Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 27th Jul 2018, 17:31
  #15181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 962
Adjust your glasses and read my paragraph 2 (and 4).

The Electoral College determines the outcome - it is a corrupt means of determining opinion (what the real country is thinking, right now, today, 20 months after the election, which is what OB is trying to do - not transferable).

If the Yankees or the Sox win the World Series, it is based on 4 out of 7 games, not total number of runs. We all get that. It doesn't mean they have the best batter, nor does it mean they are loved, nor does it mean the fans of the other team no longer count.

BTW - I don't have a real problem with the EC setup. If Wyoming gets an "extra" 2 senate-based EC votes, well, so do Vermont and Rhode Island. But that just goes to prove that "square miles" don't play any roll - l'il old R.I. gets the same two extra votes as Texas.
pattern_is_full is online now  
Old 27th Jul 2018, 18:25
  #15182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 51
Posts: 401
“…..but I do wonder just how much of an existential threat Iran poses to the United States at this moment?”

Militarily, zero.

Iran’s power lies in its leverage over the South Pars/North Dome gas field, the largest and most significant in the world. Also its exit from the western controlled Nymex/ICE oil cartel has really pissed off policy makers in London and Washington.

Qatar also, a former US lackey that has recently signaled its intention to align its interests in the gas field with Iran, not the west.

This represents the lion’s share of saber rattling towards Iran, Syria and the blockade of Qatar.

Control over energy pricing, extraction and transportation with terrorism and military threatism employed as the selling point.

The resource wars are well under way and yes Iran is next.
oicur12.again is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2018, 18:38
  #15183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 593
PIF, you are entitled to your opinion regarding the US voting system, and indeed most of your compatriots would be happy to simply have the campaign be carried out in New York and California.

But you're not entitled to make up some silly opinion about what I might believe. Nowhere did I suggest that the number of votes in those smaller communities exceeds the large centers. I simply stated the reality that there are large areas of the country happy with the way things are going. Your continuing denial of that reality says a lot about why your party is now in opposition.

I'm sorry you don't like the constitutional arrangements. Most liberals don't.
obgraham is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2018, 19:31
  #15184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,477
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
Adjust your glasses and read my paragraph 2 (and 4).

The Electoral College determines the outcome - it is a corrupt means of determining opinion (what the real country is thinking, right now, today, 20 months after the election, which is what OB is trying to do - not transferable).

If the Yankees or the Sox win the World Series, it is based on 4 out of 7 games, not total number of runs. We all get that. It doesn't mean they have the best batter, nor does it mean they are loved, nor does it mean the fans of the other team no longer count.

BTW - I don't have a real problem with the EC setup. If Wyoming gets an "extra" 2 senate-based EC votes, well, so do Vermont and Rhode Island. But that just goes to prove that "square miles" don't play any roll - l'il old R.I. gets the same two extra votes as Texas.
I'm speaking to your elitist NYC (Boulder in your case) cocktail circuit holier than thou views about smaller, flyover states, not to voting issues. The framers saw to it that square miles be they full of hands out, gimme free stuff democrats or largely unpopulated areas of Wyoming are represented. Perhaps they recognized places like that represent the best of America.
West Coast is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2018, 19:59
  #15185 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,882
OB - taking your points in more detail:

"When people living outside the US come to the conclusion that everything is going to hell in the USA due to the incompetence of Trump, that is a very valid conclusion. However, that conclusion can only be made on the basis of information disseminated by the media, including the entertainment industry. Both of which are very solidly against Trump and his agenda. The steady drumbeat from our now constant media outlets has to have an effect."

I have certainly not concluded that everything in the USA is going to hell, Trump or no-Trump. Given that Manhattan alone weighs some 2,394,111 tons, the American ship of state is hardly going to come to a screaming halt… I do believe you when you say that currently, for the average Tom, Dick and Harriet little has changed (I'll make an exception for Chico…). But even supposing that the entire American 4th estate had hatched out a conspiracy of Trump-hate (manifestly not true, since there are plenty of Trump-favouring publications), you forget that the rest of the world has a large number of non-American correspondents of an assortment of shades and political leanings. Having learned to parse the writings of both the apartheid National Party and their successors the ANC, I feel reasonably confident of being able to find my own ass with both hands and a flashlight. In other words, as regarding the press, I do feel generally capable of distinguishing the cowboy from the hoss, and I certainly do not rely solely on the American press to give me some idea of what is happening in the USA (or Russia, for that matter).

