Would you take up arms to oppose an illegitimate Trump third term?

[crazed_hoosier2]

Interestingly, DOGE may be the most redeeming aspect of this Administration and it’s what’s driving the Democrats batshit crazy. DOGE run properly and without vendetta could solve some underlying problems.

Could DOGE be run properly? I have serious doubts. If it could, the people who do things properly would've done it. I think one of the reasons they have Musk doing it is that he's not nearly as subject to political pressure as virtually anybody else would be.

But, obviously, there are legitimate questions about how far any administration can go within the law and without explicit Congressional authorization.

That said, and while I will support any effort to get cost and inefficiency out of government, I think the important word in your last sentence is "some." Efficiency is always a good thing. But it was none other than Janet Yellen who estimated that Medicare and Social Security are $175 Trillion underfunded over the next 75 years. And that doesn't all hit 75 years from now, it will be a consistent, gradual degradation -- and this has already started.

If we don't get this addressed and repaired, everything else is academic.

 

[swman]

Why do a democrats get an FDR but not Republicans? Not fair.

Trump 2036!

History lesson. That’s exactly why the 22nd amendment was passed. We liberated ourselves from a king so we don’t want to go back to one.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

History lesson. That’s exactly why the 22nd amendment was passed. We liberated ourselves from a king so we don’t want to go back to one.

There's an argument to be made that having FDR serve (almost) throughout the end of the war was a positive thing. However, it should also be pointed out that the election for his 3rd term was held over a year before Pearl Harbor.

Either way, tradition aside, there was no law preventing a 3rd presidential term at that time.

 

[swman]

Good point on fixing the inderlying problem. That’s a discussion topic of its own. I was actually viewing it from the point of Trump being a demagogue par excellence and as such irreplaceable. Different normalcy and you’re right, that normalcy doesn’t fix any underlying problem.

Interestingly, DOGE may be the most redeeming aspect of this Administration and it’s what’s driving the Democrats batshit crazy. DOGE run properly and without vendetta could solve some underlying problems.

What exactly are the underlying problems? Before and after Orange Jesus’s first term we were the envy of the world. Why do you think people want to come here? Every country has issues but burning the constitution doesn’t fix a thing. But it sure makes the extreme right feel good until it’s them in the crosshairs.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What exactly are the underlying problems? Before and after Orange Jesus’s first term we were the envy of the world. Why do you think people want to come here? Every country has issues but burning the constitution doesn’t fix a thing. But it sure makes the extreme right feel good until it’s them in the crosshairs.

Problems and existential problems are two different things.

Our biggest underlying and existential problem IMO is that, as things stand, our economy can't afford the cost of the government we have in place. Something has to give. And, unless we act upon that problem, it will act upon us in ways that will be far worse than any corrective action we would take.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What exactly are the underlying problems? Before and after Orange Jesus’s first term we were the envy of the world. Why do you think people want to come here? Every country has issues but burning the constitution doesn’t fix a thing. But it sure makes the extreme right feel good until it’s them in the crosshairs.

I should add that Trump really did not pinpoint this theme in his political ascendancy. He got elected mostly because he was pushing peoples' buttons about illegal immigration -- and, to a lesser extent, the negative effects of globalization.

Both GWB and Obama tried to address immigration, but they did so stupidly...and you can draw a straight line from what they tried (and failed) to do and Trump's 2016 campaign.

 

[swman]

Could DOGE be run properly? I have serious doubts. If it could, the people who do things properly would've done it. I think one of the reasons they have Musk doing it is that he's not nearly as subject to political pressure as virtually anybody else would be.

But, obviously, there are legitimate questions about how far any administration can go within the law and without explicit Congressional authorization.

That said, and while I will support any effort to get cost and inefficiency out of government, I think the important word in your last sentence is "some." Efficiency is always a good thing. But it was none other than Janet Yellen who estimated that Medicare and Social Security are $175 Trillion underfunded over the next 75 years. And that doesn't all hit 75 years from now, it will be a consistent, gradual degradation -- and this has already started.

If we don't get this addressed and repaired, everything else is academic.

