Being President is tough.
Up early each morning. Sleepless nights worrying about far flung crises and domestic troubles alike.
It’s no secret that being President takes a toll on the body- and seems to age the office holder in a big way.
Well, the folks at Sachs Media Group decided to see what the 2016 presidential candidates would look like after 8 years in the White House, and the results aren’t pretty.
“The presidency takes a heavy toll on those who hold the nation’s highest office, often aging them beyond the actual years in office,” a statement on the Sachs Media site said. “Sachs Media Group commissioned photo restoration and manipulation firm Phojoe to envision how current candidates might look at the end of a hypothetical two-term presidency in January 2025.”
Each looks like a version of the cryptkeeper in some form or fashion.
Let’s take a look at the damage:
Remind us why anyone wants this job again?
Like this piece? Rise News just launched a few weeks ago and is only getting started. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up to date with global news. Have a news tip? Send it to us- email@example.com. (We can keep your identity hidden.)
All Photo Credits: Sachs Media Group
What Do You Think?
About the AuthorRich Robinson is the CEO and publisher of Rise News. He is also a journalist and a native of Miami. Robinson graduated from the University of Alabama and can be followed on Twitter @RichRobMiami.
You Might also like
My Facebook feed is littered with posts, articles, and opinions of my liberal friends posting about the overwhelming science that supports that climate change is real, and that the deniers need to look at the proof.
However, many of these same friends will turn around and post article after article on why GMOs are terrible for you and how they harm your body.
But where’s the actual science that supports that?
Seems like a problematic double standard.
The vast majority of scientific research points to the fact that GMOs are not harmful to the human body nor the environment.
In fact, the National Academy of Sciences just released a report of a review of hundreds of research articles, testimonies, and questions about the safety of GMOs.
So where is the disconnect – and why do so many liberals acknowledge the majority of scientists that support climate change, but not the majority that supports that GMOs are not bad for you?
If you look at political demographics, you see that 70% of Democrats trust scientists to research climate change, while only 15% of Republicans support that.
Alternatively, 56% of Democrats believe that GMOs are unsafe to eat, while 51% of Republicans say the same – with only 43% of Democrats and 38% of Republicans saying that they are safe to eat.
When you examine the perception of GMOs in the United States, you’ll see many arguments against GMOs – from the “evils” of the Monsanto Chemical company, to people boycotting and protesting Roundup Ready crops.
This opposition stems from scientific research that is full of fraudulent misinformation, and they don’t examine the good that GMOs are able to accomplish, like the papaya crop success in Hawaii ten years ago, or the fact that scientists are trying to modify cows to produce less methane gas to, ya know, reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The latter bit would help combat climate change in a real way.
Now, personally, I identify as a liberal, and I am 110% for questioning scientific research and letting new discoveries and inventions be properly vetted before being released into the public.
But at some point, the line needs to be drawn.
And to my liberal friends – I only have one message: Get. It. Together.
If we’re going to promote and support the majority of science that says climate change is a reality, then let’s stay constant and support the majority that says GMOs are not bad for you.
If we’re going to fight to save this planet from drastic climate and environmental change, then support the people who are actually trying to do that.
You want to make sure that the projected 9.7 billion people on this world in 2050 are going to have food?
Then let’s support the scientists who are trying to feed people.
Let’s support the science and the research that is going towards trying to make food more affordable, more nutritious, more accessible, and more easily grown.
The population of the world isn’t going to magically go stagnant or go down, and if you didn’t know, growing food is hard.
We are able to feed 155 people per farmer currently.
In 1960, that number was 25.8.
If y’all want to be able to affordably eat within the next 50 years, if you want to help feed those less fortunate than you, and if you want to protect our planet, then start supporting and trusting the scientists who know what they’re doing.
If we’re going to say we support science and validated research, then hold up that promise and start supporting all the validated science, not just the ones you want to.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Paul Sableman/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 991
What Do You Think?
By Mario Moussa and Derek Newberry
As we get ready to watch the second presidential debate, you might be scratching your head about a tale of two countries.
In Trump’s telling, America is a nation in decline that needs a turnaround.
Clinton sees a leading world power that should continue on the positive trajectory created under the Obama administration.
As business school professors who specialize in the human side of organizations, there is one thing – that many may find surprising – each candidate needs during this next debate: a story.
At this point, you might be thinking that elections are really all about pocketbook issues and politicians’ stories are just a bunch of fluff.