Why, I ask myself, is such a large slice of the American media unhappy with DJT? And why is DJT so bitterly hostile to the Press?

I think it all began when DJT started voicing obvious and silly lies about the crowd at his Inauguration and seeking to further legitimize his (perfectly legitimate) Presidency by claiming that his defeated opponent had not only lost, but had actually lost by a landslide (actually only 2.1%) and that Clinton's 2.9M majority of the popular vote was by cheating. Trump had, after all, won in the Electoral College, which was all that mattered! Yet he immediately began to berate the press for publishing figures that were only the truth. Had he shut-up and celebrated his victory with a little more grace, rather than voicing obvious lies that more had attended his Inauguration than Obama's, the seeds of dislike and distrust might not have been sown. The pathetic spectacle of poor Sean Spicer attempting to justify these wholly unnecessary untruths while treating the press with anger and disdain was hardly the way to win hearts and minds.

And the false claims just went on and on and on and still do. See Every false claim Donald Trump has made as president The press, whose business it is to report the facts (which can admittedly be slanted one way or the other) just didn't know what to do or what to report, what is true and what isn't, or whether todays pronunciamentos will be walked back tomorrow. Even the meekest became cynical, skeptical, frustrated and (yes!) angry. Finally, his disgusting, to any decent man, remarks about Mika Brzezinski put the lid on it.

Only Nixon, in my memory, shared such mutual distrust and dislike towards the press, and that only when the truth of Watergate began to emerge.

[Quite what you mean by your remarks about South Africa I'm not sure, but the overseas press is reasonably accurate, although understandably, they do tend to get the names mixed up a bit. Permit me to return to your odd comment later]

You write, "Well, here in the US, similarly, a good portion of the people are fed up with being told how to think, what they can and cannot say, what parts of science they must accept and which they must deny, and that they must tolerate every bizarre idea that comes along if it is in conflict with their own cultural tradition. And now they see in Trump the opportunity to express their objections and have them acted on."

In this you are quite correct and this deserves to be explored further.

But another evening

Mac
Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2018, 20:00
  #15186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 593
It's Friday. Time for the weekly "this is Trump's worst week ever" message from the media.

Except it wasn't. Economic growth figures = good. Jobs growth = good. Unemployment down = good. Norkies following through on their agreement, though requiring a push = good. US-Euro tariff plans improving = good.

But no. Putin. Stormy. Cohen. Mueller. "Impeach him before we lose all vestige of civilization".
obgraham is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2018, 23:06
  #15187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Howdy

Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
It's Friday. Time for the weekly "this is Trump's worst week ever" message from the media.

Except it wasn't. Economic growth figures = good. Jobs growth = good. Unemployment down = good. Norkies following through on their agreement, though requiring a push = good. US-Euro tariff plans improving = good.

But no. Putin. Stormy. Cohen. Mueller. "Impeach him before we lose all vestige of civilization".
Policy/Agenda. There is an aroma of mental illness in the collective (Democrat) set. This is not lost on the sane. It is off putting, and since people eventually use some form of assessment when they vote (the sane ones), the Blue Wave might be in jeopardy here. Given that most activist Lefty partisans would prefer any national calamity to even a modicum of success Trumpside, the chance of a legitimate off year hallelujah grows remote.

The distraught husband, learning of his wife’s infidelity, had the pistol pointed at his temple. His wife started laughing.

”What are you laughing at, he yelled, you’re next!...”
Concours77 is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2018, 23:15
  #15188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 962
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
I'm speaking to your elitist NYC (Boulder in your case)
Mistake 1. Not in or near Boulder. Where I live, we joke about their "People's Republic."

Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
.......cocktail circuit
Mistake 2. Don't drink, don't go to cocktail parties either.

Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
...holier than thou views about smaller, flyover states, not to voting issues.
Mistake 3. I may see myself as more rational and more accurate at times, but "holier" is a null value for me. Big zero.

Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
The framers saw to it that square miles be they full of hands out, gimme free stuff democrats or largely unpopulated areas of Wyoming are represented. Perhaps they recognized places like that represent the best of America.
Mistake 4. Really? Then how come...

Poor Wyoming, ninth-largest State, 97,800 sq. mi., gets just 3 electoral votes, or one vote per 32,500 sq. miles, and
Lucky Rhode Island, smallest State, 1545 sq mi., gets 4 electoral votes, or one vote per 386 sq. miles?

