President for life

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Oysterboy No it's not silly in terms of perception. If you look at what Tony put up, and knew little else you would go, jeez, Trump did win in a total landside. But as we elect a president based on human beings voting, and human distribution within the country is far from even, the map I put up is far more representative of the truth. Geographically not accurate, but we don't vote by acreage.

Ah, yes, the big metropolitan sewers where most of the people live, most of the crime is, and most of the despair is.......let's let them run the country, that should work out well. LMAO

I'm grateful for the electoral college, the founders got that right too.

And yes, to me your map is silliest in terms of perception.......and leaves out every citizen who voted for the other party in your red/blue states.......Tony's map does not. I like that better.

That's a matter of resolution in terms of how the map was drawn. Tony's shows the urban and rural areas in stark relief.
I'd be careful with the sewer analogy, those areas that you label as sewers are largely driving the value of your retirement account unless you have all your money wrapped up in coal futures.

Pro

9391

Omaha, NE

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy No it's not silly in terms of perception. If you look at what Tony put up, and knew little else you would go, jeez, Trump did win in a total landside. But as we elect a president based on human beings voting, and human distribution within the country is far from even, the map I put up is far more representative of the truth. Geographically not accurate, but we don't vote by acreage.

I do enjoy the sociology of political leanings. Obviously the heavier urban areas tend to vote more Democratic because the entire way of life in a big system is a reliance on "the matrix". Basically the government keeps everything running and we just live our lives within the system. More rural areas tend to be a lot more self reliant and less reliant on "the matrix" to keep everything running. If we lose power in my neighborhood, it's a minor inconvenience but really not a big deal. If a neighborhood in NYC loses power it's a really big deal.

It's not to say one geographical area is more right or more wrong than the other, we're just different and live in different worlds really so of course our thoughts on the governments role will be different.

Yeah, but one of the most liberal states is Vermont which is also extremely rural. I think your thesis is partially correct, but you have to weave in religious tendencies, education, racial makeup, and history into the mix. The tribalism runs deep.

I was generalizing with one demographic but you are absolutely correct that different areas are drawn towards the Democratic Party for different reasons.

This actually bit the Democrats in the proverbial behind in 2016 because the draw for states like WI, MI, OH, PA was from big labor. They're relatively conservative folks for the most part, but were heavily vested in Unions and Labor interests. The DNC was standing in lock step with the RNC in closing factories and shipping them overseas and the DNC pushed more and more towards social issues which are not the big draws for the rust belt. Then of course Trump campaigned on a pro US Labor platform which didn't help any.

My Race Log

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: President for life

I think that is right Tony, I look at it like this: I see three broad economic groups in the US: 1) People who benefitted or were minimally negatively effected by globalization; 2) People who definitely lost out in globalization; 3) People who are perennial losers in our economy. A lot of this view is based on seeing how various parts of the country are currently doing as I do some traveling. I will say that the 2007-08 recession was a punch to the solar plexus to much of the country. However, parts of this country came out of this fine and got right back to business and are the principal drivers of the current economy. The sectors of the economy that did fine are technology, energy and financial. These were, largely, HRC folk. However, she failed to really excite them and they did not turn out with Obama-like numbers. (HRC was a lousy candidate - not Roy Moore by a longshot - but she was a bad candidate and ran a really bad campaign). Along with this group are the folk that never benefit economically at all (ie, the poor), they are Democratic voters but again, didn't turn out for HRC. Trump grabbed the imagination of those that lost from globalization with the idea that he would bring back the "glory days" of old. They bought this narrative whole cloth and were excited to turn out in significant numbers. All of this is superimposed on tribalism where someone will never vote for someone outside of their tribe.

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Oysterboy No it's not silly in terms of perception. If you look at what Tony put up, and knew little else you would go, jeez, Trump did win in a total landside. But as we elect a president based on human beings voting, and human distribution within the country is far from even, the map I put up is far more representative of the truth. Geographically not accurate, but we don't vote by acreage.

Ah, yes, the big metropolitan sewers where most of the people live, most of the crime is, and most of the despair is.......let's let them run the country, that should work out well. LMAO

I'm grateful for the electoral college, the founders got that right too.

