Showing 1 - 4 of 4 posts found matching keyword: donald trump
When the Republicans chose Donald Trump to be their representative in the general election, I was convinced that they had selected the only man who couldn't win, a reality television star and self-proclaimed business genius who ruined both the USFL and Atlantic City, New Jersey. Obviously, I underestimated how much Americans hate Hillary Clinton. I hate being wrong.
People say they hate government, yet they keep re-electing the same Congressmen. They say they want to change a broken system, but they vote for the same political party their parents voted for. So don't try to tell me that this election was about anything other than a referendum on whether they wanted a woman who lied about her correspondence to run their country.
Just think how big a win it would have been if the Republican candidate hadn't called American P.O.W.s "losers" or said that most Mexicans in America were rapists or bragged about how he sexually harassed women or called the whole system rigged unless he won. Ye gods. This was the better option?
While I join at least 50% of Americans trying to come to terms with the surprise election outcome of a lifetime, I admit that I have already learned something new. I used to believe that people voted for the candidate that offered them what they wanted. While that's still true, I learned that what they want isn't a job (which Trump can't create) or a handout (which Trump won't offer). What they want is a friend. In politics, personal charisma trumps all. Everyone's willing to forgive their friend for just about anything, even being an ill-tempered, misogynistic racist. Sorry, Hillary, but you aren't any better at being charismatic than you are at managing your email.
Now America's newest
cult of personality friend is Donald Trump. We'll just have to live with him and his foibles until someone more charismatic comes along. (What's Oprah doing these days?)
Screenshot from my phone on election night:
When the BBC is showing a mushroom cloud, you know things are bad.
There's only one more week remaining in this godforsaken presidential election, and still no one has answered the single most important question of our times: do the candidates wear boxers or briefs?
I'm of the MTV generation, and I recall when Bill Clinton was asked the question. His answer was "Usually briefs." Bernie Sanders said the same thing when Ellen asked him last year. But what about Trump? Or Hillary?
Personally, I used to wear standard white briefs until one evening in 1993, when an icebreaker at my coed freshman dorm had everyone trade underwear and mingle until we had all recovered our own. While everyone else revealed a pair of boxers or silk panties, my only option was a pair of tighty-whities. My underwear was very, very easy to recover. At least my name wasn't written in them.
You can imagine my humiliation. I spent the rest of the mixer sitting alone on a bench holding some stranger's underwear in the air. Scarred by that experience, I naturally changed my underwear preference. Now I only wear colored briefs. (The pair I'm wearing right now are navy blue.)
Based on my experience, I know that what you wear under your clothes says a lot about you. That's why it's so important to see what our presidential candidates are wearing. Trump, Hillary, it's time to drop your pants. It's a matter of national security.
Comments (2)| Leave a Comment | Tags: dear diary donald trump hillary clinton history politics walter
At this weekend's WWE Wrestlemania event ("the Super Bowl of wrestling!"), it has been announced that either WWE Owner/Operator Vince McMahon or Real Estate Tycoon Donald Trump will shear his hair off following a "Battle of the Billionaires" match. Unfortunately, we won't see Trump wrestle. Instead, representatives of each man will wrestle, the loser determining which billionaire's head is "shaved." (I put the word "shaved" in quotes like that because these hair vs. hair matches don't always take the hair down to the scalp. Usually, the winner just cuts off some long hair unevenly, then the loser goes to a proper salon and ends up with a fine looking hairdo. Hardly as dramatic as the billing would suggest. But then isn't that usually the case with wrestling?)
Now, we all know that Donald Trump is not going to lose his hair on a Vince McMahon promotion. (Unless Trump is in chemo or has lice and is looking for a way to profit from it. Which, I suppose, isn't impossible given the man's history, it's just so unlikely that it's practically impossible. Especially since the guest referee will be "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, McMahon's wrestling arch-nemesis.) But the announcement of this match seems to have caught the fancy of many a non-wrestling fan. The Associated Press recently ran a story about the match. CNN's poll question for today is "Would Donald Trump look better with no hair?" Most people say "no," which, when you think about it, sort of answers the question, "who thinks people look good with comb-overs?"
"Battle of the Billionaires," it's called. I looked it up. According to Forbes Magazine, Donald Trump makes the list of the top 100 richest Americans with a net worth nearing $3 billion. McMahon hasn't been worth more than $1 billion since his XFL flopped in 2001. That would make this the "Battle of a Billionaire and a Guy Who Will Lose His Hair." Maybe that's why there's no truth in advertising: truth is just so boring.