Either someone screwed up the allocations royally - or - the Framers had no interest at all in giving votes to square mileage. The second is the correct answer. If the Framers has cared about square miles, Wyoming would have 59 more electoral votes than RI.

The Framers DID give an extra edge to low-population States, regardless of area: Two seats in the Senate, just like the more populous states, and thus two guaranteed electors, to give them some power against a "Dictatorship of the Majority." Not a veto, just a little extra help.

And for the hard-of-thinking, I repeat, in words of two syllables or less: I have no problem with that. The Framers did just fine. Clear enough?
pattern_is_full is online now  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 01:37
  #15189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hillsgrove
Posts: 19
Actually, >500 sq. mi. of R.I. is water, so it's more like one vote per 258 sq. mi., but point taken
CaptOveur is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 02:16
  #15190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 593
MAC: Nobody herein is denying that Trump engages in some monumentally stupid discussions. Such as that about his inauguration. He certainly is near the top of the list when it comes to delusions of grandeur. And his public speaking abilities are abysmal, 'tis true.

Some of us accept that, and would rather look to what he is accomplishing as president.

Others can't get past that, and sadly are ignoring his successes.
obgraham is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 04:34
  #15191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,477
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
Mistake 1. Not in or near Boulder. Where I live, we joke about their "People's Republic."



Mistake 2. Don't drink, don't go to cocktail parties either.



Mistake 3. I may see myself as more rational and more accurate at times, but "holier" is a null value for me. Big zero.



Mistake 4. Really? Then how come...

Poor Wyoming, ninth-largest State, 97,800 sq. mi., gets just 3 electoral votes, or one vote per 32,500 sq. miles, and
Lucky Rhode Island, smallest State, 1545 sq mi., gets 4 electoral votes, or one vote per 386 sq. miles?

Either someone screwed up the allocations royally - or - the Framers had no interest at all in giving votes to square mileage. The second is the correct answer. If the Framers has cared about square miles, Wyoming would have 59 more electoral votes than RI.

The Framers DID give an extra edge to low-population States, regardless of area: Two seats in the Senate, just like the more populous states, and thus two guaranteed electors, to give them some power against a "Dictatorship of the Majority." Not a veto, just a little extra help.

And for the hard-of-thinking, I repeat, in words of two syllables or less: I have no problem with that. The Framers did just fine. Clear enough?
Got it, more rational and accurate, but not holier than thou. Small state folks are lucky to have you doing the thinking. Anyway, you can parse the wording, but the truth by any other name is still the truth.

Thanks for acknowledging the framers did offer a counterweight to elitist rule from large population centers. That counter weight being far more stable than the HoR where you big city slickers have the advantage.

BTW, cocktail party circuit is as much a mindset as it is a real thing. You may be knocking back Perrier, but your elitist beliefs admitted above brand you as a member.


West Coast is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 09:53
  #15192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: KGRB, but on the road about 1/2 the time.
Age: 57
Posts: 609
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post


Got it, more rational and accurate, but not holier than thou. Small state folks are lucky to have you doing the thinking. Anyway, you can parse the wording, but the truth by any other name is still the truth.

Thanks for acknowledging the framers did offer a counterweight to elitist rule from large population centers. That counter weight being far more stable than the HoR where you big city slickers have the advantage.

BTW, cocktail party circuit is as much a mindset as it is a real thing. You may be knocking back Perrier, but your elitist beliefs admitted above brand you as a member.


The Framers needed The South in the Union to make it viable. They bowed to the interests of the 0.1% in The South, by giving them a minimum of Two Senators, One Representative, keeping Slavery Legal, black slaves didn't get to vote, but DID count for 3/5 of a person in the census, to give The South more political power.

We (the US) are still suffering the effects of the 0.1% dividing poor Whites and Blacks and pitting them against each other, which began after Bacon's Rebellion, the most important event in US history, after the founding of Our Country.
atpcliff is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 13:27
  #15193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,477
Originally Posted by atpcliff View Post
The Framers needed The South in the Union to make it viable. They bowed to the interests of the 0.1% in The South, by giving them a minimum of Two Senators, One Representative, keeping Slavery Legal, black slaves didn't get to vote, but DID count for 3/5 of a person in the census, to give The South more political power.

