|
QuoProQuid posted:This is a bit of a shot in the dark, but does anyone have the surrealist story about Obama's first 100 days in office where he destroys America while slowly growing to an impossible height? 12:05 PM eastern standard time, the Muslims have vanished. Check for yourself if you don’t believe me. Where have they gone to? There is speculation, of course. Scientists mention a cosmic storm that passed the Earth on January 20. A man says they are all in caves. Certain groups lament a faulty Rapture. A woman says he has taken their power and absorbed it into himself. She means Barack Obama. I doubt it, but he does seem somehow taller. The ground rumbles at times. The breaking news says WASHINGTON DC, with red concentric circles. I’m uneasy, but what can we do? Terror is defeated and if Obama were a Muslim, he’d be just as gone as them. There’s no cause for alarm. Within months, Barack Obama has declared a war on vague unease. It’s a good idea, because frankly we could all use some peace of mind. Approval rating is higher than ever now that the Muslims had left, but I don’t think we are happy yet. His eyes are shining sometimes, as a deer’s eyes shine in a flashlight beam. Small fissures criss-cross the pavement. Trees are swaying, but the breeze is gone. Something is changing in our world. Aeroplanes don’t exist anymore. Scientists explain that the density of the air is too low to support their wings. Then how do we breathe?! We should have died by now, but I think we are evolving. Our bodies haven’t changed, but the atmosphere.. One man says it was the rapture after all, and we have since entered the Kingdom of God. Barack is now the size of an oak tree. He sleeps outside since the rains have ceased, and his skin is thick to bullets. Now he wanders through he countryside impassively. He ignores a rural photo-op. He studies a leaf for twenty days. Only a fool would call this Heaven. Satellites fall to earth like rain used to. No friction burns them away, so we trudge past countless flecks of solar panel and ribbons of golden cloth. It’s a silent car crash every few hours, though cars themselves no longer run. No oxygen remains to ignite their fuel. Obama strides across the landscape, taller than the Freedom Tower. We’ve given up on assassination; all men are immortal now, and guns no longer fire. I’m starting to wish the Muslims were back. We found them with a telescope. Images of a colony on the right side of the moon. See the parts that jut from the lower right? I think they’re mosques. Soon they are visible to the naked eye, but how? Their cities are enormous. We watch them as they live and die. They have our former atmosphere; the moon is fringed with blue. “Look at how they wield their guns,” writes a man. “I always said he’d take our guns away.” They eat and sleep like we once did, building worthless ziggurats. We have everything we wanted, but oh how we envy their strife! It’s long been clear that Obama brought this uncomfortable perfection upon us, but I can’t bring myself to blame him for it. He’s reminded us all of how our lives had been discarded out of fear. I know now why he grows each day. In time, when we are ready he will reach out into space. He will raise us up in his great hand, to this new Earth that gleams like a frozen star. And if Obama does not carry us, we can climb… readingatwork posted:For example the Clinton administration was one of the earliest pioneers of the concept of Globalism. I'm pretty sure the Clinton Administration occurred in the 1990s, not the 1850s.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Let's see if we can figure out a way to blame the Clintons for the Monroe Doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Oh my god I was just thinking about this the other day, it was seriously the best poo poo. Oh is this the one where all the satellites fell out of the sky and all the air went away?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Petr posted:Sorry, you think politicians shouldn't change their policies when they become unpopular? Yes. They should take principled stands and stick by them. I don't see why this is unreasonable to expect. And yes this can be done without torpedoing your career. For example Bernie Sanders has been giving the same speech for like fifty years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Yes. They should take principled stands and stick by them. I don't see why this is unreasonable to expect. It's adorable that you don't even realize you're sticking a silent "that I agree with" in there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Hey guys, great news! The Republicans have put police reform, fixing climate change, and LGBT rights into their platform! <readingatwork> Those unprincipled assholes!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Holy poo poo that story is incredible. Is it a pastiche of something specific or just a general style of poetic surrealist apocalyptic fiction
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/17/saudi-diplomat-accused-of-raping-two-maids-uses-immunity-to-leave-india $25 million is a rounding error of a donation considering that just one of the saudi royal family has pledged to donate $32 billion to charity. No really, $25 million is less than 0.08% of what only one of them has pledged, and that it ended up in one of the largest and most well respected charities in the world that lists womans issues as one of it's 5 core issues is again not surprising in the least bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:For example the Clinton administration was one of the earliest pioneers of the concept of Globalism. Only at the time the concept went by the delightfully Orwellian term "Trade Liberalization". I've been meaning to ask about this. I've noticed the term "globalism" pop up a lot lately, usually from comments sections and other unsavoury sources, and it confuses me. It feels like a cheap, knock-off way of referring to globalization, which is a term/process I'm already familiar with. I'm not quite sure they are referring to the same thing though, given some slight differences in the way the two terms are used. Like, globalization is a market ideology, but it is so wrapped up in other market motivations that I've never heard anyone referred to as a globalizationist. Are the two terms really synonymous, or is "globalism" just some old 90's slur about the Clintons that didn't catch on further once Bill was out of office? Because I wouldn't have heard the word "globalist" at all about a year ago, even while studying a lot of economic criticism that is seemingly about the subject.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:NAFTA didn't even start under the Clinton Administration. I can't believe I didn't know this but yeah. I looked it up and it was negotiated by HW Bush, who also signed it. Clinton just signed it after the Senate ratified it and had nothing to do with its content, his entire contribution to NAFTA was "yup, I agree this is cool."
