Election 2016

Politics ‘Is Only A Binary Choice if We Listen To the Duopoly’

Forget Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton just like we've forgotten about Braniff Airlines.

|

David Deeble, https://twitter.com/daviddeeble

In this winter of electoral discontent—as The New York Times noted recently, "Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees"—it's worth puzzling over how the Republicans and Democrats can maintain a stranglehold on major political offices. Indeed, both Pew Research and Gallup show that voter identification with each party is at or near historic lows. Who can blame us, especially when the nominating process coughs up fur balls such as Donald and Hillary, the most-disliked candidates ever?

The Dems and Reps are less popular than ever because they each have had opportunities to govern in the recent past and each party screwed things up big time. The GOP under Bush not only inaugurated a series of poorly conceived and terribly prosecuted wars but exploded spending and regulation at home. Bush capped it all off by explicitly abandoning "free-market principles to save the free-market system" in late 2008. Obama took that ball and ran with it, continuing a ruinous foreign policy, pushing a useless stimulus, and squandering his political advantage on what even liberals consider mistakes in hindsight: "the Affordable Care Act and carbon cap-and-trade legislation."

No matter how much liberal and conservative establishments insist that this election present only a "binary choice" (in Speaker Paul Ryan's phrase), the fact is that Americans don't really want either of these options put in front of them. In a 21st century where we all take for granted an ever-increasing proliferation of choices, options, and customization in every other aspect of our lives (commercial, cultural, personal), politics must adapt and stop trying to stuff all of us into two categories that are no longer relevant to how we live today. Think of it this way: We are rapidbly unbundling our cable choices via a la carte offerings and Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, and web-only HBO and Showtime subscriptions. Yet the Democrats and Republicans are selling us the most overpriced, ridiculous bundles imaginable. If you are pro-choice, then you can only be a Democrat, where you need to also support higher taxes, mandatory unionism, and Net Neutrality. If you are in favor of flatter taxes, you're stuck with Republicans who will also bend your ear about ending immigration and abortion (do these things have any necessary connection?) and who can't abide gender-neutral bathrooms.

The question in 2016 isn't whether we're sick of the status quo—the rise of Trump and, in many ways, Bernie Sanders, testifies that we are. The question is how do we get to the next stage of electoral politics, one in which we can sort ourselves with less pain and suffering?

At ABC News, former (read: recovering) political consultant Matthew Dowd suggests that the first step is to push back on partisans who insist on binary thinking and recall the lesson of Southwest Airlines, which successfully challenged a duopoly situation in Texas.

Braniff logo, public domain, Wikimedia

Here in Texas a few decades ago, a young upstart airline decided to enter the marketplace to provide cheaper and better service. Southwest Airlines opened for business with little support, and was fought by the two dominant airlines in Texas, Braniff and American, every step of the way.

Today, Southwest is the most profitable domestic airline, and Braniff is out of business. Airline customers are much better off because Southwest stood up to the two legacy Texas airlines….

n case after case, when the "binary" choice is between broken legacy institutions who have monopolized power for years and who have ignored the demands of customers, the natural result is innovators arise to provide a better, more effective way. And the legacy institutions scream loud and wide and try to crush them.

That sounds about right (Matt Welch and I sketched the inspiring story of Southwest in our 2011/12 book The Declaration of Independents, itself an extended attack on the perils of political duopoly).

Dowd, who worked for Democrats and Republicans back in the day, urges that all sentient voters follow the same dictates we do when shopping for new cars, computers, and clothes:

It is time we reject the messaging from the two major parties, and make choices in our own hearts that help bring the country together. If you don't feel good about either major party choice, then don't be shoved into choosing between what they describe as "the lesser of two evils."

Make an independent and innovative choice that may not win this year, but over time will be successful in reuniting us as a country. We need independents to take back our country and unite us. It is only a binary choice if we listen to the duopoly.

Read the whole thing here.

Welch and I talked with Dowd at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Here's a Facebook Live stream of that conversation (audio picks up a couple of minutes in). Take a look below. For more convention-related livestreams, go here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

126 responses to “Politics ‘Is Only A Binary Choice if We Listen To the Duopoly’

  1. How many elections do special snowflake third-party voters have to spoil before they start seeing returns on their investment?

