been since the begining. Just as Samuel Tilden said in 1876 - "the Presidency will go to the highest bidder...might as well just throw hold a raffle and pick the candiates name from a hat to pick the winner."
 
 After McCain was caught up in his own scandal of the "Keating Five". This is why he backed the McCain-Feingold bill. He has been careful of lobbyists since then.
 <a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/campaignfinance/index.asp
">http://www.opensecrets.org/new...aignfinance/index.asp
</a>

NoExcuses · Mar 8, 2008

did i just read someone say that there was no global terrorism before bush?

the first attack on the world trade center was under clinton. and the second attack was being planned years before bush came in office.

attack on the USS cole?

should i go on????

NoExcuses · Mar 8, 2008

did i just read someone say that there was no global terrorism before bush?

the first attack on the world trade center was under clinton. and the second attack was being planned years before bush came in office.

attack on the USS cole?

should i go on????

NoExcuses · Mar 8, 2008

did i just read someone say that there was no global terrorism before bush?

the first attack on the world trade center was under clinton. and the second attack was being planned years before bush came in office.

attack on the USS cole?

should i go on????

NoExcuses · Mar 8, 2008

did i just read someone say that there was no global terrorism before bush?

the first attack on the world trade center was under clinton. and the second attack was being planned years before bush came in office.

attack on the USS cole?

should i go on????

NoExcuses · Mar 8, 2008

did i just read someone say that there was no global terrorism before bush?
 
 the first attack on the world trade center was under clinton. and the second attack was being planned years before bush came in office.
 
 attack on the USS cole?
 
 should i go on????

bittyhorse23 · Mar 8, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Brad

Amy...... the limit is 2 terms....</end quote></div>

I know. I said you can't run again after 2 full terms in office. I was being sarcastic asking where Robert read about being re-elected after being out a term.

bittyhorse23 · Mar 8, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Brad

Amy...... the limit is 2 terms....</end quote></div>

I know. I said you can't run again after 2 full terms in office. I was being sarcastic asking where Robert read about being re-elected after being out a term.

bittyhorse23 · Mar 8, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Brad

Amy...... the limit is 2 terms....</end quote></div>

I know. I said you can't run again after 2 full terms in office. I was being sarcastic asking where Robert read about being re-elected after being out a term.

bittyhorse23 · Mar 8, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Brad

Amy...... the limit is 2 terms....</end quote>

I know. I said you can't run again after 2 full terms in office. I was being sarcastic asking where Robert read about being re-elected after being out a term.

bittyhorse23 · Mar 8, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Brad
 
 Amy...... the limit is 2 terms....</end quote>
 
 
 I know. I said you can't run again after 2 full terms in office. I was being sarcastic asking where Robert read about being re-elected after being out a term.

bittyhorse23 · Mar 8, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Solo

And I just love how he promotes a "war on terror", ha, there is no such thing. A war is fought between 2 different armies, not 1 super-powered army and a bunch of civilians and some rogues. Before W's stamped through Iraq, there were maybe a few hundred radical Muslims ready to kill themselves in order to appease their invisible God, now, on the other hand, there's hundreds of thousands all over the Mid East who view us as the enemy because of George's failed policies. He has made us more vulnerable.

Obama energizes Democrats and Moderates.....he energizes young voters and voters who have never had any interest in going to the polls. We are on the brink of a historic election... a choice between an old lifetime politician or a young energetic outsider. The choice is that easy.</end quote></div>

Wars change over time. Look back to the Civil War. We fought face to face, with in arms reach. Then look at WWI...trench fighting...WWII...atom bomb. Wars change when technology changes. The weapons have changed so now the wars must change. So yes there is a "war on terrorism". It is not as cut and dry as a "traditional" war but it is still there.

If I remember correctly they didn't like us before W was in office and will probably continue to not like us after he is out.

With that said, I am NOT a Bush supporter and I can not wait for him to be out of office.