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:https://twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/772091438549139456 Oh neat. Something I actually know about. Whenever people go to churches, and in this case black churches you're not supposed to go to the biggest church in town. You're supposed to go for a smaller one which will accommodate a smaller crowd. Even if you get a thousand people a church that can take in 5000 looks sparsely populated and that doesn't go over well with either local voters or people in the news who want to show off how small the crowds are. Empty seats look bad no matter how many people show up. 10,000 people could show up and if you have 5000 empty seats it still looks bad. What matters are the number of empty seats, not how many people who are sitting in them. Normally what you do in these sorts of cases is to book a smaller venue so you can stuff more people in or have a black curtain for the back and then move it backwards depending on how many people show up. It makes the place look full even though all you're getting is say 200 people, but 200 people for 200 seats (or less) looks far better than 1000 people in 5000 seats. This is campaigning 101 for Christian churches. Also it's harder to get a crowd to show up (especially if you don't like them) if you talk to the preacher/pastor/whatever and not the church goers themselves. Successful politicians will engage with both before they show up in order to make sure that the crowd looks like they're packed in, happy and that the preacher/pastor/whatever is receptive and positive about you being there. On top of that there's very little point in showing up to a church if you don't speak their language. It's subtle, but Christians know their own because you get the same sorts of phrases repeated whenever you talk on a certain theme. You'll get those head nods and people will already be primed for the biblical theme you're talking about. However if you don't connect your speech to those biblical themes you're talking to people who are going to know that you've never been inside a church for more than Christmas and Easter (or at least one that reflects their values). Christians know their own and have been growing more and more savvy about getting used by politicians who don't give a drat about them other than to sweep them into a voting booth every two to four years because while they've been pushing their agendas for years now, they're getting used just the same or more often and getting less of their agenda pushed forward successfully. At least on the conservative end. So here are easy mistakes he made: 1. Odds are Trump didn't interact with normal people at this church. 2. Small crowds look terrible and there was no effort to make it look bigger. 3. Odds are exceedingly good that Trump isn't going to speak the right words and also to a crowd that isn't predisposed to like him in the first place. Or if he knows the words he won't say them in the right context. 4. Black people aren't falling for it. Old white guys aren't getting the black vote. It didn't work for Bernie and he was an OG in the civil rights campaign. It works for Trump even less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Morroque posted:I've been meaning to ask about this. I've noticed the term "globalism" pop up a lot lately, usually from comments sections and other unsavoury sources, and it confuses me. It feels like a cheap, knock-off way of referring to globalization, which is a term/process I'm already familiar with. I'm not quite sure they are referring to the same thing though, given some slight differences in the way the two terms are used. Like, globalization is a market ideology, but it is so wrapped up in other market motivations that I've never heard anyone referred to as a globalizationist. It's become a lot more popular lately due to a convergence of the alt-right and Sanders using it in their rhetoric. Sanders means it in the actual, eco-cultural sense, concerned about international interconnectivity leading to business collusion and the further enriching of the 1%. The alt-right means it in the nativist sense, because Jews.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Pakled posted:"Globalism" has been favored by both parties since World War 2. Fair enough. I was specifically thinking of GATT and NAFTA. Petr posted:Hey guys, great news! The Republicans have put police reform, fixing climate change, and LGBT rights into their platform! Admitting you were wrong and changing your opinion isn't the same thing as never believing in anything to begin with. Petr posted:It's adorable that you don't even realize you're sticking a silent "that I agree with" in there. And? Yes, I want politicians to run on things I agree with and then not abandon those positions the moment Goldman-Sachs threatens to throw money behind their opponent. The fact that I have to explain this speaks volumes about how toxic American politics has become.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Neat write-up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Morroque posted:I've been meaning to ask about this. I've noticed the term "globalism" pop up a lot lately, usually from comments sections and other unsavoury sources, and it confuses me. It feels like a cheap, knock-off way of referring to globalization, which is a term/process I'm already familiar with. I'm not quite sure they are referring to the same thing though, given some slight differences in the way the two terms are used. Like, globalization is a market ideology, but it is so wrapped up in other market motivations that I've never heard anyone referred to as a globalizationist. "Globalism" was me loving up the word "Globalization" so maybe other people are doing the same thing? Both are likely referring to the same ideological mindset of "more open trade + fewer restrictions = better"