    1. How can you spoil an election?

      1. Vote for Nader in New Hampshire in 2000.

        1. Now answer the question. How can you spoil an election?

          1. It can only be the irresistible draw of feeling morally and intellectually superior to the vast majority of your fellow citizens without actually doing any work to be so that causes some people to be so completely impenetrably incapable of understanding the basic kindergarten math of elections in the US.

            1. Because this comment totally isn’t indicative of a feeling of moral and intellectual superiority?

              Also, while it’s true that Gore would have won if every Nader voter in NH or Florida voted for him, it’s also true that he would have won if a small portion of Democrats who didn’t vote that year had done so. Why is the blame and animosity solely aimed at Nader voters?

              Also, I don’t think this analogy works as well with the LP. The Green Party has a similar ideology as the Democrats, just more extreme. The LP has bigger gaps with both parties. Though it usually probably draws more from the GOP nonetheless, Johnson is actually polling pretty equally from Clinton and Trump.

              1. “Why is the blame and animosity solely aimed at Nader voters?”

                Because someone who actually goes to the polls, and dares vote against the Democrat, is a hater, while someone who stays at home is just a slacker, that is, part of the Democratic base.

              2. Lots of Democrats, about 10% in Florida, vote Republican in every election. They’re just people who haven’t bothered to change their affiliation. They knew what they wanted. Nader voters presumably wanted a very liberal agenda, and in their actions caused W. to get elected and their agenda to be shat on for 8 years. Gore lost for many reasons, and the stupidity of Nader voters is one of them.

                Normally I’d say it would be very implausible for anyone to be ideologically equidistant from both major parties considering they disagree on pretty much every issue. But with Trump at the top of one of the tickets, it’s understandable if conservatives feel that they have no home at the moment.

                1. You didn’t like Bush? He massively increased federal government size, regulations, entitlements, and started wars in the Mideast… Just like Hillary will.

                2. I didn’t say Democrats who voted Republican, I said Democrats who stayed home and didn’t vote. Can you read?

                  “Normally I’d say it would be very implausible for anyone to be ideologically equidistant from both major parties considering they disagree on pretty much every issue. ”

                  And it’s possible to disagree with both parties on an issue. There aren’t only two positions on any given issue. Or one could agree and disagree with each party on a similar number of issues (or issues of similar importance). I also don’t think one has to be exactly equidistant ideologically from both parties to want a third option.

                3. Normally I’d say it would be very implausible for anyone to be ideologically equidistant from both major parties considering they disagree on pretty much every issue.

                  You could hate every other position from both parties.

                  But that doesn’t occur to you, does it?

                  1. You could hate every other position from both parties.

                    But that doesn’t occur to you, does it?

                    It did occur to me and that’s why I referred to the special snowflake vote.

            2. So the only correct way to vote is to vote for someone that can win? And even beyond that to vote for the right person that can win? The right person being the person you like? Otherwise you’re a dirty spoiler?

              And then only the right candidates should say whatever it takes to get the most people to vote for them? And everyone should only pick one topic that they care most about and choose the candidate that also believes that? But only if that candidate is the right candidate?

              1. The winner of the presidential election and almost every other election in the country with be a Republican or a Democrat. Voting third-party enables the party you least identify with, so it’s a counter-productive strategy.

                1. So would you call this unfettered pragmatism?

                  1. Tony sums up the approach far too many people take to politics, which is exactly why the duopoly candidates this time around are a loudmouthed troll and an unrepentant criminal. I don’t think most people really examine the assumptions that lead them to behave this way; some, such as our Tony, do, and decide they like being part of the problem.

                    1. Precisely. We have a few months left of this nonsense and I’m already at the point of banging my head against a wall of all of the people who make the red pill or blue pill argument. If this year isn’t the year to get off the Dem/Repub carousel, dear God when? Like you said, the choices are loudmouthed troll and unrepentant criminal. Or put another way, given the choice between drinking Drano or Clorox, there are people dumb enough to not say, “what else ya got”? You gave me two invalid choices. Let me be a grownup and forge my own way.

                    2. More fun that way, no?

                  2. I believe I called it the basic kindergarten math of elections in the US.

                    1. I believe I called it the basic kindergarten math of elections in the US.

                      Ah yes, let’s all hail the enlightened, high school math of California, which has begun to dispense with the bourgeois notion of parties and will lead us to the glory of “consensus”.