We (the US) are still suffering the effects of the 0.1% dividing poor Whites and Blacks and pitting them against each other, which began after Bacon's Rebellion, the most important event in US history, after the founding of Our Country.
if we only had one senator a state, we'd be color blind and there'd be no race issues? Not buying that the design of the republic is responsible for an inherent bias. You can find racism in other democracies and dictatorships for that matter.
West Coast is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 14:12
  #15194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,146
WC,
The framers saw to it that square miles be they full of hands out, gimme free stuff democrats or largely unpopulated areas of Wyoming are represented. Perhaps they recognized places like that represent the best of America.
Just came back from the pre-sunset on the beach cocktail party before you wrote this?

The Framers were only interested in bringing together what they knew of the original States located along or near the Atlantic Ocean. The purpose being so the United States of America could be formed under an agreed upon ratified Constitution. And that goal involved compromises, something unheard of today in US government at every level. The Framers certainly had more respect for each other, be they farmers or city dwellers than your chosen words. They didn't argue over which represented the "best of America".
Turbine D is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 15:24
  #15195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,477
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
WC,

Just came back from the pre-sunset on the beach cocktail party before you wrote this?

The Framers were only interested in bringing together what they knew of the original States located along or near the Atlantic Ocean. The purpose being so the United States of America could be formed under an agreed upon ratified Constitution. And that goal involved compromises, something unheard of today in US government at every level. The Framers certainly had more respect for each other, be they farmers or city dwellers than your chosen words. They didn't argue over which represented the "best of America".
I wish I was on the beach, instead I'm flying to be able to pay for all those in the state of California with their hand out.

Feel free to offer opinion on the framers intent, I'll instead point out what they did wrt the architecture of the Republic.
West Coast is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 17:32
  #15196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,146
WC,
Feel free to offer opinion on the framers intent, I'll instead point out what they did wrt the architecture of the Republic.
I am not offering an opinion on Framers intent, I am confirming what was written in the Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Madison & Jay, who were there, we weren't. At the time, believe it or not, there were major divisions about ratification of the Constitution, those for it and those against it. In Federalist #1 they wrote:
It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.
It set the stage for the wider debates and compromises to come.

In Federalist #58, Madison covers some of the objections to the Constitution regarding representation and why the Constitution is better than some State Constitutions in that regard. It is a good read if you are interested and haven't read it. There were 85 papers in all promoting the Constitution ratification. Interestingly, the Federalist Papers were against establishment of the Bill of Rights specifically coming from words written by Hamilton. The Constitution as proposed didn't protect the rights of the people only defining the powers of the Federal government and leaving the rights of the people to the individual States. Hamilton was afraid the added Bill of Rights would be interpreted to being the only rights people had. For example in Federalist # 84 Hamilton wrote:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
So through debate and compromise, the US Constitution we know today contains the Bill of Rights in the first amendments.

You might find it interesting to note the Federalist Papers were written in New York City and the opening line read: To the People of the State of New York. New York was one of the most populous states at that time and NYC was where "the big city slickers" lived.

Last edited by Turbine D; 28th Jul 2018 at 17:37. Reason: word corrections
Turbine D is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 19:55
  #15197 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,882
OB, you wrote, "Well, here in the US, similarly, a good portion of the people are fed up with being told how to think, what they can and cannot say, what parts of science they must accept and which they must deny, and that they must tolerate every bizarre idea that comes along if it is in conflict with their own cultural tradition. And now they see in Trump the opportunity to express their objections and have them acted on." and I agreed with you. But this appears to be a global phenomenon.

Certainly after a lifetime of work in various communities, doing service without heed of sex, race, gender, political opinion etc., it is irritating to be told that I cannot hold certain opinions (much less discuss them in public), that my European cultural background is somehow invalid and that my skin-color automatically makes me a racist (in the UK as well as SA, and probably the USA too).

You may be interested in Why young white men are abandoning the Democrats US Election 2016 USA spiked , though I think that he exaggerates - young white men are becoming cynical about with political parties tout court with all their their lies and promises.

As for South Africa, if by writing, "However, from what I can discern, or read even here on this forum, the country has been saddled with a politically correct system, which is replacing an effective but quite flawed system with one that is neither effective nor less flawed. I gather that a good part of the population does not like this, and will strive for a way to overcome it.", you were referring to the old apartheid National Party vs the current ANC then I am afraid that you are very wrong.

The old NP was certainly not effective, was profoundly flawed and disliked not only by the black but also much of the white population. They saw it as unjust, outmoded and wholly impractical in the modern world. On 17 March 1992, White South African voters were asked whether or not they supported the negotiated reforms begun by State President F. W. de Klerk two years earlier, in which he proposed to end the apartheid system that had been implemented since 1948. 68.73% of the white population voted Yes, while only 31.27% voted No.