The only real problem is that politicians on both sides of the isle know that entitlements have to be addressed but none have the spine to do what needs to be done. There should be no limit on what’s taxed for SS. The IRS needs to aggressively go after tax cheats. Why shout I pay 30% plus and billionaires pay little. Warren Buffet said he pays less in taxes than his secretary. Somehow that seems unfair. I’m not sure increasing the age to receive bentos a solution. I’m 68 and am very active. But there are people around us that are younger and have difficulties just getting around. Privatizing SS is a non starter. Just think of the inevitable corruption that would follow. Bernie Madoff ring a bell? While the government is inefficient, I certainly trust my retirement to the government over a financial institution that the right will not want policed.

 

[swman]

I should add that Trump really did not pinpoint this theme in his political ascendancy. He got elected mostly because he was pushing peoples' buttons about illegal immigration -- and, to a lesser extent, the negative effects of globalization.

Both GWB and Obama tried to address immigration, but they did so stupidly...and you can draw a straight line from what they tried (and failed) to do and Trump's 2016 campaign.

Have you forgotten about the positive effects of globalization? The big one is that Americans can actually afford things that they wouldn’t be able to if everything got made here. This is the nature of economics. First it was Mexico then China now other less expensive labor costs are in places like Vietnam. And the market will always search out less expensive places to manufacture because as consumers we demand it. How would you feel if Zenith was still making tv’s and instead of paying $300 for a tv you had to pay $700 or more? This is how capitalism works. It’s messy and people lose their jobs but it marches on.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

There is no morality in politics.

Most have more than Trump and that's definitely not the story i heard when adulterer Newt Gingrich was leading the charge against Clinton's scandal. The right loved to claim moral high ground.

I don't think anyone needs to be throwing stones about contradictions when their party is in a glass house.

 

[swman]

Most have more than Trump and that's definitely not the story i heard when adulterer Newt Gingrich was leading the charge against Clinton's scandal. The right loved to claim moral high ground.

I don't think anyone needs to be throwing stones about contradictions when their party is in a glass house.

That wasn’t even Newt’s worst transgression. He served divorce papers to his wife while she’s being treated for cancer. He’s a POS.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Warren Buffet said he pays less in taxes than his secretary. Somehow that seems unfair.

The problem with this is that it leaves out taxes paid on BRK's tax returns. This is only true if BRK wasn't paying taxes. The fact that most of Buffett's tax liability is paid on BRK's return doesn't mean that he isn't paying taxes.

Let me put it this way: if BRK was either an S corp or an LLC, and taxed accordingly, Warren Buffett would have one of the highest average tax rates of any filer in the country. Why? Well, because BRK's earnings would pass=through to his personal tax return via a Schedule K-1. He owns 15% of the entire company. Its pretax income was $110B.

So, if it was taxed as a pass-through, he'd have realized $16.5B in taxable income. The current tax code taxes 80% of that number: or $13.2B.

Virtually every penny of that would've been taxed at the highest marginal rate of 37%.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Have you forgotten about the positive effects of globalization?

Sir, please. If you want to cross swords with me, at least make a basic effort to understand my worldview before you do.

Just because I'm explaining my view of how Trump got elected doesn't mean that I subscribe to that philosophy.

I'm about as rock-ribbed a free-market capitalist as you're likely ever to encounter.

 

[Willdog7]

It's my country as much as it is his. Yes, I would take up arms.

 

[outside shooter]

The left is full of contradictions. FDR broke a precedent set by George Washington. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Amirite?

The passage of the 22nd Amendment, as with any Amendment, required widespread support from both parties to (ideally) prevent what FDR did from ever happening again.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

There should be no limit on what’s taxed for SS.

There's no limit on what's taxed for Medicare. In fact, there's a Medicare surtax on high incomes. And, yet, Medicare is more underwater than Social Security is.

There is zero chance we're going to be able to tax our way to affording those programs as they're presently constituted. Nobody wants to hear that, but it's the hard truth.

I’m not sure increasing the age to receive bentos a solution.

Well, hiking the retirement age is a form of benefit cut. And, because it's been done before, it's seen as the least (politically) painful way to do it.

I don't really like that solution, either. It's just making a bad deal into a worse deal.

Privatizing SS is a non starter. Just think of the inevitable corruption that would follow.