                    2. Well if we want to get technical about kindergarten math, adding 1 vote (which is all any individual voter has power over) to any candidate’s column will never come close to swaying a presidential election. Even in one as ridiculously close as 2000.

                    3. Yes, you did do that. It’s a good metaphor, since that’s the highest level of math you’ve completed.

                2. If you changed “Tony” to “John” on these posts would any of you think it wasn’t John writing them?

                  1. I suppose if John got a spell checker. Conversing with a person with no conscience is unsettling though.

                  2. Strip out some commas and sprinkle in a few misspellings and you’re onto something, Sweet’n’Low.

                  3. John really got to you didnt he? No youre not acting like a childish baby who had his toy taken away

                    1. John really got to you didnt he? No youre not acting like a childish baby who had his toy taken away

                      No, he’s just as boring as you are, coward.

                3. The winner of the presidential election and almost every other election in the country with be a Republican or a Democrat.

                  The winner of California is going to be a Democrat, so adding an extra vote to Clinton is wasting a vote. On the other hand, the Republican is going to lose, so voting Republican is wasting a vote.

                  So why not waste a vote on someone you actually like?

                  1. So why not waste a vote on someone you actually like?

                    Why waste a perfectly good lunch hour voting at all?

                    My only argument is that if it’s ethically required for a voter in Ohio to make the hard choice between the major candidates, then it has to be the same for a voter in California. Ethics are not geographically relative. But the electoral college does in fact make California voters irrelevant to the outcome (assuming everyone shows up to vote in their usual patterns, that is).

                    1. Ethics are not geographically relative.

                      So much for simple math and pragmatic reasoning. Now, apparently, we’re in the heady realm of ethics, with no regard for the practical considerations surrounding your choice.

                    2. Yeah, uh, not really sure how ethics suddenly showed up. Voting and ethics have nothing in common. Literally. Nothing.

                    3. Tell that to people who think voting 3rd party is some kind of statement about one’s personal moral fortitude. I’m not the one who brought it into the conversation.

                    4. My only argument is that if it’s ethically required for a voter in Ohio to make the hard choice

                      There is no ethical requirement to vote.

                      It’s not a hard choice, it’s not a choice at all.

            3. It can only be the irresistible draw of feeling morally and intellectually superior to the vast majority of your fellow citizens without actually doing any work to be so that causes some people to be so completely impenetrably incapable of understanding the basic kindergarten math of elections in the US.

              I’m confused…you are one of the biggest proponents of democracy on here, but you seem to be trying to bully people into not expressing their true preferences through the democratic process. One of your qualifying tenets for a good democracy is that everyone be able to participate fully. So what gives?

              1. I didn’t say I like not having viable third parties, but that’s the system we have and it’s not changing without a constitutional amendment.

                1. How would you recommend going about changing the system?

                2. that’s the system we have and it’s not changing without a constitutional amendment

                  So to be clear, you believe we should unanimously support the two parties so that they can ratify a constitutional amendment to keep us from unanimously supporting the two parties?

                  1. I’m saying a rational voter picks one of the two major parties and that I enjoy making fun of people who think that voting third party makes them special.

                    I will not personally be leading the charge to reconfigure our entire system of government, because while it is a problem, it’s not at the top of the list. It’s not like the choice before us is a difficult one.

                    1. I’m saying a rational voter picks one of the two major parties and that I enjoy making fun of people who think that voting third party makes them special.

                      A totally rational voter stays at home, because he recognizes that their vote won’t make any difference.

                      A slightly less rational voter spends the few minutes to vote for the party that represents their views, mostly in order to make a statement.

                      People like Tony are simple fools.

            4. You’re talking about voting, you moron. Your vote for the Right Person is not “work” worthy of moral praise, either.

              1. Your vote for the Right Person is not “work” worthy of moral praise, either.

                But that’s the only morally praiseworthy thing he’s ever done in his entire life. What will his self-worth be without it?

            5. Good thing, Tony, there wasn’t even a whiff of moral superiority in your comment.

          2. Leave it on the counter overnight.

              1. Spare the Johnson, spoil the election.

      2. It’s always your fault for not voting or voting for a sure loser, not the fault of the millions of people who voted for the wrong guy.

