Pardon me for saying it but I think that if today's politics mean constant trashing of the opposite party with nothing more than insults, then the parties themselves have very little meaning or foundation...they no longer are for the country at large but for the self-interested. I am neither dem or republican at this point because I am not a religious zealot exclusionist nor am I a spendy bleeding heart without ambition. I wish we had smart, internationally savvy, fiscally responsible, honest, nationalistic candidate that believed in human rights...but we don't.

You can I guess toss darts at either candidate and it makes not a bit of difference. Nevermind, you can say what you will. It's all just crap.

The issue of the "subjects of the photos" in this section has been raised many times from many perspectives: old vs young; fat vs slim (or "shapely" vs fit if you are afraid to call a spade a spade); shaven vs landscaped vs full growth; enhanced vs natural breasts; tattooed vs clean skinned; etc vs etc. In most cases there is no right or wrong, it is more a matter of personal likes or dislikes.

People should be entitled to their opinions, and they should be free to express those opinions regarding ALL aspects of the image, subject included. The arguments that go along the lines of "Comments on the lighting, pose, background, exposure, etc are OK, but DO NOT comment on the model" are silly and weak, because the appropriateness of the subject is paramount to the success of the image. Chastising negative comments about tats, age and body build on a photo of a naked heavily-inked fat wrinkled old woman would be tantamount to saying that a still-life image of a dog turd is as pleasing to look at as vase with flowers.

Notwithstanding the above, a really skilled photographer could likely make a great photo with ANY of the foregoing subjects.

Sorry for my bluntness, but sometimes the "comment police" are a bit much to take.