Republican Debate 2016 Jokes

CNN Debate 9/16 Jokes
Carly Fiorina: "I memorized a whole bunch of statistics to hide the fact my business record sucks"
Jeb: "You can now call me Jeb Kush"
Donald Trump: "Don't contradict me, Ben Carson, or your polling numbers will go down the tubes"
Marco Rubio: "I don't care about climate change and I'm going to throw this water bottle into the Pacific Ocean."
Rand Paul: "I came to California and bought some medical marijuana and now I'm feeling super paranoid."
Mike Huckabee: "I've always been this snide, it just use to be hidden by a 100 pounds of fat."
Ted Cruz: "I deserve to be on the Supreme Court"
Scott Walker: "I like pissing people off and taking away their entitlements."
John Kasich: "The more you idiots talk, the more people realize that I'm the only sane and rational person up here."

Is it just me or has the Republican Party hijacked the plotline of a book/movie
The battle for our Dystopia (CNBC Republican Debate 10/28)

Abnegation: Mike Huckabee
Candor: Rand Paul, Chris Christie
Erudite: Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Jeb Bush
Amity: Ben Carson
Dauntless: Ted Cruz, Donald Trump
Factionless: The Democrats

Jeb Bush: "Marco Rubio is Divergent and divergence is extremely dangerous."

World War Z (CNN Republican Debate 12/15)
Donald Trump: "You losers spent $4 Trillion and created a zombie nation, now it's my turn to clean up the mess. If you don't like it, then you shouldn't have failed."
Ted Cruz: "I don't know if Zombies can glow in the dark, but we are going to find out"
Ben Carson: "I'm the only one on this stage that can dissect a zombie brain and tell you whats going on."
Carly Fiorina: "Steve Jobs was the son of a Syrian immigrant and destroyed my chances of becoming president; That's why I'm a cold hearted B-word....Kill Them All."
Jeb!: "My brother was Wreck It Ralph, that must make me Fix-It Felix. Zombie problem? Jeb Can Fix It."
Marco Rubio: "You guys brawl it out. By the end of the night Sheldon Adelson will know I'm the man for the job and that's all that really matters."
Rand Paul: "Obviously the most intelligent person on the stage, I am the HP Lovecraft of this genre. Underappreciated, I lack the confidence to stop being a smartass and find solutions in the here and now."

The Imitation Game (Fox Business Republican Debate 1/14)
Jeb!: "First we must understand who created Donald Trump, it was Barack Obama. Not the Republican party (including my brother and dad) which avoided immigration reform for the past 30 years."
Ted Cruz: "I thought cozying up to the Donald would break him, but he was playing me all along. Probably should have renounced my Canadian citizenship before 2014."
John Kasich: "Saying the same positive message over and over again will break "The Donald" or maybe not. I just like hearing myself speak."
Marco Rubio: "I'll be the debates Barney Rubble and subtlely point out The Donalds misgivings. I never understood why the show was called "The Flintstones" anyway."

The Twist
I have decided to give the remaining Republican contenders a road map to beat Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is running a simple parlour game. He has branded himself as the candidate who is willing to go the extra mile (or in this case an extra 1954 miles) for the American voter.
The Wall, the deportations, Muslim bans are all a smoke screen, because Trump can pivot out of those views for the general election and his subsequent administration.
Donald J. Trump, more importantly, has baited the other candidates into disagreeing with him. Thus branding those candidates as weak and UNWILLING to go the extra mile for the American voter.
So Jeb Bush has spent over $100 million dollars fighting Donald Trump. In the process he has branded himself as weak and UNWILLING to go the extra mile and thats why his poll numbers never go up.
Yes, the attacks create a ceiling for Trumps support, but Jeb in the process has become the sacrificial lamb (creating a low ceiling for his support as well).
What needs to be done is a pivot. Instead of disagreeing with the wall, deportations, and muslim bans you simply pivot. (I know the moderators are idiots and are essentially lining you up to play Russian Roulette.) But, you never mention the wall or anything else The Donald baits you with. You simply pivot.
So an example of a pivot.
"Yes, we need to secure the borders. My first act as president will be to increase the border patrol and authorize the use of surveillance drones along the border. If the Mexican government doesn't take our border security seriously, I will order those drones to fly in Mexican airspace."
Hopefully, there are enough candidates left so one of them takes the bait "you can't fly drones in Mexican airspace". Now your branded the candidate willing to go the extra mile and so on and so on.
In Conclusion, don't disagree with Donald Trump and brand him the candidate willing to go the extra mile. Simply pivot to another plan you can disavow at a later time.