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:Christians know their own and have been growing more and more savvy about getting used by politicians who don't give a drat about them lmao what??! Where is the evidence that savvy religious types are suddenly wise to this? Trump is the biggest dupe in a while and evangelicals are whole-hog on how he's a "baby Christian" now
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
You're going to really have to show your work around here if you are saying that Hillary Clinton isn't principled, it's not nearly as true as you're saying here
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Holy poo poo that story is incredible. Is it a pastiche of something specific or just a general style of poetic surrealist apocalyptic fiction In the original LF thread it's from, I'm pretty sure the author name-checked a specific writer and I think even a specific short story. Couldn't tell you who it was though. readingatwork posted:"Globalism" was me loving up the word "Globalization" so maybe other people are doing the same thing? Both are likely referring to the same ideological mindset of "more open trade + fewer restrictions = better" Ah, so the general western politico-economic position since before World War I, and especially since World War II, is what you're upset about. You should read this book, it's about the main reason it actually happened: https://www.amazon.com/Box-Shipping-Container-Smaller-Economy/dp/0691136408
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:"Globalism" was me loving up the word "Globalization" so maybe other people are doing the same thing? Both are likely referring to the same ideological mindset of "more open trade + fewer restrictions = better" It's an understandable slip-up but you should also realize that nowadays the most common use of "Globalism" is by the alt-right as a scare word meaning "people/an ideology that wants to bring immigrants into America in order to dilute white culture, and also wants to erode white economic power by giving away our economy to foreigners, all in service of a mysterious international cabal [of totally not Jews we're not Nazis we promise]." Basically the most reductionist view of globalization and immigration possible, framed in the most white nationalist terms possible. So the globalization/globalism slip-up is not really one you want to be making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Fair enough. I was specifically thinking of GATT and NAFTA. The GATT was signed to and put in place in like 1947/8. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Oh is this the one where all the satellites fell out of the sky and all the air went away? No it's this long multi post short story that's basically political thriller horror from the perspective of Fox News types while Obama brings forth the ACORN FEMA death squads. It was loving perfect. Also principles don't mean anything if you lose the election and the other guy shits the bed. Bernie gets to run in the whitest of white states where he can only talk about white people problems and run without worrying about meaningful conservative push back. It's why he fell on his face when he had to talk about people of color's problems. I'd rather a politician with principle play dirty and win then run clean and lose to a fascist. Give me more Hillary Clintons and less Michael Dukakis'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
fishmech posted:12:05 PM eastern standard time, the Muslims have vanished. Thanks, fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
When Hillary Clinton fought for universal health care in the 1990s it was really just a covert plan to enact globalism in service of wealthy donors, rather than a principled attempt to enact an unpopular policy beneficial for all Americans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
So all this talk of the Clinton administration made me remember this amazing interview with Sir James Goldsmith on the topic of Globalization from back in 94: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI It's spooky how right he is about a lot of stuff. Particularly interesting is the Clinton administration official they get on later in the show. If you want to understand why older lefties kind of hate the Clintons this will do a good job of explaining it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:So here are easy mistakes he made: Hahah what are the odds, 1-1?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Yes. They should take principled stands and stick by them. I don't see why this is unreasonable to expect. Are you replaced with a genetic clone of Bernie Sanders?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:So all this talk of the Clinton administration made me remember this amazing interview with Sir James Goldsmith on the topic of Globalization from back in 94: I thought the 20+ years of dedicated media attacks explained it well enough instead of the ~globalization~ boogeyman. I can't really understand how obsessive some people get over it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:Neat write-up. Thanks. I love history of the South and you can't talk about Southern politics without talking about churches. quote:Hahah what are the odds, 1-1? gently caress man, I don't know. I do know that politicians are used to one on one deals with power brokers. The public is who you smile at, wave to and shake hands with. Savvier politicians engage with "their people" and I use that in scare quotes because the engagement is often limited anyway. Trump can't even do