And yes, to me your map is silliest in terms of perception.......and leaves out every citizenThe peoplewho voted for the other party in your red/blue states.......Tony's map does not. I like that better.

That's a matter of resolution in terms of how the map was drawn. Tony's shows the urban and rural areas in stark relief. I'd be careful with the sewer analogy, those areas that you label as sewers are largely driving the value of your retirement account unless you have all your money wrapped up in coal futures.

Not where I live. The city here is dead, so are dozens of others in this country. The suburban areas drive the economy here.....people left the city to let it go to hell years ago. The people who are left living there vote largely a straight liberal ticket and depend on the govt. for most of what they can get. Isn't that what your party wanted? A permanent voting class dependent on them for everything? That's what they have here.

Edited by Left Brain 2018-03-07 5:29 PM

Champion

10157

Alabama

Subject: RE: President for life

I have always found it intriguing that the bigger the city, the bluer the state. Only reason I can think of is that city folks are more reliant on the gubment to take care of them for things like public transportation and rent control/public housing and financial support. But there has got to be more to it than that.

Just thinking out loud...maybe the 'city life' tends to draw more liberal people and more conservative people prefer being in smaller towns where they can hunt and fish and swim at the lake and go boating and ride 4-wheelers and shoot guns. Maybe liberals would rather go to the theater to watch a play than go to the lake. Go figure?!

I live in the country and enjoy the liberty of not living under city limit laws and ordnances. If I want to add on to my house, I go to Lowes and get supplies. I don't have to go to the courthouse to get a permit to build something on my own property!

Anyway, what are y'all's thoughts on why cities almost universally vote democrat?

My Race Log

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: President for life

I agree, to a point. One, I'm not sure there is more reliance on the government in urban vs rural America. Poverty exists in both places, critical infrastructure needs to be in both places, there is need everywhere.

With that said, I have a foot in each camp. I was raised in Western Mass in a rural town. Hunting and fishing were a part of life. Guns were in my house when I was growing up and we learned to respect them. As an adult i still enjoy shooting, hunting (although there still were no d@mn ducks here this winter) and fishing and am glad that I live close enough to rural parts of Florida that make these pursuits possible without a lot of travel. Most of my friends have a much more urban background than I. The urban life has some very nice aspects. Good restaurants, many and varied entertainment options, cultural pursuits, generally better schools. It may not be what you like, but I assure you it is nice having dining options other than Waffle House, and shopping other than Walmart.

Neither one of these lifestyles is better than the other, they are just different. And people on both sides are good people that just want to enjoy life and raise their children in peace.

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy I agree, to a point. One, I'm not sure there is more reliance on the government in urban vs rural America. Poverty exists in both places, critical infrastructure needs to be in both places, there is need everywhere. With that said, I have a foot in each camp. I was raised in Western Mass in a rural town. Hunting and fishing were a part of life. Guns were in my house when I was growing up and we learned to respect them. As an adult i still enjoy shooting, hunting (although there still were no d@mn ducks here this winter) and fishing and am glad that I live close enough to rural parts of Florida that make these pursuits possible without a lot of travel. Most of my friends have a much more urban background than I. The urban life has some very nice aspects. Good restaurants, many and varied entertainment options, cultural pursuits, generally better schools. It may not be what you like, but I assure you it is nice having dining options other than Waffle House, and shopping other than Walmart. Neither one of these lifestyles is better than the other, they are just different. And people on both sides are good people that just want to enjoy life and raise their children in peace.

OK, nothing to disagree with there, so let's get down to it. Why are the people in urban areas MUCH more likely to vote a liberal ticket than people in rural areas? Your own map bears this out (even though Tony's shows it better) but we don't really need it because it's a fact we can all agree on. Why the difference?

ETA - my post sounds like I already have an idea and am trying to trap you to a response (re-reading appears that way to me too, so I apologize).......I'm not. I'm asking sincerely. I'd like to know why you think that is. I can't figure it out and I've had close dealings with poor people and rich people from both environments for many years.