    2. I know, those damn Republicans should just give up, accept that slavery will always exist in the US, and vote for the Democrats or the Whigs.

      1. Yeah the one example of a major party falling apart, so well-known that it is now a metaphor for such an event, which only happened because of a fracture caused by literally the biggest controversy in the history of the country.

        I fully endorse the Republican party splintering into as many factions as it pleases, however. Unfortunately even members of the stupid party are smart enough to know that they can’t win anything that way. What’s your excuse?

        1. I fully endorse the Republican party splintering into as many factions as it pleases

          Weren’t you whining about people voting third party in the very post preceding this one?

          1. Consistency and Tony haven’t met yet.

          2. I disagree with the argument that it is rational voting behavior to vote third party. That said, I wouldn’t mind Republican party dying a quick and ignominious death by this means or any other.

            1. That said, I wouldn’t mind Republican party dying a quick and ignominious death by this means or any other.

              Communist sockpuppet is communist.

            2. I disagree with the argument that it is rational voting behavior to vote third party.

              Well, at least you are consistent in your failure to understand rationality.

        2. I fully endorse the Republican party splintering into as many factions as it pleases, however.

          Is that why you donated to Trump?

          1. I’d have preferred a much quieter death honestly.

        3. Silly Tony. You need two major parties to give the illusion of choice to people. Two parties that appear diametrically opposed to each other, but that really have the same policies. If one of the major parties falls apart, you got a problem.

        4. Yeah the one example of a major party falling apart

          Well, that and the Federalists. And the Democrats in 1860 – the name may have lived on but it wasn’t the same party.

    3. I’m a libertarian. I’m voting for a guy who is mostly libertarian. It’s you assholes voting for Hillary and Trump who are spoiling things.

      1. “Mostly libertarian” And by that you mean “had decades long careers in government and want more of the same”? Sorry, but Gay Jay and his running mate are about as Libertarian as Bob Barr. They are much more concerned about trannies using whichever bathroom than they are about $4T in debt. So, socially liberal and never fiscally conservative. Neither one of them are fit to hold the place once held by Harry Browne.

        1. They are much more concerned about trannies using whichever bathroom than they are about $4T in debt.

          That’s just not true.

      2. But he can’t win. What do you think voting is for, exactly?

        1. You’re not supposed to vote for who you want to win, you’re supposed to vote for someone who will win. And you get bonus points if you vote for the person who does win.

          At the end of the game, what do you get to trade your points in for?

          1. We’re all winners with those sweet stickers.

        2. To express one’s desire for whom should occupy the offices of the government that demands one’s obedience?

          1. It’s a secret ballot marked in a private booth.

            1. … and your point, Tonykins?

              1. So it’s not an expression of anything. It’s a tally. Go to Facebook to express yourself.

                1. It’s a tally

                  … that grants a “mandate” which makes everything the government does “right” because “will of the people”

                  Lying troll is lying

                2. Tony, I think your most amusing comments are the ones you make when you get so pissed off that you lose the ability to write a coherent argument.

                  1. Let’s face it, tarran, he doesn’t have much to lose on that account.

        3. It’s you assholes voting for Hillary and Trump who are spoiling things.

    4. How many elections do special snowflake third-party voters have to spoil before they start seeing returns on their investment?

      Translation: Why don’t third party voters know their place?

    5. Why are you trying to get us to vote for Trump?

      1. Is it possible Tony is trying to get someone who was a registered democrat for most of his life and was opposed to the war in Iraq into the White House?

    6. ALL OF THEM.

    7. I don’t know. When will you partisan morons get over your entitlement mentality and realize that no candidate is entitled to people’s votes?

      In fact, another question would be: When will I stop voting for both the Republican and Democrat candidates every election? Since I never vote for either, I vote for both at the same time. To a partisan democrat, voting third party is voting for the republican, but to a partisan republican, voting third party is voting for the democrat. Not supporting one candidate is supporting another candidate; a “spoiler”. That’s TEAM logic right there.

  2. it’s worth puzzling over how the Republicans and Democrats can maintain a stranglehold on major political offices.

    One of the main problems is people fail to realize there are any other choices. Public schools and the media do nothing to educate people that the Donkeys and Elephants are just two incredibly crappy brands that have somehow floated to the top of the cesspool. It doesn’t help that all of the other parties have failed to make any headway locally let alone nationally. There are 100 different colas in the United States but Coke and Pepsi have 99% of the shelf space sewn up.