that. Church people are not his people. He has no cultural capital meaning he can't even pretend he's like them. quote:lmao what??! Where is the evidence that savvy religious types are suddenly wise to this? Trump is the biggest dupe in a while and evangelicals are whole-hog on how he's a "baby Christian" now Christians aren't stupid people. Evangelicals aren't stupid people. They believe different things and have different values, but they're not stupid. In fact I seriously don't like thinking that because the Trump camp or whatever Johnny-Come-Lately politician who's not an evangelical but needs votes tries to get the evangelicals or just devout non-evangelicals to show up and it doesn't really work. There's been a growing realization that they've been getting used for years now among evangelicals that politicians don't give a drat as long as they show up. Elites within the church organizations want to push forward their agendas but the candidates don't measure up. If they show up in enough numbers for a non-evangelical politician -maybe- they expend some political capital to push forward your social agenda, but don't count on it. Attacking women's rights issues or gay rights or whatever is increasingly toxic and costs more political will than it used to. That means they can't push their own economic agendas or they have a harder time of doing it. I'll say it again. Christians are not stupid people. They have a different worldview. It's a worldview I don't agree with, but not agreeing with me or you or whomever doesn't make someone stupid. Some things they have been taught may be pants on head stupid, but many things people are taught are pants on head stupid too. Evangelicals especially know their own. They have their own values that differ from most people and they're rarely open to compromise without many, many games of theological twister. Romney could've came a lot closer to winning in 2012 if the evangelicals would've showed up for him. Instead they regarded Mormons as heretical and stayed home. Trump has a long history of indulging in those deadly sins and breaking commandments. If he seemed like he was turning to the church and was abandoning that life of vanity and dust they'd be more likely to show up for him. No apologies. No contrition. No asking for forgiveness. No righteousness. Same old Trump. Evangelicals aren't going to show up for Trump if religion is their biggest motivator. They might hold their noses for the supreme court nomination, but that's not a particularly good argument. My proof is this: Trump has made no strides towards becoming a Christian rather than saying he's one and shaking hands with evangelical elites. This isn't enough. Christians and more importantly evangelicals are not stupid. They just believe different things than you and I do. Believing a whole group of people are easily duped out of their votes when they get nothing in return is a silly stance to take. Edit: Also if these people are "savvy" odds are they've read the bible cover to cover. They believe it and try to emulate its teachings as best they can. To them, as I understand it, it isn't just a number of parables and stories. It's the literal word of God. To read the bible takes time and if you've never actually read it before it's difficult. It takes a minimum of an eleventh-twelfth grade reading level. Further it was written by people and these people were products of their times. Evangelical thinking is rather alien to me because it requires a sort of thinking where the world essentially runs on magic. There is a plan. There is order in the chaos. And to them these writers thousands of years ago have alien ways of thinking too because they're not only removed by amazing amounts of time, but also language, culture and a far more fervent faith than most Christians have today because the enlightenment was pretty drat far away before there was a serious competing non-faith way to look at the world. To understand what the bible actually says you need to be pretty smart. The rest? People who haven't read it and never plan to? They're cultural Christians at best. I may be talking out of my rear end here as I go further afield from what I know, but this is how I understand evangelicals, alien as they are to me and I to them. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Admitting you were wrong and changing your opinion isn't the same thing as never believing in anything to begin with. Now the tricky part: explain why Hillary Clinton doing exactly this is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Now the tricky part: explain why Hillary Clinton doing exactly this is bad. He's implying she never believed in anything to begin with, which is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I love the way Obama and Clinton have been molded into some sort of dual-headed monster like Kuato, the ObamaClinton! The Demoliberal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
USPOL Nov: And if Obama does not carry us, we can climb…
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Trump has been winning the votes of a decent chunk of Evangelicals, IIRC. What's your explanation for that? Overlap of views regarding white supremacy? Tarezax fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
im doing a short paper as part of the intro to course im taking on the history of the Arab and Muslim world. We're talking about modern Orientalism/Islamaphobia and holy poo poo it's hitting me just now how much poo poo I can think of off the top my head that's happened recently that are big examples of islamaphobia. -the way the media portrayed a lot of happenings during the arab spring -the rightwing/general media reaction the iran nuclear deal -the iran-naval boat incident with the captured sailors and the reaction surrounding it -the media coverage of the benghazi consulate attack and the resulting fallout and misinformation campaign -donald trumps entire presidential campaign -the entire rnc -the recent murder of a lebanese man in tulsa -the media coverage of the orlando nightclub massacre -authorities dragging their feet on a florida mosque being burnt down being arson/a hate crime i could literally go on