Edited by Left Brain 2018-03-07 8:50 PM

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Oysterboy I agree, to a point. One, I'm not sure there is more reliance on the government in urban vs rural America. Poverty exists in both places, critical infrastructure needs to be in both places, there is need everywhere. With that said, I have a foot in each camp. I was raised in Western Mass in a rural town. Hunting and fishing were a part of life. Guns were in my house when I was growing up and we learned to respect them. As an adult i still enjoy shooting, hunting (although there still were no d@mn ducks here this winter) and fishing and am glad that I live close enough to rural parts of Florida that make these pursuits possible without a lot of travel. Most of my friends have a much more urban background than I. The urban life has some very nice aspects. Good restaurants, many and varied entertainment options, cultural pursuits, generally better schools. It may not be what you like, but I assure you it is nice having dining options other than Waffle House, and shopping other than Walmart. Neither one of these lifestyles is better than the other, they are just different. And people on both sides are good people that just want to enjoy life and raise their children in peace.

OK, nothing to disagree with there, so let's get down to it. Why are the people in urban areas MUCH more likely to vote a liberal ticket than people in rural areas? Your own map bears this out (even though Tony's shows it better) but we don't really need it because it's a fact we can all agree on. Why the difference?

ETA - my post sounds like I already have an idea and am trying to trap you to a response (re-reading appears that way to me too, so I apologize).......I'm not. I'm asking sincerely. I'd like to know why you think that is. I can't figure it out and I've had close dealings with poor people and rich people from both environments for many years.

Couple of things add to cultural differences: 1) Religion. Most urbanites are not regular church goers, or if they are, they are not devout. I am an agnostic, I think a lot of my friends are atheists. Not something we talk about - ever. 2) Diversity. The urban areas are much, much more diverse than the rural areas. I know Muslims, my mother only fears them. 3) Tolerance. I know gay people, I got no problem with them, I'm happy if they are happy, they are friends. I'm glad they can get married, why should the straight people get all that misery - lets spread it around. Not necessarily a majority view in rural USA. 4) Education. Take a look at that map Tony put up. Bet you can tell where the big universities are that are not located in big cities. They are the blue spots in the sea of red.

In all, there is far more that unites us than divides us but we need to stop putting up walls and understand each other. No one is right or wrong, and no one is inherently evil in their views.

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: President for life

See, I don't know. In St. Louis, the city had a mass exodus over the last 2 decades. The people left there are, overwhelmingly.... poor, minority, and uneducated. They vote a straight Democrat ticket. No conservative has a chance there.

In the county, where everyone fled to over the years, churches are strong, diversity is lacking (horribly, or better said, hugely segregated by neighborhood), but education is way ahead of the city, and there is at least a decent level of tolerance for "alternative" lifestyles (I don't know how else to put that because I, like you, don't give a rats arse about someone's sexual orientation or a host of other social issues). They vote mostly conservative.

So at least where I live your explanation doesn't hold water (and I agree on face value with your observations).

Guns....that's a whole "nother" issue. We keep them in the county, they use them in the city......to the extreme.

I'm still stuck trying to see where the HUGE difference is.

Most will point to race......I don't buy it.

Edited by Left Brain 2018-03-07 9:34 PM

Champion

10157

Alabama

Subject: RE: President for life

Read this in Forbes:

“Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume.”

My Race Log

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Left Brain

See, I don't know. In St. Louis, the city had a mass exodus over the last 2 decades. The people left there are, overwhelmingly.... poor, minority, and uneducated. They vote a straight Democrat ticket. No conservative has a chance there.

In the county, where everyone fled to over the years, churches are strong, diversity is lacking (horribly, or better said, hugely segregated by neighborhood), but education is way ahead of the city, and there is at least a decent level of tolerance for "alternative" lifestyles (I don't know how else to put that because I, like you, don't give a rats arse about someone's sexual orientation or a host of other social issues). They vote mostly conservative.

So at least where I live your explanation doesn't hold water (and I agree on face value with your observations).

Guns....that's a whole "nother" issue. We keep them in the county, they use them in the city......to the extreme.