Well, I disagree strongly with this. In fact, people having their own individual accounts is a guard against corruption. Corruption has far more history when big pools of money exist. Think Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters Central States Fund (among others).

Are you aware of some kind of big corruption with TSP, or 401ks, or Defined Contribution pensions such as the one that I work with? Because I'm not.

Bernie Madoff ring a bell?

Bernie Madoff had nothing to do with retirement funds. He duped a relatively small group of major investors.

While the government is inefficient, I certainly trust my retirement to the government over a financial institution that the right will not want policed.

Yeah, the government has done a bang-up job. Their two major retirement programs are $175T underfunded. We should give them a medal for fiduciary greatness.

I can't believe you just typed that...given the ugly reality.

 

[snarlcakes]

I'm about as rock-ribbed a free-market capitalist as you're likely ever to encounter.

Someone who supports the FED and unsound money is a free market capitalist maxi? Debatable 😉😁

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Someone who supports the FED and unsound money is a maxi free market capitalist? Debatable😉

I think that cryptocurrency is an unsound investment for reasons given here a number of times. That doesn't mean I'm a proponent of unsound money.

The reason the USD is imperiled is because government spends too much money and is coming to rely more and more on monetizing that as a means of "paying" for it. And that's what is in my crosshairs.

I'd have a different opinion of cryptocurrency if it was actually utilized as a currency. But it isn't. And I have my doubts that it ever will be.

 

[hoot1]

I know this is a bizarre hypothetical, but I just talked to a very intelligent, very progressive friend now in Seattle. She insists that Trump will seriously try to stay in office after his second term and that he is already laying the groundwork for it (without a Constitutional amendment). I pushed back, but eventually said I would take up arms to prevent that, if need be. As I reflect on it, though, I'm not sure I would--maybe I would leave the country?

I don't know, but thought I'd ask the group. I'm particularly interested in seeing what our MAGA supporters' responses are. By illegitimate, I mean the Constitution doesn't change and the SCt doesn't rule that a third term is legally possible.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) did a poll following the January 6th protest. The poll results showed less than half of the GOP considered the raid on the Capitol to be violent.

Judging from this poll there might be a segment in the country which would be willing to take to arms on behalf of keeping Trump in office.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) did a poll following the January 6th protest. The poll results showed less than half of the GOP considered the raid on the Capitol to be violent.

Judging from this poll there might be a segment in the country which would be willing to take to arms on behalf of keeping Trump in office.

A segment, maybe. But I'm not terribly concerned that it would be a very large segment.

I'm not ever going to defend what happened on January 6th -- it's indefensible. But I will say that their motivation was Trump's insistence that he was rightfully the winner of the election and the victim of election fraud. How much of that translates over to "I'm entitled to a 3rd term, however that's accomplished"? I don't know.

And I hope I never have to find out.

 

[snarlcakes]

The reason the USD is imperiled is because government spends too much money and is coming to rely more and more on monetizing that as a means of "paying" for it. And that's what is in my crosshairs.

I had to rib you a little 😁 I'll add, what's happening will always happen when you don't have sound money. And it doesn't have to be Bitcoin, it can be gold.

My overall point is you don't have free market capitalism with unbacked fiat currencies and the FED. It's a centralized credit based control system. Matter of fact there are very few short periods of time in history that've we had free market capitalism. Free markets are deflationary. It's just difficult to comprehend because of the currency system we live in.

It's why I laugh when people say Bitcoin doesn't have any value. Its value is it potentially fixes one of the biggest issues that have plagued humors for 1000s of years, broken money. The main reason societies fall apart (or become unstable for time periods) are because of it, in my opinion.

 

[snarlcakes]

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) did a poll following the January 6th protest. The poll results showed less than half of the GOP considered the raid on the Capitol to be violent.

Judging from this poll there might be a segment in the country which would be willing to take to arms on behalf of keeping Trump in office.

You're extracting a lot there from an opinion poll about a singular event that involved a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the population, and said event has became a political lighting rod for the left. CNN also said the BLM riots were peaceful.

 

[sweetsilence]

The passage of the 22nd Amendment, as with any Amendment, required widespread support from both parties to (ideally) prevent what FDR did from ever happening again.

Doesnt change the fact he created the situation when he bucked a long standing precedent.