John Kasich "Hard Work":
In my personal opinion I think you've made some pretty basic mistakes this campaign season. Because of the size of the field, I think many candidates are fighting over the 4th or 5th best opearative within a state. If I had a great message and could only get a bare bones campaign staff, I would look for a ringer. Someone that was really good with keywords and could help me get my message across. Also someone who could address some of my mistakes and help me get better with each debate. A lot of people could fit this role such as comedians, public speakers, televangelists and you have to use your judgement to find the best person and reach some sort of agreement.
Now for some constructive criticism. I think you made everything sound too easy. Your going to create a better business environment, raise revenues and balance the budget, and so on. Lets use a sports analogy. By making everything sound too easy. You have a mediocre offense (because you kind of come off as a used car salesman) and a bad defense. Now if you would have emphasized all the "hard work" you've done and the "tough choices" you've made, well that's a good offense with a good defense. It also plays better to the overall narrative that your gonna go to Washington and work hard for the people. Because if someone criticizes you for doing hard work, I don't think it will be well received. Also, the rest of the field hasn't passed much legislation which can be pointed out. If you make everything sound too easy, someone (obviously I mean Trump) can say Y2K, "You struck oil" and it stings. Also if it's "easy", then the other candidates can do it as well.
By going the "hard work" route your defense looks like this. "Donald Trump is great with real estate, but passing legislation is hard work and requires making tough choices. You have to show up and you can't be an obstructionist. I wouldn't want the smartest business man performing open heart surgery on me. People are suffering and they need someone who can do the job on day one without a learning curve." Then you go into your 100 day narrative.

Ted Cruz "Diminishing Returns":
I can identify with some of your swagger. I think the average person is not politically savvy. They are easily manipulated and a lot of emphasis is placed on name recognition. That being said Donald Trump has made the electorate more interested in the election, on both sides of the aisle. So you need to tone down the "debate champion" Ted Cruz and focus on being more authentic.
A large enough chunk of the Republican electorate kind of knows what its looking for in a candidate. It's like an old man who goes to a restaurant every friday and basically orders the same thing. And you can see this evidenced by who the Republican party chooses to represent them the last 30 years: Ronald Reagan (69), George H.W. Bush (65), Bob Dole (73), John McCain (72), Mitt Romney (65). There are a few exceptions but it's usally someone old who has trouble unifying the party. Donald Trump (69) happens to be that person this time around. So it's not that he's "teflon" like the media says, but its more that he fits the mold of what the electorate is looking for and they are willing to give him a pass. Mitt Romney said a lot of questionable things, but was still able to get the nomination. So it seems to be more a factor of diminishing returns. I'm sure your wife explain the concept in greater detail because she's a financial person.
I watched most of the debates and I found that you did well when you repackaged an arguement in a different way or if it was a new line of attack. I found the weakest points in your debate performance to be when you repeated things. One example is Donald Trumps campaign contributions. It's defenseable for Trump, I'm not defending him, but he has a defense for it. I think because of diminishing returns it was a net negative every time you brought it up. If I was advising you I would feel happy with a quantitative approach. More attacks, and just focus on getting the better of Trump on the exchanges. Then moving on. The second or third time around Trump crafts a better defense and diminishing returns sometimes makes it a net negative. Trump has lived a very public life for a long time and has done some questionable things. Even if you don't pick up on it, the Democrats will in the general and that will be that. If it's something like a Marco Meltdown yeah repeat it, but in most cases focus on quantity and getting the better of the exchanges.
Think of it as a boxing match as a debate champion you can throw a bunch of jabs and get points and statistically win. But if both fighters primarily throw jabs even if you statistically win, sometimes the bigger name gets the result. As the underdog you want to throw more power punches and even if they all don't land flush, force the electorate to give the result to you. Sometimes you can get lucky and get a knockdown like with the Rubio Robot, but you can't bet on that.