I don't want a newbie in office. I want someone with experience and 3 years is not enough for me. Call me old fashioned (in my 27 years ha) but I want someone who knows what they are doing. Yes I agree we need change but change doesn't happen over night and change doesn't happen without the consent of the rest of the branches. So unless Obama is gonna make sure that all his talk is going to pass I don't trust what he thinks he can do. And he does energize people. He energized me right over to the Republican side!

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Solo

I'll vote for Nader to screw things up.</end quote></div>

It's this type of thinking that makes me mad. We are not deciding what toppings to put on our ice cream people! This is a presidental election! The person who will be running OUR country for the next 4 years. Maybe you should do some thinking before you vote for Nader "just to screw things up".

bittyhorse23 · Mar 8, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Solo

And I just love how he promotes a "war on terror", ha, there is no such thing. A war is fought between 2 different armies, not 1 super-powered army and a bunch of civilians and some rogues. Before W's stamped through Iraq, there were maybe a few hundred radical Muslims ready to kill themselves in order to appease their invisible God, now, on the other hand, there's hundreds of thousands all over the Mid East who view us as the enemy because of George's failed policies. He has made us more vulnerable.

Obama energizes Democrats and Moderates.....he energizes young voters and voters who have never had any interest in going to the polls. We are on the brink of a historic election... a choice between an old lifetime politician or a young energetic outsider. The choice is that easy.</end quote></div>

Wars change over time. Look back to the Civil War. We fought face to face, with in arms reach. Then look at WWI...trench fighting...WWII...atom bomb. Wars change when technology changes. The weapons have changed so now the wars must change. So yes there is a "war on terrorism". It is not as cut and dry as a "traditional" war but it is still there.

If I remember correctly they didn't like us before W was in office and will probably continue to not like us after he is out.

With that said, I am NOT a Bush supporter and I can not wait for him to be out of office.

I don't want a newbie in office. I want someone with experience and 3 years is not enough for me. Call me old fashioned (in my 27 years ha) but I want someone who knows what they are doing. Yes I agree we need change but change doesn't happen over night and change doesn't happen without the consent of the rest of the branches. So unless Obama is gonna make sure that all his talk is going to pass I don't trust what he thinks he can do. And he does energize people. He energized me right over to the Republican side!

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Solo

I'll vote for Nader to screw things up.</end quote></div>

It's this type of thinking that makes me mad. We are not deciding what toppings to put on our ice cream people! This is a presidental election! The person who will be running OUR country for the next 4 years. Maybe you should do some thinking before you vote for Nader "just to screw things up".

bittyhorse23 · Mar 8, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Solo

And I just love how he promotes a "war on terror", ha, there is no such thing. A war is fought between 2 different armies, not 1 super-powered army and a bunch of civilians and some rogues. Before W's stamped through Iraq, there were maybe a few hundred radical Muslims ready to kill themselves in order to appease their invisible God, now, on the other hand, there's hundreds of thousands all over the Mid East who view us as the enemy because of George's failed policies. He has made us more vulnerable.

Obama energizes Democrats and Moderates.....he energizes young voters and voters who have never had any interest in going to the polls. We are on the brink of a historic election... a choice between an old lifetime politician or a young energetic outsider. The choice is that easy.</end quote></div>

Wars change over time. Look back to the Civil War. We fought face to face, with in arms reach. Then look at WWI...trench fighting...WWII...atom bomb. Wars change when technology changes. The weapons have changed so now the wars must change. So yes there is a "war on terrorism". It is not as cut and dry as a "traditional" war but it is still there.

If I remember correctly they didn't like us before W was in office and will probably continue to not like us after he is out.

With that said, I am NOT a Bush supporter and I can not wait for him to be out of office.

I don't want a newbie in office. I want someone with experience and 3 years is not enough for me. Call me old fashioned (in my 27 years ha) but I want someone who knows what they are doing. Yes I agree we need change but change doesn't happen over night and change doesn't happen without the consent of the rest of the branches. So unless Obama is gonna make sure that all his talk is going to pass I don't trust what he thinks he can do. And he does energize people. He energized me right over to the Republican side!