 

[sweetsilence]

You're extracting a lot there from an opinion poll about a singular event that involved a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the population, about an event that became a political lighting rod for the left. CNN also said the BLM riots were peaceful.

If they wanted to take up arms to keep Trump in office why didn't they do it on J6? The timing and social upheaval was ripe then.

As long as people have the super bowl and endless food nothing will happen but internet dick measuring, if they can still see it.

 

[iuwclurker]

Could DOGE be run properly? I have serious doubts. If it could, the people who do things properly would've done it. I think one of the reasons they have Musk doing it is that he's not nearly as subject to political pressure as virtually anybody else would be.

But, obviously, there are legitimate questions about how far any administration can go within the law and without explicit Congressional authorization.

That said, and while I will support any effort to get cost and inefficiency out of government, I think the important word in your last sentence is "some." Efficiency is always a good thing. But it was none other than Janet Yellen who estimated that Medicare and Social Security are $175 Trillion underfunded over the next 75 years. And that doesn't all hit 75 years from now, it will be a consistent, gradual degradation -- and this has already started.

If we don't get this addressed and repaired, everything else is academic.

Properly run or not, DOGE creates the possibility of a baseline understanding of the scope of our existential threats. Is Yellin’s $175T based on an actual $175T/2 waste and corruption? /3? /4?…

That’s not even considering efficiency in the sense of optimization, right-sizing, etc., to address your issue of Congressional authorization.

There’s another unspoken problem with our current trajectory and MO of an ever-expanding GDP financed by ballooning government debt. Talked about is the interest on that debt. Unspoken is the 1) finite limit to our uninflated GDP and 2) competition from other countries to ever-expand their GDP. Is there a upper limit to the growth of the uninflated world GDP or will that growth be asymptotic to 0%?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's why I laugh when people say Bitcoin doesn't have any value. Its value is it potentially fixes one of the biggest issues that have plagued humors for 1000s of years, broken money. The main reason societies fall apart (or become unstable for time periods) are because of it, in my opinion.

Well, anybody who says BTC doesn't have any value doesn't know what they're talking about.

That's not the knock against it. The knock against it is that it has no intrinsic value. Two different things. The intrinsic value of an asset is a matter of its utility. If it's an apartment complex, the intrinsic value is its innate ability to satisfy demand for housing. If it's a share of equity, its intrinsic value is the underlying firm and its ability to generate profits. If it's a bond, its intrinsic value is the credit of the issuer and their ability to pay both interest and principal.

As I said, I would have a very different opinion of cryptocurrency, but for a couple things.

First, it's not commonly utilized as an actual currency -- a medium of exchange. There are various reasons for this. But the biggest one is probably its volatility. Nobody on either side of the exchange has a fair idea how much the traded coins will be worth tomorrow, let alone in a month or more. That's a huge problem for anything being used as a medium of exchange.

Second, there is no limit to how much cryptocurrency can be created. Anybody can do it and they can offer different reasons why theirs is the best one. Some will fare better than others, fill different niches than others. But not a single one of them will have intrinsic value.

And it doesn't have to be Bitcoin, it can be gold.

Would gold have the value it does if anybody could decide whenever they wanted to create more of it?

 

[iuwclurker]

The problem with this is that it leaves out taxes paid on BRK's tax returns. This is only true if BRK wasn't paying taxes. The fact that most of Buffett's tax liability is paid on BRK's return doesn't mean that he isn't paying taxes.

Let me put it this way: if BRK was either an S corp or an LLC, and taxed accordingly, Warren Buffett would have one of the highest average tax rates of any filer in the country. Why? Well, because BRK's earnings would pass=through to his personal tax return via a Schedule K-1. He owns 15% of the entire company. Its pretax income was $110B.

So, if it was taxed as a pass-through, he'd have realized $16.5B in taxable income. The current tax code taxes 80% of that number: or $13.2B.

Virtually every penny of that would've been taxed at the highest marginal rate of 37%.

Your numbers explain the Democrats’ folly in focusing on taxing billionaires. $16.5B is is tiny fraction of the Government spending obligations.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Doesnt change the fact he created the situation when he bucked a long standing precedent.