I'm still stuck trying to see where the HUGE difference is.

Most will point to race......I don't buy it.

I think St. Louis may not fit into my model, and there are undoubtedly several urban areas within the US that do not. I know in New England, a bastion of liberalism, there are numerous cities that are chitholes. They are principally former manufacturing centers that have not participated in the post-manufacturing economy (tech, energy and finance); however, there is so much money being generated by this economic activity the bleed-over effect keeps the 'burbs humming along, just like in MO.

As far as education I'm not talking about K-12 or even community or 4 year colleges. I'm talking about large research-based universities, ones that can compete for federal funding and spawn tech companies. The effects are amazing, really transformative (visit Boston, Wash DC, San Diego, Seattle and you will see), but unfortunately this effect is largely limited to the coasts. This is clear in that post I put up a month or so ago that showed like 80% of the venture capital goes to the coasts. Washington Univ is a major player in research I'm surprised that it hasn't had a strong effect in St. Louis. Might be that MO isn't playing their cards right or WashU doesn't have sufficient critical mass to be transformative.

To be honest, the politics of fly-over country does scare off many from the coasts. I see this when they come to interview in Florida, our current lax gun laws and geographic location makes us a less palatable place to move for folks used to the Northeast or West coast, it's a perceived cultural thing. (Honestly though, Florida really isn't a southern state culturally). This thinking just keeps the division walls intact and, unfortunately, the effects of a tangibly transformative economic activity available to only a subset of our country.

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Rogillio Read this in Forbes: “Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume.”

That's interesting.

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Rogillio Read this in Forbes: “Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume.”

That's interesting.

We have an inter-dependent economy, always have. It really doesn't help to demonize one side vs another. What we need is a bit more understanding. Again, more unites us than divides us.

Champion

10157

Alabama

Subject: RE: President for life

Personally I'd rather shave my head with a cheese grater than live in a big city. I'm sure many people who live in NYC or LA feel the same way about living in rural Alabama.

I don't think there is a single answer as it's a long combination of things. City people constantly see needy people looking for support from them or the government. You just don't see many homeless people in my part of the country. We have them but we also have a homeless shelter that is privately funded, not a government entity. I got my company to participate in skeet shoot fund raiser for the Downtown Rescue Mission. They are very well supported by the community and local businesses. The skeet shoot included lunch and the steaks were provided by Outback!

I think too it is how you are raised and the environment you live in. I remember as a teen having to go outside on frosty mornings to prime the pump in our well so we'd have water in the house to shower. We had a well that we dug by hand. Very hard work. I've spent hours as a kid behind the garden tiller as we had a big garden and canned a lot of produce. I suppose there are those in the inner cities that have never even pushed a lawn mower on a hot summer day.

I know there are many exceptions to any and all 'arguments'. My concern is that urban population centers are getting bigger and more common and eventually even the electoral system will fail to get rural Americans a voice.

My Race Log

Champion

10157

Alabama

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Rogillio Read this in Forbes: “Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume.”

That's interesting.

We have an inter-dependent economy, always have. It really doesn't help to demonize one side vs another. What we need is a bit more understanding. Again, more unites us than divides us.

Why do you think anything in that Forbes quote demonizes anyone?

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Rogillio Read this in Forbes: “Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume.”

That's interesting.

We have an inter-dependent economy, always have. It really doesn't help to demonize one side vs another. What we need is a bit more understanding. Again, more unites us than divides us.

I don't know if I feel that way anymore....at least not so much.

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Rogillio

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Rogillio Read this in Forbes: “Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume .”

That's interesting.

We have an inter-dependent economy, always have. It really doesn't help to demonize one side vs another. What we need is a bit more understanding. Again, more unites us than divides us.

Why do you think anything in that Forbes quote demonizes anyone?

Frankly, even I find this offensive.

Champion

10157

Alabama

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Rogillio

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Rogillio Read this in Forbes: “Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume .”

That's interesting.

We have an inter-dependent economy, always have. It really doesn't help to demonize one side vs another. What we need is a bit more understanding. Again, more unites us than divides us.

Why do you think anything in that Forbes quote demonizes anyone?