The 1994 general election was South Africa's first multi-racial election with full enfranchisement. The African National Congress won 62% of the votes in the election, and Mandela, as leader of the ANC, was inaugurated on 10 May 1994 as the country's first black President, with the National Party's F.W. de Klerk as his first deputy and Thabo Mbeki as the second in the Government of National Unity.

The doomsayers foresaw rivers of blood, but to many people's surprise (or disappointment) the transition was extraordinarily peaceful and welcomed by almost all except for a very small group of mostly religiously extremist, white Afrikaaners.

Mandela retired after one term and the ANC was then led for a while by the ineffectual Mbeki, who was replaced by Jacob Zuma after a vote of no confidence. Zuma has been our Trump and we have had to endure 9 years of looting by this traditionalist, blundering, rapacious and ineffectual ruffian before the ANC finally lost patience with him and replaced him with the experienced and practical Cyril Ramaphosa in February of this year. [it seems likely that Zuma's sins will catch up with him and that he will end up in chokey!]

It will take quite a while for the country to recover from Zuma's Court of Misrule and we face many difficult challenges on a whole variety of fronts.. How things will stand in ten years time I cannot say, but it is likely to be a great deal better than those countries to the North of us, whose refugees present us with similar problems to these being experienced by the USA. However, the majority are educated, entrepreneurial, law-abiding people who (when they can get a job), work very hard and contribute to society.

But this is Africa and things are very different.

But is certainly disturbing to see a Court of Misrule similar to that which we had to endure developing in the USA!

Mac
Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 20:37
  #15198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 593
You made my point, MAC, and I thank you for that.

How am I, thousands of miles away from SA, going to have a realistic opinion of what's going on, other than by reading and viewing the media? There is always an agenda in reporting these days. You've pointed out the reality.

Similarly, if you live in, say, Malawi, your view of what is going on in America can only be formed by international media, along with a healthy dose of fantasy. (I have spent some time there, and was fascinated by the locals' impression of America!)

We all want peace and progress toward prosperity. The vast majority of us wish the same for our less fortunate folks. We often differ on just how to accomplish those goals. For now, lots of us here think we are on the right track.
obgraham is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 21:19
  #15199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,477
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
WC,

I am not offering an opinion on Framers intent, I am confirming what was written in the Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Madison & Jay, who were there, we weren't. At the time, believe it or not, there were major divisions about ratification of the Constitution, those for it and those against it. In Federalist #1 they wrote:

It set the stage for the wider debates and compromises to come.

In Federalist #58, Madison covers some of the objections to the Constitution regarding representation and why the Constitution is better than some State Constitutions in that regard. It is a good read if you are interested and haven't read it. There were 85 papers in all promoting the Constitution ratification. Interestingly, the Federalist Papers were against establishment of the Bill of Rights specifically coming from words written by Hamilton. The Constitution as proposed didn't protect the rights of the people only defining the powers of the Federal government and leaving the rights of the people to the individual States. Hamilton was afraid the added Bill of Rights would be interpreted to being the only rights people had. For example in Federalist # 84 Hamilton wrote:

So through debate and compromise, the US Constitution we know today contains the Bill of Rights in the first amendments.

You might find it interesting to note the Federalist Papers were written in New York City and the opening line read: To the People of the State of New York. New York was one of the most populous states at that time and NYC was where "the big city slickers" lived.
There were about 70 framers of the constitution, I'm working from memory but I recall there were largely three writers for the federalist papers. Don't presume the other 67 didn't have aspiration that the Republic wouldn't spread westbound. Manifest destiny was an idea long before it came to realization.
West Coast is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 21:55
  #15200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 51
Posts: 401
“Well, here in the US, similarly, a good portion of the people are fed up with being told how to think…..”

Care to share some examples?

“what parts of science they must accept….”

Surely science is not something we can choose to accept or reject?

“….that they must tolerate every bizarre idea that comes along if it is in conflict with their own cultural tradition.”

As apposed to the bizarre ideas present in your cultural traditions.

“And now they see in Trump the opportunity to express their objections and have them acted on.”

I would be very interested to see which of Trump’s actions thus far have made life better for those being forced to “think” a specific way, “accept science” which they don’t agree with or have to tolerate “bizarre” ideas from other cultures.
oicur12.again is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.