If you thought what FDR did was wrong, then you should be for the 22nd amendment and against any attempt at Trump to get another term. It would be wrong regardless of party, correct?

 

[iuwclurker]

Well, anybody who says BTC doesn't have any value doesn't know what they're talking about.

That's not the knock against it. The knock against it is that it has no intrinsic value. Two different things. The intrinsic value of an asset is a matter of its utility. If it's an apartment complex, the intrinsic value is its innate ability to satisfy demand for housing. If it's a share of equity, its intrinsic value is the underlying firm and its ability to generate profits. If it's a bond, its intrinsic value is the credit of the issuer and their ability to pay both interest and principal.

As I said, I would have a very different opinion of cryptocurrency, but for a couple things.

First, it's not commonly utilized as an actual currency -- a medium of exchange. There are various reasons for this. But the biggest one is probably its volatility. Nobody on either side of the exchange has a fair idea how much the traded coins will be worth tomorrow, let alone in a month or more. That's a huge problem for anything being used as a medium of exchange.

Second, there is no limit to how much cryptocurrency can be created. Anybody can do it and they can offer different reasons why theirs is the best one. Some will fare better than others, fill different niches than others. But not a single one of them will have intrinsic value.



Would gold have the value it does if anybody could decide whenever they wanted to create more of it?

Don’t tell this to anyone, but I was thinking the US could create a crypto”currency” like all the others now in existence, maintain at least 51% ownership of the “coinage,” not use it as a currency like all the others,* build up its value to hundreds of trillions of dollars, cash out and pay off our national debt. Voila!


* So as to not put inflationary pressure on the USD.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Your numbers explain the Democrats’ folly in focusing on taxing billionaires. $16.5B is is tiny fraction of the Government spending obligations.

Oh, I agree. Anybody who thinks that higher taxes on rich people are going to get us out of this pickle needs to examine all the relevant data more than they have. And beyond that, a lot of people believe that can be done without any cost to the rest of us -- because they discount the role that capital plays in keeping the economic engine purring.

I'm resigned to the likelihood that taxes are going to be higher for most of us in the coming few decades than they have been in the past few decades. But the fact remains that we've pretty much always generated federal tax revenues between 15-17% of GDP -- and have eclipsed 18% only 10 times (most recently in 2022), usually during periods of extraordinary growth. But spending has grown to 23% of GDP and is slated to rise to 24% in the near future. And this just isn't sustainable.

 

[HurryingHoosiers]

Your numbers explain the Democrats’ folly in focusing on taxing billionaires. $16.5B is is tiny fraction of the Government spending obligations.

It's folly to focus solely on spending cuts or solely on taxing the wealthy.

You cut spending and then give tax breaks to the wealthy, the deficit is still going up. Just readjusting the equations to help the rich rather than the poor.

Anyone truly wanting to attack the deficit needs to focus on cutting spending and increasing revenue.

 

[iuwclurker]

It's folly to focus solely on spending cuts or solely on taxing the wealthy.

You cut spending and then give tax breaks to the wealthy, the deficit is still going up. Just readjusting the equations to help the rich rather than the poor.

Anyone truly wanting to attack the deficit needs to focus on cutting spending and increasing revenue.

…and minimizing waste, fraud, corruption, redundancies, inefficiencies, and the like.

Agree!

 

[sweetsilence]

If you thought what FDR did was wrong, then you should be for the 22nd amendment and against any attempt at Trump to get another term. It would be wrong regardless of party, correct?

I am for the 22nd. I've not and don't agree with this 3rd term talk and think it should go further. Nobody who has been elected president should be eligible to be VP.

 

[iuwclurker]

Unlax. Ego Man is just attracting as much attention as he can, while diverting attention from the crashing stock market and other bad indicators of his tariffic policies.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's folly to focus solely on spending cuts or solely on taxing the wealthy.

You cut spending and then give tax breaks to the wealthy, the deficit is still going up. Just readjusting the equations to help the rich rather than the poor.

Anyone truly wanting to attack the deficit needs to focus on cutting spending and increasing revenue.

A lot of people are under the impression that we had sufficient tax revenues -- until Reagan, GWB, and Trump came along and killed them. And it simply isn't the case.