The Establishment "Latent":
A couple of years ago, The NFL had a Tim Tebow problem. Tebow didn't have good quarterback mechanics, wasn't consistent, but he had a lot of latent support. People might have not wanted Tim Tebow to be the quarterback of their team but they wanted him in the NFL and they wanted to root for him. The NFL ended up handling the whole situation very poorly, probably because the Church and the NFL are in a proverbial war over Sunday.
Flash Foward a couple of years and the Republican Party has a Donald Trump problem. Obviously this is a complicated issue so lets start with cause and effect. The Democratic Party has a tendency to be a "take action" party even if it's not ideal. In the 90s after decades of mostly drug related crime the Democrats passed the Brady Bill and increased incarceration rates. There were some mixed results but they tried to do something and didn't leave the issues unresolved.
Obama passed healthcare reform and although not an ideal plan, Obama found a way to pass the legislation against many objections and resolved the issue.
The Republican party has a tendency to leave issues unresolved or use the Democrats "take action" policy against them (were going to repeal....). I understand you need to rile up the base to increase turnout. But your not getting the desired outcome in the primaries. This is like the Karate Kid and you need to reassess and start from the beginning.
Now Donald Trump is taking aggressive positions on issues with latent support within the Republican electorate and baiting the other candidates into disagreeing with him (instead of pivoting). Because you left certain issues that matter to your base unresolved. Is this chance? I mean he's come a long way from his birther roots 4 years ago. I think it's a little bit of luck and the fact that he's getting better at being a politican.
I want the RNC to understand "latent" support. So here is an example. Let's say you gave me a million dollars (probably not the worse decision you would make) and told me to give it away in $50 increments to create buzz for the Republican Party. I go out to a street corner and I ask "passers-by" if they would like $50. Some would take it, others would assume there's a catch, if there is an ethnic difference maybe there would be a trust issue. Now let's say there is a traffic light at that intersection. When the light turns red I have an opportunity to explain this is free money with no conditions, etc. More people will take the money because there is "latent" support for free money. In this analogy the "media" is the traffic light. That's why Donald Trump has been successful creating a media circus. Some Republicans might not be okay with the wall and it will show up in up and down polling. But there is latent support that's not showing up in the polling until much father down the line. This was witnessed very early on. Donald Trumps support in online polls was much higher than in phone polls because of "latent" support.
So we are going back to the traffic light analogy. At the adjacent corner, there is another Republican and he is shouting "Don't take the money" and he makes a lot of valid points "government waste", corruption, etc. A marginally lower amount of people will take the money, but they all hate that dick on the adjacent corner who made them feel bad. Now this is some of the other candidates Lindsey Graham, Jeb!, and so on.
(To be continued, when I have more time)