    Airline customers are much better off because Southwest stood up to the two legacy Texas airlines….

    and was able to get the Wright Amendment repealed.

    1. Two colas are at the top despite the fact that there is no institutional reason for choices to be thus limited. In elections, the whole point is for one winner to emerge. A “monopoly” is the goal. So the reason third parties don’t get off the ground is because people are rationally incentivized to join one of the two major-party coalitions that can actually win on a winner-take-all ballot.

      1. Coke has a 42% market share, PepsiCo has a 27% market share, Dr Pepper-Snapple has a 17% market share, and the rest of the soda market shows a long tail distribution pattern.

        If it were an election, the only thing on the shelves would be Coke.

        1. If it were politics, Pepsi and Dr Pepper would join forces and the two major brands would alternate holding power.

          1. So cartels are rad?

          2. That’s a really excellent argument against deciding things politically. Thanks!

            1. Or at least limiting the number of things we decide politically.

              1. They should be limited, and are. The difference between liberals and libertarians are really marginal when you get down to it.

    2. Public schools and the media do nothing to educate people that the Donkeys and Elephants are just two incredibly crappy brands that have somehow floated to the top of the cesspool.

      It might be the result of our voting system.

  3. One thing that’s glossed over in the discussion about the rise of Independents is that most people who identify as independent reliably vote for one party (when they do vote). Some studies suggest that most of them are actually more partisan than people who identify weakly as a member of one of the two parties. Actual swing voters have been declining as a share of the electorate lately.

    http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608

    1. Independents tend to vote the same way as their neighbors … red if they live in a red area, blue if they live in a blue area. Something like only 20% of them are “truly” independent. I read that in a book somewhere. Or maybe on the internet. Anyway, it must be true because why else would I bother to take the time to share it with y’all?

  4. Its a binary choice because of our winner take all elections, which everyone here knows. Why is this a question?

  5. NOBODY NEEDS MORE THAN TWO BRANDS OF POLITICIAN!

  6. It can only be the irresistible draw of feeling morally and intellectually superior to the vast majority of your fellow citizens without actually doing any work to be so that causes some people to be so completely impenetrably incapable of understanding the basic kindergarten math of elections in the US.

    WHYSCOME U TRATURZ VOTEN FUR RACIST CRAZY MAN???

    1. Leave Hillary alone!!!!1

      /Tony

      He really seems worried about her chances.

  7. [insert Wm F Buckley quote about “first four hundred names in the Boston phone book”]

  8. Remember, democracy is the will of the people, except when the people don’t do what Tony wants, then they’re morons.

    1. Nader voters got the farthest thing possible from their will by their actions. That’s what makes them morons.

      1. But if they had given you what you wanted, instead…

        1. Are you trying not to understand the whole concept of half a loaf being better than Bush wars and torture?

          1. That’s right, I had forgotten that we shut down Gitmo and we pulled out of Afghanistan and the Middle East once we got that warmongering Dubya fucker out of office.

            And I’m sure we’ll see more of the same from Hilary. Whew!

      2. No single Nader vote had any effect on the election, and you cannot force blocks of people to vote the same way you do. This is the kindergarten math of elections that you apparently cannot grasp.

        I would elaborate to hopefully clear things up for you, but your history speaks for itself. You’re either mentally incapable of understanding simple logical causation, too much of a liar to admit simple logical causation where it contradicts your feelings, or a combination of both.

        The thing I hate the worst about you is that I’m always late to threads, and you’re always completely eviscerated before I ever even get to say anything.

        1. No single voter had any effect on the election. That’s a trivial, irrelevant truth that doesn’t change the fact that enough people voted for Nader to give the election to Bush, thus making a vote for Nader equivalent to a vote for Bush, even if no single one of them was decisive. At any rate so few voters were in fact decisive in that election that your meaningless nonsense point is even less relevant.

      3. That applies to Naderite left-wingers. It doesn’t apply to libertarians in the current election.

        Yes, some people say that Trump will be better because he’s a Republican and at least Republicans aren’t as supportive of intrusive unconstitutional government actions as Democrats. But if you listen to what Trump actually says, you can’t consider him a friend of individual freedom and civil liberties. Ditto for Hillary.