We have a different point of view: hard-nosed policies and strategies are worthless without a good story. Whether people realize it or not, they think in stories. The best communicators know this and make the most of it.
Storytelling: The Crucial Leadership Skill
A famous experiment by two psychologists in the 1940s showed subjects a short clip of two triangles and a circle moving around, and asked them to describe what they saw.
Where some described a bully terrorizing two children and a jealous father protecting his daughter, others saw different dramas.
The imagined scenarios differed, but what they had in common was that nearly all of the subjects told a story about the shapes without any prompting.
Why are stories so pervasive?
Because they are how people make sense of their environment and get along with co-workers or fellow citizens.
The most brilliant policy can fall flat if it is not communicated with a strong narrative that makes it real and compelling for the people who are supposed to implement it.
Far from fluff, good story-telling is a crucial leadership skill for motivating commitment and moving a strategy from abstract idea to action.
Hence the importance of the two recent political conventions.
Like an annual corporate retreat, their purpose is not only to explain a specific policy platform but also to tell a story that motivates and guides those who need to carry it out.
In this respect, we think Clinton right now is in a stronger position as she goes into his next debate.
She does three things especially well.
And the next time you need to get your point across, you should remember them:
In any good story, the audience should empathize with the main characters.
According to screenwriter Robert McKee, the key to creating empathy is to portray a character who is overcoming a struggle.
This can make even an unsympathetic person relatable.
Steve Jobs wasn’t known for his humility, but his story about returning to Apple after having been pushed out is one we can all root for.
Trump has been focused on communicating his greatness, but not on talking about overcoming hardships to get there.
Just recently, he stumbled again by referring to the jobs he has created as one of his “sacrifices.”
Clinton creates empathy by acknowledging that she struggles with the “public” part of public service – that is, the aspect of it that involves public speaking.
She deftly turns this weakness into a strength by recounting how she pushes through it because she cares deeply about the service part.
Paint a Picture
If you boil any rom-com movie down to its most basic elements, they are all pretty much the same: beginning, middle, and end.
In other words, every story starts with a typical everyday situation, which is then disrupted by some new or unusual event, which sets in motion of series of actions that lead to a resolution and a return to normalcy.
So what separates a classic like Annie Hall from a flop like Gigli? The difference is in the detail.
Good stories use vivid imagery to make abstract ideas feel real and bring the audience along.
On this count, Trump misses the mark. When his family talks, their speeches provide a great opportunity to show the candidate’s lighter side.
While the Trump clan mentions plenty of great qualities, their speeches are light on anecdotes that would help us visualize how he lives these values in his everyday life.
By giving details about Hillary’s personal life, such as how she met Bill or how she stays connected to Chelsea while on the road, the Clintons paint a more compelling picture of the Democratic candidate’s values.
Make the Audience Your Hero
As speaking coach Nick Morgan reminds us, every story has a hero and when you need other people to help you get things done, you are likely to get more buy-in if you put them in the starring role.
Think of how rockstar Bono has driven support for his ONE campaign by imploring: “We can be the generation that ends poverty.”
This is why Trump’s declaration that “I alone can fix” the political system is perhaps the weakest moment of his debate.
Clinton, by contrast, hits on the theme of becoming “stronger together,” making voters the heroes of her campaign’s story.
Far from fluff, stories are a critical execution tool.
On the campaign trail, they help leaders communicate strategy, rally support and guide implementation.
Republican strategist Mark McKinnon, who headed up communications for the George W. Bush campaigns, once said that the successful candidate is the one who tells the better story.
So far, by this measure, we think Clinton is pulling away from her opponent.
Dr. Mario Moussa and Dr. Derek Newberry are the authors of Committed Teams: Three Steps to Inspiring Passion and Performance. Dr. Moussa teaches in the Executive Programs at Wharton School of Executive Education. Dr. Newberry is a lecturer at the Wharton School. Connect with Dr. Moussa at www.moussaconsulting.com, and with Dr. Newberry via Twitter, @derekonewberry.Post Views: 634
What Do You Think?
The Islamic State group and al Qaeda are aggressively expanding to the politically unstable North African country of Libya, according to a report Wednesday by a U.S.-based security consulting firm. Since dictator Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown in 2011, Libya has been a hotbed for civil war and extremism, with training facilities and recruitment drives springing up… Read MorePost Views: 677
What Do You Think?