The Outsiders "Being Genuine":
I really want this to be a short read and easy to comprehend, so it might seem like I'm cutting a couple of corners (or making some assumptions), but I'm just trying to broaden the reach by keeping things short. Carly Fiorina, at one point in time, had Donald Trumps balls in her hand (figuratively) and she had a huge audience (tens of millions of people watching from home). But she wasn't able to capitalize, so lets see where she went wrong.
The outsider candidate isn't part of the establishment. Because of the gridlock and the red tape in Washington, the outsider candidate is perceived as a person who can shake things up and get things done.
Carly Fiorina was a CEO of a large technology company, but was eventually deemed unfit to lead the company. So her tenure as CEO wasn't necessarily a resounding success. It seemed she was rattled by some of the early questions from the moderators and she backed out of her story as a business woman and decided to focus on her political vision.
This is where things started to fall apart. She should have stuck with her story and focused on the tens of thousands of employees she managed, successfully integrating two huge companies and saving jobs in a competitive landscape.
She should've even embellished, because one thing Donald Trump is proving is that if you tell a story the right way, the facts and figures don't necessarily have to add up. In my opinion she could've focused on merging two large companies and contrasted it with Congress and it's inability to do the simplest things. And if she was pressed she could've said that sometimes boards make bad decisions or they simply want to go in a different direction and they need to find the best person to do that. And if still pressed give an example (Steve Jobs being forced out at Apple in the 90s).
But she seemed a little flustered with the line of questioning and before the electorate could get to know her and find out how genuine of a person she is, these very specific policy platforms emerged. It's very likely that these ideas went over peoples heads and possibly alienated them. The average person isn't very politically savvy. And its like a business meeting. You do a little schmoozing, build up a little rapport, then you talk business.
I don't know if she watches "Homeland", but I got the feeling that she was channeling Carrie Mathison when she was off her pills.
Now that brings us to another important part of being an outsider, steer policy to your life experiences. Because it works on multiple levels. And if you can't then take a benign position. The Wall, in my opinion, is nonsense. I could write a lot of chapters about the wall, but I'm going to be direct. It's too expensive ($25 billion to build + maintenance) and losing a primary to "The Wall" was probably very humbling. But if the wall was ever completed you would lose a general election to a Democrat wanting to tear down the wall or abandon it.
But for Donald Trump its a great strategy, because he's known for building iconic landmarks and people can wrap their heads around Donald Trump building a wall. Believability. In a nutshell, that's why you can't leave certain hot-button issues open. Because an outsider candidate will always have more believability than an establishment candidate. And the longer you wait the more latent support builds up for a resolution. Also the greater the divide is in the country (think slavery and civil rights).
I really don't think people want a wall, they want a resolution. They see the gridlock in Washington and Donald Trump has done a great job of steering the solution to his life experiences.
Now lets get back to Carrie Mathison. To my knowledge and the voters, she hasn't given birth to any children. I don't know if there is a biological reason for it. But if your taking a firm stance on abortion and your an outsider candidate, you have to explain why you didn't give birth to any children.
Because if your pro-life with an aggressive position, and your the outsider candidate, it has to be in your wheelhouse. And it doesn't help that educated women have a tendency to be pro-choice.
Donald Trump, he keeps things in his wheelhouse. He was on the Apprentice and he made tough decisions in the board room. So a lot of his platforms on China, illegal immigration, and muslim extremism play into this tough persona that he created on "The Apprentice". He likes to stay in his comfort zone so much that you would think at a certain point in time the Democrats or moderators would find a way to exploit that.
I mean Chris Matthews, asked Trump an abortion related question that required compassion and he flubbed it. It's not that he made a mistake, its usually the media allowing Trump to stay in his comfort zone. And even when you stumble on to something that can weaken Trump, it doesn't seem your ever in a position to do anything about it. Which we will get to in Devin Hester. I'm not saying to back a policy inquiry with a question that requires compassion because that will only work so many times and maybe never again if he reads this. But it seems like you can lead Cecil out of the Wildlife Park and have one of Trumps kids put him down.
But back to Carly, she shouldn't have taken an aggressive position on Planned Parenthood and abortion. She should've made some backhanded remark and moved on to the next issue. Let's say she was paying someone a lot of money to give her advice, maybe they would say steer it back into your wheel house. So maybe pressuring Planned Parenthood to place high ranking members of Conserative groups on their board.
Unfortunately Carly chose the Planned Parenthood controversy to be the backbone of her candidacy. And apparently her aides don't have children either, because they kidnapped a bunch of preschoolers at the Des Moines Botanical Gardens for an anti-abortion speech. And ironically if she had raised a young child, she would have known that was crossing the line.
I'm not saying that Carly Fiorina could have won the Republican nomination, but I think she could've taken a chunk out of Donald Trumps support and maybe enough for a contested convention. Which might have been the plan all along, when you have 17 candidates and Super-PACs, allowing the candidates to stay in the race much longer than they should.
Ben Carson was the other outsider candidate and he did a good job of staying in his wheel house. He used his life experiences to explain his political views which psychologically works on multiple levels. We will analyze how his campaign unraveled a little more in Devin Hester.