        If both major party candidates are completely unacceptable, then you aren’t “wasting your vote” by voting third-party. On the contrary, you would be wasting your vote by voting for someone you find unacceptable.

  9. I find elections fascinating. Votes only matter in the aggregate — no individual vote will impact the outcome of an election. And yet, without individual buy-in and belief that one vote matters, no aggregation can occur. There is something almost paradoxical about that.

    1. … and this is the process by which many people seem to believe all of the rules of society should be made.

      1. Is there a non-tyrannical alternative?

        1. Why put in the qualifier, when it obviously doesn’t matter to you whether the government is a tyranny or not?

        2. A non-tyrannical alternative to being forced to choose between two horrible people?

          Nah, we’re definitely better with the tyrant chosen by the slimmest majority.

          1. There is no possible way that 50%+1 of people, chosen by arbitrary lines, and without any requirement for quorum or even honest accounting of votes, could vote the “wrong” way, except for all those times they’ve voted for the other party. It makes sense if you lobotomize yourself first.

        3. There might be — trying it out would be risky. So were democratic republics.

          At the very least we should perhaps limit the areas of our lives in which voting has an impact.

          1. Tony refuses to accept/lies his way into pretending he doesn’t understand that majoritarian democracy is not actually the system of government we are set up to have, and that people like him have done everything to push us in that direction while screaming “WHAT ELSE IS THERE? SLAVERY!?!”

          2. Maybe that’s part of the problem. A democratic republic shouldn’t be a thing. You either have a republic or a democracy with the republic being the ideal.

            1. Are there examples of republics that didn’t/don’t have some element of democracy for choosing who would actually make/enforce the laws?

              1. Only in Socrates’ head, I suppose.

                1. I think universal suffrage and democracy are good ideas when it comes to process and how you making certain decisions in a government (and many other organizations). I think some element of democracy is essential for even approaching a just government — if everyone has to live by the law whether they agree with it or not, then everyone should have at least some say in what the law is or how it is enforced (at least within certain boundaries). I also think democracy serves a valuable sociological function by giving people a non-violent way to express their opinions, and for creating by-in for the law and governing structure (to be sure, that can cut both ways, but in general wanton disregard for the law doesn’t usually end well).

                  Where I part ways with the democracy fetishists is in believing that democracy is *self*-justifying or leads to inherently morally justified outcomes. It’s only as moral as the people actually voting. That’s one of those things that many people selectively remember/ignore depending on the outcome. See Brexit or the possibility of a President Trump.

                  1. If you start from the Socratic definition of justice as everyone tending only to their own business and then add in leaders who are supposed to do as little legislating and regulating as possible with the goal being none at all, a pure republic might work. But even they acknowledged that those were ideals that men most likely weren’t fully capable of.

                    Something like that can work on a smaller scale if everyone involved buys into the idea. But once you get over a certain amount of people, I’ll say 2000, the variety of opinions becomes too fractious to maintain stability.

                    On the Socratic scale of governments, democracy sits between oligarchy and tyranny. And I can see the point of most of the reasoning behind that.

  10. One thing is clear, Tony has a principled objection to people not voting for Hillary Clinton.

    1. Tony is saying nothing more than If you don’t vote for his pathetic candidate, somebody else’s (including your) pathetic candidate might win. Don’t feed the trolls. Don’t be a sheep. NY Times reports that less than 10% of possible voters actually voted for Clintrump. The 90% can still make a difference in deciding the tone this country takes over the next 4 years.

  11. I’m voting for Johnson, but I’d feel a lot better about it if he didn’t have that jackass Weld running with him

  12. Finally a pro-Johnson article on Reason! Good job, Nick!

    Hmmm… weird that his name doesn’t appear anywhere in the article text.

  13. How much does Correct the Record pay its trolls?

  14. I i get paid over $86 per hour working from home with 3 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    Heres what I’ve been doing:==>==>==> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  15. Did anyone else see Janet Yellen first in this horrifying Rorschach test?

  16. It feels good to run the Southwest Airlines of political parties.

  17. If you believe Falun Gong’s mouthpiece, China Uncensored, the Communist party of China is losing members at a fast clip as well. Doesn’t mean that the PRC regime is going anywhere. Same situation with Republicrats (or at least Democrats) here.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.