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:Trump has been winning the votes of s decent chunk of Evangelicals, IIRC. What's your explanation for that? Overlap of views regarding white supremacy? Don't know exactly. Again I'm getting further afield from what I know so take what I say with a grain of salt. My guess would be that most aren't single issue or at least single identity voters. Some are straight ticket republicans. Some follow a sort of meta-game of moving their social agenda forward despite "wicked kings" as I've heard it described. There's also an overlap with authoritarianism as churches become more and more cult like. It could also be hatred of Hillary. Also yes, white supremacy. And a bunch of other obvious stuff to someone of faith that I'd miss because I'm not. You're going to get a mix no matter what. People are complicated and nuanced. It means you're never going to get fully satisfying answers that will fit into the space of your average message board response. I will tell you that Evangelicals aren't going to show up in numbers that they'd show up for Cruz or even Huckabee. He lacks cultural capital, or to put it more plainly, he doesn't have Christian street cred. Internet Webguy posted:The Demoliberal. Islamolib. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Sep 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Tarezax posted:Trump has been winning the votes of a decent chunk of Evangelicals, IIRC. What's your explanation for that? Overlap of views regarding white supremacy? Voters who mask the selfishness of their voting (lower taxes, harder on crime) as being religiously motivated remain true to the original motivation. For man cannot serve two masters. Past that, one of the few details Trump has given out has been about his intended SCOTUS nominations... all of whom are Heritage approved. For many, Trump's personal beliefs are irrelevant because his judges will be pro-life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Admitting you were wrong and changing your opinion isn't the same thing as never believing in anything to begin with. You're making some kind of distinction between "admitting you were wrong" and "changing with the political winds." As far as I can tell, the only distinguishing factor between these is "does readingatwork agree with the change?" The toxicity in American politics is entirely the result of the kind of bizarre Jacobin moralizing you're doing here. In your ideal America, everyone is a Tortilla Coaster. No thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It's an understandable slip-up but you should also realize that nowadays the most common use of "Globalism" is by the alt-right as a scare word meaning "people/an ideology that wants to bring immigrants into America in order to dilute white culture, and also wants to erode white economic power by giving away our economy to foreigners, all in service of a mysterious international cabal [of totally not Jews we're not Nazis we promise]." Basically the most reductionist view of globalization and immigration possible, framed in the most white nationalist terms possible. So the globalization/globalism slip-up is not really one you want to be making. Ew! Thanks for the warning. Nessus posted:So what happens if they make a good-faith mistake or significant error? What happens if, say, you think taxes need to come down when they're 60%, but you think they need to go up when they're 35%, at the top brackets? What happens if a new issue arises? What happens if you were crusty about gays in 1971 because you were an idiot in college, but now you've realized you were an idiot and LBGT people are just fine and wonderful? You make a speech stating that you're changing your position and then explain why as best you can. A lot of people have actually done just that on the LGBT issue and I respect the hell out of them for it. Yinlock posted:Now the tricky part: explain why Hillary Clinton doing exactly this is bad. Because (at least from the outside) it looks like the only reason her positions have changed for the better recently is because various outside forces forced her hand. Which is worrying since that means she may well change her positions back the moment she feels she's in a stronger position. Yinlock posted:I thought the 20+ years of dedicated media attacks explained it well enough instead of the ~globalization~ boogeyman. Is it really so hard to get? People don't like that they suddenly have to compete for their jobs with third world sweatshops. Plus, when factories close down the towns that have sprung up around them suddenly die and turn into festering hellholes of poverty. It's kind of a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
readingatwork posted:Is it really so hard to get? People don't like that they suddenly have to compete for their jobs with third world sweatshops. Plus, when factories close down the towns that have sprung up around them suddenly die and turn into festering hellholes of poverty. It's kind of a big deal. Not a big enough deal they'll vote for policies that actually help over loving over transgender teens or guns. If this is a big deal to people it should be what they're single-issue voters over but it's not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2016 21:27
|
|