The Media "Devin Hester":
For the purpose of this analogy I will be referencing Chicago Bears "Devin Hester" or Devin Hester in his prime. Just like I wouldn't reference Washington Wizards, Michael Jordan.
I think the "News Cycle" is a very dynamic tool. The clean-cut anchor says "Breaking News" and grabs our attention. All of a sudden our minds are blown by what a candidate has said or done and the poll numbers corresponding to that event.
There seems to be a level of professionalism, class and integrity to it that makes it all exciting. Well I hate to burst the bubble but I'm going to prove why it's a little more Ron Burgandy and a little less Newsroom.
Not every problem needs a revolutionary or trendy solution. Sometimes common sense plays a big role. I think from the very beginning some of the candidates have been complaining about Donald Trumps media coverage. I'm certain that this is going to anger the large media companies, but I'm going to break down the news cycle.
It seems from time to time a presidential candidate gets in your cross hairs. They rise in the polls and that validates tougher questioning. Some years ago it was Herman Cain, last year it was Ben Carson and you can even make a case for Howard Dean and the scream (because the establishment wanted someone with a military background and that wasn't Howard Dean).
There is a coordinated effort to saturate the news cycle with attacks until the candidates support breaks. And it works most of the time. I'm thinking the candidate doesn't have enough name recognition and voters don't have a firm enough opinion about that candidate. So the support is weak to begin with. Also the candidates spend a lot of time in early primary states so nationally they might not be well known.
But the problem is when it doesn't work and actually backfires. I think a lot of people (women included) like reality TV. The Apprentice was one of the first Reality shows on Primetime Television and people liked the show and therefore liked Donald Trump. Also most guys like Hugh Hefner because of the Playboy Mansion and Donald Trump with the beauty pageants was a close second. Men dream about going to the Playboy Mansion or being a judge at a beauty pagent (I'm sure there is an "Entourage" HBO episode about both). So even before Donald ran for president the voters formed a positive opinion of him.
And you can even say that voters had a positive opinion of George H. W. Bush and that translated into a positive name recognition for his son Dubya. But all of this doesn't matter, like Ron Burgundy, you subject them to the "News Cycle".
So what I'm saying is that there seems to be an inflection point with what I call "positive name recognition" (viewing a candidate in a positive light for whatever reason) and the news cycle. Also it seems that this threshold is lower for businessmen among the Republican base.
When you run these candidates through the news cycle and attack them your actually blocking for them because the Republican base has already formed a strong enough opinion about them.
And you saw this with OJ Simpson and African Americans. The police could have found the weapon and still people wouldn't have believed it because OJ was one of their heroes.
In football you have to get into the opponents end zone. You have 3 downs to get 10 yards closer to the opponents end zone. If you don't get 10 yards in 3 downs or less you have to kick a field goal or punt the ball. Also if your team scores a touchdown, you have to kick the ball to the opposing team.
The conventional wisdom is to kick the ball 40-50 yards down the field and have your players run down the field as fast as they can and tackle the player returning the ball or force a fair catch.
Most of the time this is a good sound strategy. Devin Hester is a return specialist. I'm going to say he's the greatest in NFL history. As a receiver he's adequate, but as a return specialist he's exceptional. The reason being is the conventional strategy for kicking the ball down the field. At around 40-50 yards athletes reach their peak speed and they are too out of control for Devin Hester, who is a matador. He's quick enough to get a couple of players behind him and then it's all over. Because he has 10 teammates blocking 6-7 players.
So what do teams do? Well they modify their strategy. They kick the ball out of bounds and loss 5-10 yards (hypotnuse) because your kicking at an angle compiled with human error. Sometimes the opposing team kicks the ball short allowing their players to slow down from peak speed and/or force a fair catch.
And to a certain extent that's what you have to do with Donald Trump, you have to modify your strategy. It seems that your taking the Ron Burgundy approach and being stubborn. You keep saturating the news cycle and you won't break. It's actually quite disturbing because it seems like "the media" had a similar problem with Dubya.
Baseball involves a little more strategy and basketball requires execution (although the Splash brothers and their stellar shooting might disprove that). Football is a momentum game just like politics. So I think this is a good analogy. So lets say you don't change strategies and you kick the ball 40-50 yards are you not blocking for Devin Hester. Because a couple of players are going to fly past him making it easier for the Bears to block the rest. Even if he only gets 20-30 yards it changes the field position and momentum.
So how can you be blocking for Donald Trump? Well Donald Trump has burned a lot of bridges during his campaign. This includes certain voting demographics and people in his own party. You would hope that he understands that he needs to build bridges as a president and not burn them. But it brings up a good point. Donald Trump rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. The longer he was out on the campaign trail during the primaries the more groups he attacked and that's a net negative in the General. You even saw Ted Cruz licking his wounds after losing in New York because of some of the statements he made.
The media conglomerates continued to saturate the "news cycle" with attacks on Donald Trump eventhough it wasn't incredibly effective. But in the process you rubbed a lot of people the wrong way and probably strengthened Trumps support. Donald Trump was in attack mode during the primaries and wasn't making any friends. Instead of letting Trump do the heavy lifting on Ben Carson "the media" decided it was going to jump in; attacking his entire life story. I'm not saying that after the primary Carson and Trump wouldn't have patched things up. But because of the "news cycle", he himself was a victim of, Carson is doing everything he can to deliver Michigan for Trump.
There is a difference between offering moral support to a fellow presidential candidate and being determined to help. Also I think Dave Chappelle brought up some interesting points about the media coverage that rubbed him the wrong way and I think a lot of minorities which could affect turnout. Before the civil rights movement was in full swing and their was segregation in this country. If a white person saw a minority look at him or someone he knew in the wrong way that might incite a lynch mob. And now we think thats totally crazy and barbaric. But, in 50 years I think people will think we were barbaric for letting the media run people through the mud with unsubstantiated claims.
I thought the Billy Bush tape was genius, but everything after that including the debate where you asked if he groped women over and over again to get a yes or a no. It reminded me of Peyton Manning. His team wins the Super Bowl and 31 teams lose (95 percent of America). And the media reports unsubstantiated claims he is using HGH. It makes sense he recovers from this horrible surgery and wins the Super Bowl so he must have done something illegal. He's probably one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history and he retires your taking a dump on him and his legacy.
Donald Trump is a rich powerful businessman. And powerful men take advantage of women. Minorities know what it's like to be accused of things in a "he said / she said" legal manner. Because conviction rates against minorities are higher and prosecutors use that to their advantage to pad their overall conviction rate.
You took a winning arguement. You went overboard and turned Hillary Clinton, a woman, into Jameis Winston's accuser (Florida), Ben Roethlisberger's accuser (Pennsylvania), and so on. Women worry about cheating and Men worry about being accused of something. The Republican base preach conservative values which is why sexual indisecretions help turn out their vote. Democrats and liberals are not prudes. Democrats can't accuse the Republican candidate in any election of being a sexual deviant and expect it to turn out their base.
The longer the media kept Donald Trump in the media cycle the more diluted the message became. One example being the Polish illegals, Donald Trump or one of his contractors hired. First of all I understand the human condition, it seems that Donald Trump is a hypocrite and has unfairly attacked many ethnic groups. But I also understand the dark reality that your trying to sway people into voting against Donald Trump. Now America is still predominantly white and many people have Eastern European roots. I remember seeing an commercial where someone thought he was Italian, but he found out that he was Eastern European instead. Another example of dilution is attacking Melania Trump for working in America illegally. I just don't think people care.
All of these tangents diluted from his cursing, tweets, outrageous statements, xenophobia, bankruptcies, and bad business deals. You had iconic moments like Khizr Khan pulling out a constitution being diluted by some half truth. Trump gave the media so much good material, yet they decided to overload peoples brains. In contrast Trump kept his message simple and has been able to stay competitive. He didn't go out of his comfort zone and he gave people a clear vision.
If you had this Billy Bush tape in your back pocket why was there massive dilution beforehand? And why did you make him a victim with all these unsubstantiated claims afterwards? This seems more about ego and proving the "news cycle" attacks work than it was swaying the election. The country was divided and because of bad discretion its divided even more. A chunk of the FBI votes Republican and Hillary Clinton found that out the hard way.