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Solo

I'll vote for Nader to screw things up.</end quote></div>

It's this type of thinking that makes me mad. We are not deciding what toppings to put on our ice cream people! This is a presidental election! The person who will be running OUR country for the next 4 years. Maybe you should do some thinking before you vote for Nader "just to screw things up".

bittyhorse23 · Mar 8, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Solo

And I just love how he promotes a "war on terror", ha, there is no such thing. A war is fought between 2 different armies, not 1 super-powered army and a bunch of civilians and some rogues. Before W's stamped through Iraq, there were maybe a few hundred radical Muslims ready to kill themselves in order to appease their invisible God, now, on the other hand, there's hundreds of thousands all over the Mid East who view us as the enemy because of George's failed policies. He has made us more vulnerable.

Obama energizes Democrats and Moderates.....he energizes young voters and voters who have never had any interest in going to the polls. We are on the brink of a historic election... a choice between an old lifetime politician or a young energetic outsider. The choice is that easy.</end quote>

Wars change over time. Look back to the Civil War. We fought face to face, with in arms reach. Then look at WWI...trench fighting...WWII...atom bomb. Wars change when technology changes. The weapons have changed so now the wars must change. So yes there is a "war on terrorism". It is not as cut and dry as a "traditional" war but it is still there.

If I remember correctly they didn't like us before W was in office and will probably continue to not like us after he is out.

With that said, I am NOT a Bush supporter and I can not wait for him to be out of office.

I don't want a newbie in office. I want someone with experience and 3 years is not enough for me. Call me old fashioned (in my 27 years ha) but I want someone who knows what they are doing. Yes I agree we need change but change doesn't happen over night and change doesn't happen without the consent of the rest of the branches. So unless Obama is gonna make sure that all his talk is going to pass I don't trust what he thinks he can do. And he does energize people. He energized me right over to the Republican side!

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Solo

I'll vote for Nader to screw things up.</end quote>

It's this type of thinking that makes me mad. We are not deciding what toppings to put on our ice cream people! This is a presidental election! The person who will be running OUR country for the next 4 years. Maybe you should do some thinking before you vote for Nader "just to screw things up".

bittyhorse23 · Mar 8, 2008

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Solo
 
 And I just love how he promotes a "war on terror", ha, there is no such thing. A war is fought between 2 different armies, not 1 super-powered army and a bunch of civilians and some rogues. Before W's stamped through Iraq, there were maybe a few hundred radical Muslims ready to kill themselves in order to appease their invisible God, now, on the other hand, there's hundreds of thousands all over the Mid East who view us as the enemy because of George's failed policies. He has made us more vulnerable.
 
 
 Obama energizes Democrats and Moderates.....he energizes young voters and voters who have never had any interest in going to the polls. We are on the brink of a historic election... a choice between an old lifetime politician or a young energetic outsider. The choice is that easy.</end quote>
 
 
 Wars change over time. Look back to the Civil War. We fought face to face, with in arms reach. Then look at WWI...trench fighting...WWII...atom bomb. Wars change when technology changes. The weapons have changed so now the wars must change. So yes there is a "war on terrorism". It is not as cut and dry as a "traditional" war but it is still there.
 
 If I remember correctly they didn't like us before W was in office and will probably continue to not like us after he is out.
 
 With that said, I am NOT a Bush supporter and I can not wait for him to be out of office.
 
 I don't want a newbie in office. I want someone with experience and 3 years is not enough for me. Call me old fashioned (in my 27 years ha) but I want someone who knows what they are doing. Yes I agree we need change but change doesn't happen over night and change doesn't happen without the consent of the rest of the branches. So unless Obama is gonna make sure that all his talk is going to pass I don't trust what he thinks he can do. And he does energize people. He energized me right over to the Republican side!
 
 <div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Solo
 
 I'll vote for Nader to screw things up.</end quote>
 
 
 It's this type of thinking that makes me mad. We are not deciding what toppings to put on our ice cream people! This is a presidental election! The person who will be running OUR country for the next 4 years. Maybe you should do some thinking before you vote for Nader "just to screw things up".

Who do you want as your next US president?

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member