Clinton vs. Who?
 

Even with all the baggage she carries, we all know it is almost a certainty that Mrs. Clinton will be the Democratic candidate.

Now there are 15 GOP candidates. Let's have some serious discussion on who would be electable over Hillary. It will have to be someone who can get a lot of the youth vote, a good percentage of the black and other minority vote, and almost all the women votes.

Walker is out, Cruz is out, Rubio?, Bush with the Bush name baggage?, Santourom- not for women. Trump - not electable.

I say Bush has the best chance.

I sure there will be more democraps crawl out from under rocks to challenge toxic Hillary for the nomination. I sure there ringer in the making some where.

It might a surprise to some that Carly Fiorina is playing well with young voters.
Politics is a strange animal and highly susceptible to even the most benign news.

Other Democratic candidates are running because the DNC doesn't want to put all their eggs in one basket.

While it is inconceivable for me to believe that people would vote for Clinton because she has done little to qualify and much damage while Secretary and we haven't even gotten to talk about her moral character. Haven't said that thee are simply too many lazy voters who cannot get beyond name recognition

Bush seems to be the favorite on the Republican side but in my mind he is too much a moderate. He could get a lot of the Hispanic vote.

Still too early in my mind to call a leading candidate


Personal Best Regards:

A barftroll makes his appearance.

I still do not understand why so many democrats so readily pronounce that Clinton is "most likely" their candidate.

Forget party, how can she be an acceptable let alone most likely candidate given all the issues including poor performance as secretary of state.

It certainly cannot be she is viewed as the only candidate that can carry the "young" vote...because she isn't. Or that she is the only candidate that can carry the female vote....because she is not.

So why do the democrats, at least at this point, so readily accept a person of tarnished character, that did a very poor job of secretary of state and whose honesty is openly suspect.

I object to requests asking to comparisons of republican candidates who can beat the spoiled merchandise of the democratic choosing....for now.

Try and remember she was the fair haired candidate in 2008 and was beat out by a relatively unknown, inexperienced and unqualified dark horse!

Nice job of deflecting the question but let's get back to the question.

Which of the 15 GOP candidates has the very best chance of winning over Mrs. Clinton?

I believe the poster was suggesting that ANY or ALL can beat her, and not deflecting at all.

Mathmatically no GOP candidate that suggests making the tough decisions that have to be made can win. The country is well beyond that tipping point. Can Bush out promise Hilary is the only relevant question. Remember what wins elections in the USA now and it is not "What can I do for my country".

Even though I am a registered Democrat, I vote the person, not the party. I only vote for Governors who have been successful at turning their state around to the positive side. That rules out Hillary for me. Unless we get a Democratic Governor to run, I will vote Republican next time.

I believe the poster was asking the more relevant question - why are the democrats so willing to put blinders on to accept only one candidate....and so soon in the process? It seems many of us on the other side of the aisle are willing to wait out the process, keep our eyes and ears open, and educate ourselves before making such an important decision. The Clinton supporters make this out to be some kind of child's game where the only purpose is to win at any cost. When so much in our country, and in the world for that matter, is at stake, I don't care to look at it as a game. It's not about winning or losing, it's about making an intelligent decision based on the facts gathered before casting one's vote.

I appreciate your reply and I should have referred in my previous post not "why are the democrats so willing to put blinders on...." but "why are liberals.....". I apologize for that. As a Republican, I agree with your thinking about voting the person, not the party. I know many Democrats who feel as you do. I hope for the sake of your party and the country, that one of the Democratic governors as you describe does step out. Those in your party deserve a better choice of candidates. Heck, I might even take a look at a candidate like that! Actually, that is what I have been trying to say all along - wouldn't it be great to have 2 upstanding, proven leaders with integrity from which to choose - one from each party? With the moral degeneration of politics as a whole over the last few decades, it almost seems too much to ask.

O I'm sorry did I offend the blind indoctrinated liberal sheep. Baa :eclipsee_gold_cup:

Can you name one democrat governor that actually turned a state around?

Maybe just maybe, Democrat governors didn't have to turn their states around like Republican governors did. What does turning your state mean cutting every program that help the poor, and lower middle class?

I am an independent. However, the Republicans have gone so far to the right that a moderate can't even consider voting for them. How can that be good for the Republican party?

I am not fond of Hillary. If a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid funds under the Affordable Care Act gets the nomination, I will vote for him. You know that governor has the best interest of his citizens in mind; rather than what his party thinks.

You want to talk about lazy people try people that only listen to Fox News. Those people aren't looking for both sides of an argument. They are looking for what passes for news that confirms their warped view of the government as it exists today. Someone is going to have to turn this road to nowhere around. That means talking to the other party. You know the good old days of Reagan, and O'Neil.

You lost me, and I am sure others, when you mention Fox news. THAT is a dead giveaway as to how you work. You have seriously been indoctrinated and are unable to discuss facts because as all of those who seem to mention that, you have no idea of what is happening and have been told that going after a network is how to do it. No network changes the news...it is not hidden. Using a network to make your point is a bit desperate and obvious.

Not a defense of Fox by any means but what ever you think a news network has to do with ANYTHING is beyond me.

Secondly, if you have children or grandchildren, I suggest you do some investigation on where the Affordable Care Act is going to take our states and the federal budget in the future....I am sure you are aware it has not all kicked in as of yet.

Too late to repeal but it needs some serious work to save future disaster.

If you do not have children or grandchildren and do not care, sorry.

It has been said, and proven and not on Fox news, that the Democratic party is going so far left and then accusing the Republicans of going right. YES..the distance between them is greater but only one party is moving.

I suggest strongly that you read about your candidates..the two major ones and their radical backgrounds and their sharp turn left. Might help you a bit.

Sanders is so very very far left, he does not even call himself a democrat because they are not liberal enough and as far left as Clinton WAS, she is running left after him. You need to change those glasses

I'm indoctrinated. Now, that is funny. The only news program that I watch is Morning Joe. Joe Scarborough certainly is a flaming liberal. When Mika Brzezinski opens her mouth, I hit the mute button. She has nothing to offer.

You are obviously a Fox News fanatic. Viewers don't have to defend the "fair and balanced" network, because they don't watch anything else. They are all living in a bubble. They take everything they say as gospel. It would be like criticizing the Vatican. You go straight to hell.

The Five is a perfect example of what Fox thinks "fair and balanced" is. Four Republicans and one Democrat. I guess dividing by two is a problem too hard to solve.

You have no idea what Fox News has to do with anything. Republicans are going there to reinforce their own beliefs. They are not going there for news. Criticize, condemn, and complain is all that they do. They all work off the same script, and use the same buzz words. They are preprogramed before they go on the air. That is not news. You want to see how bad they are look up "Fox News hypocrisy" on the internet. We know that is not going to happen.

The Republicans haven't moved further to the right. What world have you been in since the birth of the Tea Party? The Republicans have moved so far to the right that they are off the grid. Joe Scarborough is a conservative Republican, and he is being called a RINO. Please give the Republican nomination to Ted Cruz. Bozo, the clown, could beat him.

Peoples beliefs never change over time. Then, how do you explain gay marriage? What she did in college has little to nothing to do what she thinks now. She is running on her husband's name. Rule one in politics, do anything or say anything to get elected. Then run for reelection on your record. How could any woman stay with her husband after being publically embarrassed as she was? She needs his name.

You want to fix health care, then go to single payer. Socialism! It costs the government 4 cents to process a claim and 24 cents for the insurance companies. These numbers may have changed recently. Who cares what you call it? You can reduce cost of insurance by 20% by going single payer. Who the hell are you kidding to think competition by insurance companies will reduce costs? All you are doing guaranteeing price fixing.

What about Ben Carson? Definitely a smart man and very talented doctor.

How would he do as President?

I am indoctrinated. That's too funny. The only National news program I watch is Morning Joe. Joe Scarborough is a conservative Republican, or so he thinks. When Mika Brzezinski opens her mouth, I hit the mute button. She is a flaming liberal that only wants to talk about women's issues.

The statement that a find truly unbelievable is only one party has moved, and it's the Democratic party. Where have you been since the Tea Party has sprung into existence? They have pushed the Republicans so far to the right that they are off the grid. They call Scarborough, a conservative from the Florida Panhandle, a RINO. The Tea Party is a new animal. It is one that eats it's own. If the Republican haven't moved far right, please explain Eric Cantor losing his seat. Why are all the Republican elected officials catering to the Tea Party? Answer is, because they vote.

The Fox National News organization is a problem. Whether you want to hear it or not. Republicans aren't going there for news. They are going there to confirm their own beliefs. Not all Republican fall into this category, but the majority certainly live the Fox News bubble.

"Fair and Balanced!" The Five is a perfect example of fair and balanced. It is four Republicans and one Democrat. I guess dividing by two is a math problem that is too hard to solve for the bleached blond network. You want to see hypocrisy at its finest goggle FOX News Hypocrisy. You wouldn't like what you see, that is if you have an open mind.

Concerning the ACA, Republicans are saying it's a disaster right now, and not twenty years from now, but they never back it up with facts. You want to fix health care then go single payer. Socialism! There will be no competition between insurance companies. They will fix the rates. It costs the government four cents to process a claim, and insurance companies twenty four cents. The more mistakes they make; the more money they make (cost plus). Sometimes sanity should replace Capitalism.

Bernie Sanders is pulling a George McGovern. You go to places you know will bring a big crowd. It will give the appearance that you have a real chance to become president. McGovern keep coming back to Mass. every time he wanted to feel good about his chances. He always drew a crowd of 50,000 to 100,000. Surprise! Surprise! Mass. is the only state that he won.

The first rule in politics is say anything or do anything to get elected. Then, run for reelection on your record. The only reason Hillary stayed with Clinton was the name Clinton. Her political future was more important to her than the national embracement she had to endure due to Bill's idea of a coffee break.

Your liberal democrat, don't try to hide behind indenpendent. You are indoctrinated by abc, cbs, nbc, public school, and probably college indoctrinated also. you will not and can not think on your own. Keep drinking the koolaid. Your stupid comment about governors show your liberal intent.

Dear Guest: I continue to hear the combination of Fox News and indoctrination in the same sentence which the speaker(you in this case) utilizes to denigrate both Fox News and its viewer. This appears to me to be a straw man argument. It also assumes that the Fox viewer is incapable of free thinking. If you watched Fox News you would have noted that it contains some of the best journalist around, some of whom work for the Wall Street Journal.. You would also note spirited debate between these various journalist, their guests etc.

While I dislike Bill O'Reilly's self importance demeanor one must admit he spares no democrat or republican embarassment. His points are often spot on. Megan Kelly's legal background makes her an excellent investigative journalist who is not afraid to ask the tough questions. Also excellent journalist Bret Hume and Bret Baer and let us not for the very liberal Mike Wallace's son. The Five represents both progressive and conservative views.

Could it be that Fox News is the most watched because it offers viewers a fair and balanced accounting of Washington, et al. Can it be that Fox viewers are looking for objective assessments? Does agreement connote only indoctrination or does agreement signify that what Fox reports viewers view as having the ring of truth?

Why is it, do you suppose that viewers are shunning CNN MSNBC, NBC , CBS ABC ? Why is it these stations spend more time discussing celebrities then covering Washington scandals and yet will spend days upon days beating up on conservatives?

I agree that in the field of journalism bias leaks through but we also know that the news media has always had a very liberal bent and up until Fox News came on the scene could get away with it without notice. Its why Obama the most powerful man in the world breaks presidential protocol and stoops so low as to strike out at Fox. Its like the head of a corporation picking on a file clerk in his corporation

The topic at hand is who against Clinton. I believe it is still too early to tell.

I was sent a long quiz and your answers and the weight of those answers told you who your likely choice would be. In my case 96% of my answers tracked with Marco Rubio and then the survey went down the line. The candidate not on my survey was Jeb Bush. Having said that my final decision will occur when I enter the poling booth because I want to ensure to myself that I am making my very best choice because this is a pivotal point for our nation

Personal Best Regards:

Is that Joe Biden coming into view in the rear view mirror.

More qualified than Clinton without a doubt......he has more time in the WH as an executive.....VS clinton's stint as ist lady.

His gaffes are far more acceptable than questionable ethics and dishonesty.

Is Joe the 2016 dark horse? Certainly imminently more qualified than the 2008 dark horse.

He is by far......WAY, WAY by far the more human, likeable person than Clinton or Obama.

Do I hear Run-Joe-Run chanting in the back ground?

It remains so funny that the Regressives are so scared of a candidacy of Hillary that they are trying to stir up 2008, Biden, and Sanders.

The Regressives KNOW that with Hillary running, ANY REGRESSIVE candidate would be blown out of the water and it WILL be another Democratic win for president.

Demographics, people, demographics! The Democratics have the demographics to win and Hamster Hair is guaranteeing that!

I am intrigued by your continued certainty of a Clinton win. The reason being is that I have yet to find one person either Republican or Democrat that is willing to vote for her. In my family, work circle, friends, etc, I hang with some pretty mixed company, politically, and I am just not seeing what you're putting down here. Now, not to say that a Democrat will not win - I'm just not seeing the enthusiasm for Hillary. In fact, I'm seeing genuine dislike for her as a person - black, white, female, male, young and old - this is not a homogeneous group here.

Just cut the party talking points BS and for once just answer the question.
Is it not obvious that Joe Biden is the better candidate no matter how you slice it. And the woman female argument does not fly because women will stand by an ethical-honest man long before they do a questionable character and doubtful ethics women.

Let's see you drop the script and answer the question.

No it is not obvious that Joe Biden is the better candidate as demonstrated by ALL the polling data. Everybody loves Joe, and he should be VP for life, but women have been waiting 239 years to have a female president and won't wait any longer.

Some are forgetting that Hillary Clinton got 18 million votes in the 2008 primary and came in a very close second to Barack Obama, who won two elections with over 50% of the popular vote. Something no one has done since Ike.

Women rallied behind Obama and put him over the top when he defeated Clinton in 2008 and have been waiting patiently for eight years. Worry more about your front runner, Donald Trump, and who he will pi$$ off next.

These posts get more humorous by the day.

Thought about these posters this week when our military was speaking and saying how Russia was the greatest threat to the USA, and recalling how Romney was mocked on this forum as "stuck in the fifties" and actually made fun of him on here.

It seems to be typical of some, and they overrun the logical sane liberal posters, to call people names and instead of worrying about issues, they worry about votes. They have the right to post like this, but sometimes we need to remind them just how WRONG they can be. It happens when vitrol overtakes any sanity.

I am laughing at you. I need to change my glass. You need to post standing up. God, in his infinite wisdom, put a button on the seat of some people pants. When they sit down, their brain shuts off. We need to know, if people are posting with a fully functional brain.

Proven that the Republican haven't moved to the right, but stayed moderate/conservative. What the hell was this moron looking at? How many moderate/conservative have lost their seats to the Tea Party? Start with Eric Cantor. Boehner won't even put bills on the floor, if they don't have Tea Party support.

The Republican candidates are all saying Obamacare is a disaster right now, and not twenty years from now. None have put anything forward, or said what parts of the law are a disaster. You think that health insurance companies are going to lose 7 million customers and not raise prices through the roof?

I only watch Morning Joe. You know Joe Scarborough, who is being called a RINO, but the Republicans haven't moved to the right. Hell no. It been proven. You get both sides of an argument.

I certainly was college indoctrinated. Bentley College of Accounting and Finance is the birth place of the far left movement toward socialism.

My comments above governors was stupid, but I haven't seen where you mentioned one as being in need of help.

A LOT has changed since 2008 - I think you may find this to be true at election time in 2016.

You did not answer the question.

Yes Joe Biden is the obvious better, more qualified, more ethical, more liked candidate fot POTUS.

What you stated was that the women of the USA, their first priority is to get a woman into the WH and it does not matter to the women of America whther she is ethical or honest.

You are demeaning all the democratic women of the USA when you state they will back her no matter what she has and has not done and is not the better candidate.

Really? You are drinking way too much kool aide along with your own bath water.

The polls are BS and the ones that tell you what you want to hear are the worst. They were designed to come out that way.

I will help you out. Joe Biden no matter what anybody dislikes about him is a far superior candidate that Clinton. That is the answer to the question asked.

To berate the women of America and state the polls said so is just too funny for words.

Pretty sad state of affairs for you and any others that will take a liar and a cheat and a dishonest character with ethics of question....JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN!!!!!!!!

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:
:a20::a20::a20:

The subject of the thread has not even been broached yet. It was WHO in the REGRESSIVES will be her opponent.

It will not be Trump the Chump, will it?

Certainly not Ben or Carly.

Santorum is a guaranteed loser. Perry is a guaranteed loser. Walker is too conservative. Bush is the only possible candidate.

Any other ideas?

Now to the sane Fox News defender. Some of their reporters work for The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal is a Republican leaning newspaper.. There is no surprise there. If they work for the New York Times, or Washington Post, now you have something to point to. You know that these reporters have to look at both sides of an argument. They would also have to get their articles by the editors at these two newspapers.

B. Hume and B. Baer are two excellent reporters. The Five has both progressive, and conservative views. They do, but not in equal proportion. There are four Republicans, and one Democrat. Apparently dividing by two is a problem to hard for Fox News to solve. How is 80%, 20% fair or balanced? The Democrat is constantly being constantly being shouted down from several sides at once. How is that fair or balanced? Does the Democrat get to chose what is being discussed 50% of the time? Probably not. Again how is that fair or balanced? The Five is hardly the gold standard for fair and balanced reporting.

What is the age breakdown of Fox News viewers. Aren't most of them over 50 ears old. Concerning the other stations, maybe the younger viewers are just plain fed up with what is going on in Washington, and not watching the news at all. Who could blame them? Ed Shultz, and Al Sharpton (bigot of all bigots) should not be on the air. If MSNBC is losing viewers because of these two, that makes complete sense.

Who determines what a scandal is? Benghazi is a good example. How many congressional hearing have there been on Benghazi, five? These hearings are no longer about the families of the slain Americans. They are a political attack on Hillary Clinton. How many hearing were there on the Iraq war? Four thousand Americans lost their lives there. What about their families?

President Obama is being attacked on a daily basis by more than a few Fox News reporters. Why not swing back.? What is he, Jesus Christ, so he has to turn the other cheek? They have called him every name in the book, socialist, community organizer (like that is something bad), Kenyan, liar, liar, liar, racist, communist, and dictator wannabe. He probably isn't let Afro grow out, because a crown doesn't look good on an Afro.

In your praise I noticed that you didn't mention the two male reporters on Fox and friends. The president referred to these two as potted plants. That shoe really fits. these two always have a dumbfounded look on their faces.

If you really want to see the fair and balanced news station at its finest goggle "Fox News Hypocrisy".

Joe Biden had his chance in 2008 and couldn't break out of the pack. He finished way behind even John Edwards.

The 2016 election will be all about policies. Please list all the policies that the GOP supports that benefit women. Is it the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, the right to birth control, increasing the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, violence against women act, freedom to marry whomever they love?

Listen to Hillary Clinton's speech tomorrow on the economy and maybe learn something.

We will have to wait until election night to find out. If Hillary loses, I will bring the champagne to tea party headquarters and we can have a real hullabaloo, celebrating Trump's or Bush's or Walker's or whoever's win.

I hope it's a better party than the ones in 2008 and 2012 when the gang of six showed up to celebrate only to go home in tears.

I have observed on here that it seems the liberal posters take great delight in avoiding issues and ALWAYS have little slick mocking names for anyone in the Republican Party. Most times based on looks or some such thing.

I offer to the conservatives that henceforth Hillary Clinton be called one of the following...

The old lying frump

Big Hill

The Split Tongue Devil


your choice

Certainly should I post on TOTV, will never give her any respect. It just seems fair to do it that way.

Also noticed that the Liberal posters take great delight in making fun of other posters. Perhaps those that post from the other side might take the same tact and instead of being serious about anything, make it your objective to make as much fun of these people as possible.

After all, as they always tell everyone on here, they are the only ones that know anything, thus you cannot certainly hurt their feelings as you would a normal person.

[QUOTE=Guest;1085976]

The 2016 election will be all about policies. Please list all the policies that the GOP supports that benefit women. Is it the right to choose what they do with their own bodies, the right to birth control, increasing the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, violence against women act, freedom to marry whomever they love?
-------

Very easy to list all the AOWMIC (Angry Old White Men In Congress) policies that support women. There aren't any!!!

Let women have complete rights to their own bodies!

Dear Guest: Democrats have an obsession with historical first's. It seems that it has been lost on them that the focus of the first black president neglected to consider qualifications. There is not one area of government that Obama has touched that is now reeling from his incompetence.