I can go get all the year-by-year data again if you want. But the basic takeaway is that tax revenues as %GDP were roughly the same in the 50s during the 91% top-rate era as they were after JFK's tax reform brought the top rate down to 70% as they were in the 80s after Reagan's two tax reforms, and so on until today.

There was a 4 year period where we had extraordinary tax revenue. Each year eclipsed 18% and one of them even eclipsed 19%. It was during the dot-com boom. The most recent year of 18% revenues was 2022 -- which was while Biden was POTUS, but were under the TCJA tax regime. However, I hesitate to look at Covid era economic numbers as instructive. That was an unprecedented period in economic history.

The reality is, whatever our tax policy has looked like, we have always gotten somewhere between 15-17% of GDP in federal tax revenues.

 

[snarlcakes]

Don’t tell this to anyone, but I was thinking the US could create a crypto”currency” like all the others now in existence, maintain at least 51% ownership of the “coinage,” not use it as a currency like all the others,* build up its value to hundreds of trillions of dollars, cash out and pay off our national debt. Voila!


* So as to not put inflationary pressure on the USD.

The U.S. already has a shit coin, it's called the dollar.

 

[swman]

Oh, I agree. Anybody who thinks that higher taxes on rich people are going to get us out of this pickle needs to examine all the relevant data more than they have. And beyond that, a lot of people believe that can be done without any cost to the rest of us -- because they discount the role that capital plays in keeping the economic engine purring.

I'm resigned to the likelihood that taxes are going to be higher for most of us in the coming few decades than they have been in the past few decades. But the fact remains that we've pretty much always generated federal tax revenues between 15-17% of GDP -- and have eclipsed 18% only 10 times (most recently in 2022), usually during periods of extraordinary growth. But spending has grown to 23% of GDP and is slated to rise to 24% in the near future. And this just isn't sustainable.

I never said that getting tax cheats to pay their fair share would fix anything. I’m just tired of paying my share while they avoid paying taxes. My uncle was very wealthy and was a very successful business owner. He told me he kept 2 sets of books. One for the IRS and the real one. Also, had offshore accounts that Uncle Sam didn’t know about.
Firing all kinds of people will not fix anything either. Entitlements need to be addressed. There will have to be compromise from all politicians.
Isn’t it ironic that the guy firing everyone he can in the government is the richest man in the world and is one of the biggest beneficiaries of our government’s largess in the form of government contracts. He also had his bros access the department where the records of government contractors is kept. Now he can see his competitors bids for government business. No matter what you think politically, they are putting hard working Americans out on the street with no concern for their situation and families. No poor performance, just f you and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[DANC]

Had Hitler moved east and toppled the soviets, and the U.S. never had to spend all the blood and treasure on restoring Europe or fighting the Cold War.

Perhaps things are better today.

Hitler’s Germany was pretty evil in my view. So was the USSR.

Maybe we bet on the wrong horse.

I doubt Israel agrees.

 

[DANC]

I have gotten multiple emails from European and Asian scientists that I have worked with in the past, asking if I am ready or willing to relocate.

Please leave your forwarding address

 

[DANC]

Could DOGE be run properly? I have serious doubts. If it could, the people who do things properly would've done it. I think one of the reasons they have Musk doing it is that he's not nearly as subject to political pressure as virtually anybody else would be.

But, obviously, there are legitimate questions about how far any administration can go within the law and without explicit Congressional authorization.

That said, and while I will support any effort to get cost and inefficiency out of government, I think the important word in your last sentence is "some." Efficiency is always a good thing. But it was none other than Janet Yellen who estimated that Medicare and Social Security are $175 Trillion underfunded over the next 75 years. And that doesn't all hit 75 years from now, it will be a consistent, gradual degradation -- and this has already started.

If we don't get this addressed and repaired, everything else is academic.

Maybe you should give DOGE more than 2 1/2 months to do its thing.

This hysteria of DOGE from normally sane people is puzzling. Have you even read their website? Do you believe all the people who are personally affected - i.e. cutting off their governement tax dollars?

Geezus, the federal government has been in this situation for decades. It's going to take more than a few months to fix it.

 

[hookyIU1990]

Please leave your forwarding address

He should make sure there's a McDonalds near wherever it is that he goes.