Post Election Holiday Clearance Sale "All Is Revealed":
Every election cycle there are winners and losers. Some might wonder if I have a political lean. I might have in the past, but now I have more of a grievance. My grievance is with the establishment. For 12 years you didn't do your job.
The economy has crumbled (because you didn't reign in the banks). You just watched boom and bust cycle like everyone else. Then for the last 8 years both parties have decided to have a public pissing contest. By sitting on the sidelines and not doing your jobs, lots of things are going unregulated. This is where my grievance comes into play.
Over the last 8 years online-for-profit companies are creating advertising blacklists and are not being regulated. I understand there are sites with explicit images and video and they should be blacklisted. But that doesn't take too long and isn't too profitable. What these for-profit ventures have done is go after free speech (words) and just companies in general. Any large site is going to have some content you can demonize.
So if a competitor, local law enforcement, right or left leaning think thank wants to block advertising to a site they can for little or no cause. And the process of getting whitelisted (which just sounds horrible) is a long process with lots of legal fees most cannot afford. So currently for a site that has 5 million visits, I'm getting a tenth of what my competitors are getting.
Free speech is important and should be protected because it's a constitutional right. So this is what I am offering. I will sit here and publish something that would've been worth millions of dollars in the right hands for pennies on the dollar. So if the Republicans don't want it published paypal $50,000 to the admin at If not after the holidays (January 2) I will write a couple of pages about methods and practices (solutions) and ask for donation from the other side.

Your Welcome

Joke Generators: