Ha ha!

Okay, Putin's on the far right (I think), Trump's in the middle, and who's that on the far left? Mike Pence? (No, really, I don't know.)

Still kinda funny though (in a sad way).

Oops, sorry, I was able to watch it. Now that was comical! Funnier than the still. Indeed, it was Mike Pence, among other world dictators or wannabes ;)

Sorry, that's sacrilege. What a horrible amateurish parody and an insult to Rue McClanahan, Estelle Getty, Betty White, and Bea Arthur.

I have to second Phoebe (first time for everything).

@3 @4 No, no, absolutely not. Golden Girls is immortal. You've got it completely backwards. This was not a parody of them. This was a parody of Donald John Trump and his fake macho bullshit and all-too-real dictator-envy. As Dan says, "Genius!"

@3 i was sorta feeling the same way. i get the intent, but... since when would it be an insult to be compared to the television show that raised a generation of people with absentee parents?

@5 if it's a critique of the posturing that these individuals go through in order to keep the amusement and distraction of their audience, wouldn't it have been better to do the same thing to an episode of dancing with the stars? or the bachelor? or even just any scene in a gangbang video?

@7 I understand what you're saying. But, don't you think being accused of giddy sisterhood is one of the most infuriating things you could do to The Donald and his macho fans? (Remember, we're talking strictly about the opening title sequence of Golden Girls, not the drama, insight, or heartwarming humor of the show itself.)

My only problem is deciding whether Donald is closer to Rue's somewhat dissipated and calculating character or Betty's consistently dopey one.

Dan is officially turning in to every other parent on Facebook

@9:

If that's your only standard for deciding whether or not to even vote, then yeah, probably best you just stay out of the process altogether and let the adults make the difficult decisions.

BTW, people will still die, regardless of your actions (or inaction); that is, regrettably, a inescapable fact of the turbulent and fractious world in which we live. You can place all the blame for that on the shoulders of the President of the United States if you like, but there are plenty of other government leaders, military commanders, despots, religious fanatics, and just-plain maniacs around who will keep the body counts rising, even if we didn't drop a single bomb or fire a single missile for the next four years. But then, there's also the very strong possibility that our presence in areas of conflict may actually prevent more loss of life than would occur otherwise if we were simply to step aside and allow internecine conflict to continue unabated, but it's hard to say. I guess we could just withdraw completely from the rest of the world, isolate ourselves behind mile-high walls encompassing our borders, and hope for the best. But, history has shown that won't stop people elsewhere from killing each other, either. We just wouldn't have to get our own hands bloody, which I guess is the way you'd prefer it.

So, yeah, good luck with that...

@12. You ok then for the blood of Black or Latino or Muslim Americans to be shed? And you don't see a international crisis would be more likely with thin skinned trump. The guy will take a slight from a foreign leader and off he'll go, not just with tweets though.

Until the fuck the vote moron stepped in, this was a pretty interesting conversation. Half the people (presumably female) think it's terribly insulting to female icons to be compared to trump et al, while the other half are like hey, yes, it's quite hilariously insulting to be called an older female!

If I didn't make my opinions clear: you don't want to bloody your hands? Then freaking end it because even if you're an off-the-grid vegan, you're killing off other species by ruining their habitat. Merely by using the electricity to read and post here, you're screwing over people in Bangladesh whose homes are rapidly disappearing under the rising sea.

@12:

What, you seriously think Clinton will be the one to start WW-III? Not Trump? Not some rabid jihadist in the Middle East who gets their hands on a dirty bomb? Not that crazy North Korean dictator who threatens the West with nuclear annihilation every time a passenger plane comes within 200 miles of his borders? Or how about the not-that-much-less-crazy Russian oligarch who seems content to only bomb his neighbors, plus half the nation of Syria, back to the stone age?

Like I said, best you just leave the difficult decision-making to adults who understand nothing in this world is perfect, but will work to at least try to improve things, instead of shoving our heads deeply into the sand (or some equally dark place) and pretending our inaction has no consequences. Sorry to disabuse you of your fantasy, but you DO carry some responsibility for whatever happens, both good or bad, by simple virtue of the fact that you live in this country. And there's no escaping that, unless you actually pick up stakes and move out.

As the song says: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

@12 As long as you're an American and participating in our economy in any way, you are tacitly supporting the largest war machine and the largest incarceration machine on the planet. You're either paying taxes or part of the cashflow for someone else who is. Your hands will be forever "drenched in blood," if you want to get dramatic. The question is always, whose blood, why, and to what end? I'm pretty sure that with Hillary, we're looking at the same old policies, but with possible incremental improvements. But I'm certain that with Donald, we're looking at curtailment of civil rights, a rise of a police state, a new war every time he thinks his popularity is lagging, and the lunatics in charge of the asylum.

Personally, I'm going for whatever incremental improvements Hillary might possibly bring, because that's the only positive choice on the very limited menu before us. Rainbows and magic unicorns will have to come another day.

Oh dear. I think it's pretty clear that we don't, dearheart...

@13, @16, I think @18's point is justifiable if your morality does not allow you to endorse any sort of deliberate government violence (say if you were a Quaker or some such).

Voting for Trump endorses violence because duh.

But Democrats don't exactly have clean hands here either. Take a look at what the Saudis are doing in Yemen right now with or active (and not-Congressionally sanctioned) support. Massive deliberate targeting of non-combatant civilians. Deliberate destruction of health care infrastructure. Mass starvation. And President Obama is backing the Saudis pretty strongly.

Now, you could make the argument that Obama needs to do this in order to keep the Saudis in line for the sake of the Iran nuclear deal, which is the greater good. But that's cold comfort to anyone trying to survive in Yemen,

There's nothing to really indicate that Clinton would act any differently from Obama. My impression is, if anything, she'd be less restrained.

So if violence really is your A-#1 issue, the two third parties really seem your best bet. Either the libertarians and their Swiss-style "Armed Neutrality" model or the Greens with unilateral disarmament model.

A wasted vote then Corydon. And he/she/they have already said they hope trump will win.
A trump stooge I'd say, trying to pretty up the words with fairy dust, thinking it might sway some of Dan's readers. As if.

@22 you're so full of shit your eyes have turned brown.