Frankly, even I find this offensive.

Ok maybe cocoon is over the top. But when someone in the city demands $15 for flipping burgers I wonder if they realize the long hours and hard work that the rancher puts into raising beef or how long the wheat farmer had to sit in a JD tractor to grow the wheat or how hot and sweaty the job of growing and harvesting a tomatoe is. Do they consider the people working in the steel mills making the steel that was used to make the grill? Or the oil field and refinery workers who work hard to drill for oil and turn oil into gas. Do the ad men in NY think that putting his presentation together to brief a client really think the $150k a year salary compares to the backhoe operator making $40k a year working 10 hr days to make ends meet.

My Race Log

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Rogillio

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Rogillio

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Rogillio Read this in Forbes: “Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume .”

That's interesting.

We have an inter-dependent economy, always have. It really doesn't help to demonize one side vs another. What we need is a bit more understanding. Again, more unites us than divides us.

Why do you think anything in that Forbes quote demonizes anyone?

Frankly, even I find this offensive.

Ok maybe cocoon is over the top. But when someone in the city demands $15 for flipping burgers I wonder if they realize the long hours and hard work that the rancher puts into raising beef or how long the wheat farmer had to sit in a JD tractor to grow the wheat or how hot and sweaty the job of growing and harvesting a tomatoe is. Do they consider the people working in the steel mills making the steel that was used to make the grill? Or the oil field and refinery workers who work hard to drill for oil and turn oil into gas. Do the ad men in NY think that putting his presentation together to brief a client really think the $150k a year salary compares to the backhoe operator making $40k a year working 10 hr days to make ends meet.

Does that backhoe operator, who at $40K/year, is likely living a middle class life in the heartland fully appreciate how poorly a $15/hr worker will live in a place like Boston, NYC or San Francisco. Anyway, i would say that wages fit the supply demand paradigm quite well, North Dakota for example:

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/19/boom-helps-fast-food-workers-bring-h...

Champion

10157

Alabama

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Rogillio

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Rogillio

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Rogillio Read this in Forbes: “Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume .”

That's interesting.

We have an inter-dependent economy, always have. It really doesn't help to demonize one side vs another. What we need is a bit more understanding. Again, more unites us than divides us.

Why do you think anything in that Forbes quote demonizes anyone?

Frankly, even I find this offensive.

Ok maybe cocoon is over the top. But when someone in the city demands $15 for flipping burgers I wonder if they realize the long hours and hard work that the rancher puts into raising beef or how long the wheat farmer had to sit in a JD tractor to grow the wheat or how hot and sweaty the job of growing and harvesting a tomatoe is. Do they consider the people working in the steel mills making the steel that was used to make the grill? Or the oil field and refinery workers who work hard to drill for oil and turn oil into gas. Do the ad men in NY think that putting his presentation together to brief a client really think the $150k a year salary compares to the backhoe operator making $40k a year working 10 hr days to make ends meet.

Does that backhoe operator, who at $40K/year, is likely living a middle class life in the heartland fully appreciate how poorly a $15/hr worker will live in a place like Boston, NYC or San Francisco. Anyway, i would say that wages fit the supply demand paradigm quite well, North Dakota for example:

https://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/19/boom-helps-fast-food-workers-bring-h...

Which is exactly why a federal minimum wage is nonsense.

My Race Log

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: President for life

Yep, been arguing this point since the establishment of the Republic. This is what free people do

Champion

10668

Tacoma, Washington

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by tuwood

But since we don't vote by the acreage, a population-based map is a better representative of the point you want to make.

Originally posted by Rogillio Read this in Forbes: “Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume.”

Welcome to the Hunger Games.

My Race Log

Expert

2373

Floriduh

Subject: RE: President for life

Originally posted by briderdt

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Originally posted by tuwood

But since we don't vote by the acreage, a population-based map is a better representative of the point you want to make.

Originally posted by Rogillio Read this in Forbes: “Sociologists could have a field day with this question, but the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume.”

Welcome to the Hunger Games.

I was thinking exactly the same thing...

President for life (Page 3)

REGISTER TODAY