Now Democrats want another historic event by electing the first woman president but again we find their selection short on bona fides and long on irresponsibility, accountability. questionable ethical practices. A Carly Fiorina can run circles around Clinton. Please if you insist on a woman president fin one that can effectively do the job because Obama has created a widow maker for the next elected president

Personal Best Regards:

[quote=Guest;1086002]Dear Guest: What you speak to is the same straw man Oops better replace it with same straw woman argument.

The wage argument is such a false narrative. How do I know because I had been involved for many years in a number of states and working with various companies in these communities who shared information to determine market value. I established job description pay grades performance evaluation programs and monitored them. I worked as an operation manager and the women and men's salaries were determined by performance and annual review did not reveal any such discrimination. by the way I am a white male and I happen to believe in equal treatment and I seldom get angry

You speak of control over your bodies and as I recall roe v Wade has been around for a very long time. I also notice that America is suffering a dangerously low responsible replacement population because of low birth rates.

I will admit that I believe in life over choice but then I can only speak to my personal belief.

You speak of violence against women and I wonder why reality shows draw such a large female audience?

Most of all your argument is weak because it has nothing really to do with deciding on the best presidential candidate. In other words I view the economy, foreign policy, our defense, future sources of energy, etc to be priorities and I also believe that social issues you obsess on should be dealt at the state level


Personal Best Regards:

[quote=Guest;1086043]
Hillary Clinton will be giving the first of many speeches on the economy tomorrow, laying out her vision for the path forward. Sorry, will get back to you with the time of speech.

[quote=Guest;1086002]OK.....OK....OHKAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have us convinced there is one plank in the Clinton platform. She is a female.
So post after post after post like the one above the priority is to get a female.....no other traits or characteristics or capabilities not required or matter.
Post after post verifies that Clinton's negative ethics, honesty and peronal issues are of no concern.

We get it.....Clinton....female....OK.

Does this mean there are no real female candidates with honor and integrity and personality in the democratic camp.

We all know that there has to be.

Why is it OK to have a flawed unethical, dishonest shrew-ish female to represent the gender?

For many of us it just does seem right to compromise principals and character to accomplish a goal.

And oh by the way some of us are also weary hearing that the only candidate that understands and adequately serve women is a woman. We all know that is not true as well.

Can you honestly say that Clinton is the best you can do to represent your party and or your gender?

I'll save you the keystrokes....we ALL know she is not. Under normal circumstances with no name on the resume' or track record her resume' would not make the first cut!

Take a look at what a black has done in almost 8 years for the blacks. Ask them if they are any better off.

Ya just gotta have more than race or gender for qualifiers.

Dear Guest: If you read the Wall Street Journal and I have since 1978 you would find that their focus is on anything that affect the economy. In plain English I have seen them take both Democrats and Republicans to task . But I am not here to defend the WSJ. As to the Washington Post and the New York Times as I recollect they have had more than their fair share of journalist who have been proven to falsify their stories

If you were also honest with yourself you would have acknowledged that Obama is such a egotistical personality that unless you agree with him your on his enemies list. But what is lost on you is that the reason he strike back is because they keep catching him with his hands in the cookie jar.

You make reference to the age of Fox viewers and that begs the question do you have an age bias? And haven't you heard from enough alternative sources that many young people have been so disengaged that they have no idea how our government operates who runs our government etc etc etc

If you pay attention to The Five format you would recognize that liberal panel members get to participate in the planning of each day's format.

You reference what and who defines a scandal and claim for instance that Benghazi is just being politicized by the Republicans. But with every Obama Admin scandal the same approach is undertaken deny stall demonize make light of it. Obama Team are artful dodgers but the real credit goes to the liberal media who justify the means and let Obama 's Teams malfeasance go uncheck. There is a ring of truth to the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Clinton Charitable Foundation and Clintons intentionally destroying e-mails from her personal server to hide embarrassing and damaging facts about her Benghazi and her Foundation and the news media and people like you are complicit . Why does Obama & company continue to block such investigation if they have nothing to hide? Doesn't Occam Razor suggest that the simplest explanation is the most likely?

The non sequitur statements about Fox News again is a straw man/woman argument because Fox News is the only news outlet that has said out loud the emperor has no clothes

Personal Best Regards: