|
Samurai Sanders posted:Seriously though what IS it with young people and not voting? I mean, we all take the same classes on importance of democracy and whatever right? Even if it's not fun and exciting, it's a duty as an adult citizen and the very symbol of the modern world. It's a phase in life where they're generally fixated on stupid poo poo (to the rest of the adults) and don't really care about anything except getting laid, having experiences, getting laid and maybe making some money in the process. And there is no great existential or literal threat to them in a meaningful way to have them become a strong, civically involved, bloc. The ones that are already civically inclined/involved (many in college or just luck-of-the-draw like to be committed to community activity) are already voting. And can you blame them? They're immersed in a sea of marketing that has them fixated on breezy, easily disposable poo poo...Hey, that's capitalism. This isn't just young people though. As people have noted, 140 million eligible adults in this country did not exercise their right to suffrage this cycle...That's a group that needs to be motivated regardless of demographic.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:i agree that this will end up with a lot of dead boomers and i can't think of a better way to watch them go than watching them strangle themselves in spite It's going to be a long wait. Paul Ryan doesn't plan on medicare/social security cuts for 1-2 years. When the cuts do come they'll only affect people who won't be eligible to collect for years (exact cutoff isn't known yet). They're structuring it so the pain is disconnected from the people causing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Wanted to return to this for a sec You can choose to view things as optimistically as you like, but the issue isn't your personal outlook, it's the fundamental power dynamic of a country that really is divided into economically and politically discrete classes of Givers and Takers
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Seriously though what IS it with young people and not voting? I mean, we all take the same classes on importance of democracy and whatever right? Even if it's not fun and exciting, it's a duty as an adult citizen and the very symbol of the modern world. With the infinite and always original cynicism of the young, they don't believe it will make any difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
The GOP is definitely going to lose more than a couple governors mansions in 2 years. MA is almost guaranteed to throw Baker out so long as Martha loving Coakley remains in permanent exile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Seriously though what IS it with young people and not voting? I mean, we all take the same classes on importance of democracy and whatever right? Even if it's not fun and exciting, it's a duty as an adult citizen and the very symbol of the modern world. well, the last time there was a real youth movement (when the voting age was lowered) the dude they liked got shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:With the infinite and always original cynicism of the young, they don't believe it will make any difference. It's the millennial dilemma: all their lives they've been told they're special, but voting goes totally against that because their individual vote carries such little weight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:It's the millennial dilemma: all their lives they've been told they're special, but voting goes totally against that because their individual vote carries such little weight. It's not like young people voted back in the day, either. The issue is that if you think your vote, personally, is worthless: you're basically right. But everybody thinking that at the same time is what decides elections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:It's the millennial dilemma: all their lives they've been told they're special, but voting goes totally against that because their individual vote carries such little weight. It has always been the same way, the young do not vote. They seem largely convinced that there is no difference between the two parties. Probably because most politicians don't focus on the concerns of the young. But that's a real chicken and egg issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:At that point I'd give the USA twenty years before a 1793.  sure am glad to see people on forums.somethingawful.com repeating the poo poo I've heard at every gun range I've been to for the last 8 yearsSamurai Sanders posted:Seriously though what IS it with young people and not voting? I mean, we all take the same classes on importance of democracy and whatever right? Even if it's not fun and exciting, it's a duty as an adult citizen and the very symbol of the modern world. Fuckin millenials amirite. People believed in Obama, and this was mistaken for the Democrats in general being believed in/having a future, and it's not the case. Turns out telling people to vote for you because of what you're not only goes so far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 04:41
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:You can choose to view things as optimistically as you like, but the issue isn't your personal outlook, it's the fundamental power dynamic of a country that really is divided into economically and politically discrete classes of Givers and Takers Yes, the class of people who give their labor, and the class of people who take that labor and build themselves a really loving gaudy triplex apartment
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:It's a phase in life where they're generally fixated on stupid poo poo (to the rest of the adults) and don't really care about anything except getting laid, having experiences, getting laid and maybe making some money in the process. And there is no great existential or literal threat to them in a meaningful way to have them become a strong, civically involved, bloc. The ones that are already civically inclined/involved (many in college or just luck-of-the-draw like to be committed to community activity) are already voting. Just pointing out, a proper look at actual history and political theory with relation to current events at a young age is pretty loving emotionally toxic to someone given the massive problems and dysfunction that works because people tend to confirmation bias past the worst of it. I can't really blame younger people for taking the emotionally healthy option during formative years instead of staring into the goddamn abyss of unaffectable systemic problems that, when you look at history, will continue regardless of whatever individual agency exists. You pretty much have to have a good foundation for your planned family and a planned retirement to really start giving a poo poo about the direction of the future because you actually can. Speaking personally, children was way out of our possible lifespan given the fiscal and emotional costs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:You can choose to view things as optimistically as you like, but the issue isn't your personal outlook, it's the fundamental power dynamic of a country that really is divided into economically and politically discrete classes of Givers and Takers This only makes sense if jobs literally do not exist, in which case the alternative is simply having no money. Something like a GMI would effectively be a handout to job creators since it would remove the burden of providing a living wage, so it's not clear how these systems would make it less likely for people to be employed or turn everyone into a permanent underclass of "takers" unless that problem was pre-existing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Just pointing out, a proper look at actual history and political theory with relation to current events at a young age is pretty loving emotionally toxic to someone given the massive problems and dysfunction that works because people tend to confirmation bias past the worst of it. When you phrase it like that, maybe. Another way of framing it is to point out that things have generally gotten better over time, mostly as one generation dies out and the next takes power. So young people can either wait for the old people to pass away or they can proactively take power and realize the benefits earlier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:In a midterm election with their party in the White House, Republicans will be defending governorships in Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Illinois Wisconsin, Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. You don't think Democrats have any chance of winning more than one of these gubernatorial elections after what is likely to be a disastrous two years for Trump? I never know what to think of Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. They're a weird political blind spot where they're kind of swing states but kind of not? NV and NM have blue legislatures, so they're doable to take full control of, but those legislatures are shaky. NM's House in particular is a near even split, Nevada's Senate has a single-seat Democrat majority. Dems have made gains in the Southwest lately, IIRC, but I'm unsure about those two. Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New Hampshire are all currently in the list of 100% Republican state control though. Governorships may flip, Houses aren't as easy.They'll be at least split at best. To me, AZ, GA, and IA seem like safe bets to remain Republican, MI, WI, and OH are uncertain but doable if they somehow keep up the momentum Trump brought in, Florida is easy to split since Rick Scott is kind of a joke, New Hampshire is a weird parallel universe where no rules apply and I couldn't begin to propose what could happen there. Illinois, Mass, Maryland and Vermont are also in the same position as NM and NV, blue houses, red governorships, but they're all safer potential gains. Vermont especially, given Sanders' more prominent role in the party now. I keep forgetting Maryland exists. Illinois...a weird feeling in my gut tells me it's not as safely Democrat as one might hope. Legislatures are closer than in other solid D states. Plus its seats might've been delivered in no small part by Clinton, and now that she's out of the picture they don't have a good head from the area to bring out and rally. It's all conjecture but I'd keep an eye out. I have doubts Chicago can carry the entire state and it might be a New York situation, where the houses are actually sort of in reach for Republicans. The Democratic governorship in Virginia is also up for contest around then and they're a blue governor, red legislature state. It's a long shot, I think, but Republicans could win over the state. The slight surprise of Democrats having had, this year, governors in Montana, Louisiana, West Virginia and, to a lesser extent, Minnesota has kept those four from being totally Republican for the next four years, but all of those are at risk come 2020. There's also Alaska, which actually has a weird coalition situation going on, with R-leaning independent running with Dem lieutenant, and the House is...sort of split? It's weird and Alaska is weird, that's one I expect to go full Republican soonish but eh. god knows what will happen in the first two years of Trump's campaign. I'm dubious whenever the answer is 'everything explodes', because Trump doesn't really have the kind of mission and beliefs about how the country ought to be run, anyone else be damned - he wants to be in the public eye first and foremost. Maybe he self-destructs but look, the DNC has hinged their strategy on that twice now and I am basically done with them if they say 'don't worry about it, we can take it easy because trump will fail and people will vote for us' a third loving time, that's a proven losing strategy and an incredible way to somehow lose even more power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Tom Clancy is Dead posted:When you phrase it like that, maybe. Another way of framing it is to point out that things have generally gotten better over time, mostly as one generation dies out and the next takes power. So young people can either wait for the old people to pass away or they can proactively take power and realize the benefits earlier. I'm glad you can personalize that view of history as a comforting one. I think we may have seen some of the friction of a younger perspective yearning for a change in the democratic primary but we also saw the inertial snare of an establishment hell-bound on making sure their expected offices would not be contested. Party managers that have spent their whole political career being social-friendly brand of standard American politics probably are not going to roll over and change simply because it helps people. Edit: if you get people woke too soon in their life and they ain't doing so well and they have no future you get death cultists. Edit2: Well poo poo this helps explain suicide bombing. Grognan fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Gyra_Solune posted:when was the last time a single party held this much power? it'd be interesting to see some big data graph of some sort on the balance of political power both in the states and in the fed over the course of the country's history This graph does in fact exist  The last time a single party had this much power was. . . 2008. The Democrats also held at least that much power much of the time from sometime in the 1950s to 1994. Of course, back then, the conservative Southern wing of the party was still a thing, so the political center of gravity was usually more conservative than that would suggest. On the bright side, during the period when a party controls the presidency, it loses seats in other offices. This has been true in literally 100% of cases since at least 1856.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
Gyra_Solune posted:I never know what to think of Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. They're a weird political blind spot where they're kind of swing states but kind of not? NV and NM have blue legislatures, so they're doable to take full control of, but those legislatures are shaky. NM's House in particular is a near even split, Nevada's Senate has a single-seat Democrat majority. Dems have made gains in the Southwest lately, IIRC, but I'm unsure about those two. Apparently Trump is considering iowa's dictator for life Branstad as ambassador to China, which may actually give the mess that is the Iowa democratic party a chance at the governor seat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me what "run the country like a business" actually means for people who espouse it? I'm honestly baffled - the internet gives me plenty of hot takes on how terrible of an idea that is (thanks, more than well aware) but very little from the people who actually support it. Edit - Australia has mandatory voting laws (well, for a fairly lax value of "mandatory") and consequently, very high rates of participation. This didn't exactly turn Australia into a liberal paradise (well, for a fairly batshit right-wing value of "liberal"....) Xander77 fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Seriously though what IS it with young people and not voting? I mean, we all take the same classes on importance of democracy and whatever right? Even if it's not fun and exciting, it's a duty as an adult citizen and the very symbol of the modern world. Most of them don't have stable jobs or income. That alone can drive voting rates through the ground. Falstaff posted:A small number of them maybe, but for most of them I really doubt it. They'll probably settle with the idea that he was better than the alternative, much like most Dem voters accepted Obama even after "Yes We Can" turned into "...But We Won't." They just need to not show up and vote. x-posting from the Europe thread because, although this is Sweden and the SD party instead of Trump, it's extremely relevant Thoughts on Fascism and the Swedish Election posted:Yes, some of the people who vote SD are racists. This will always be the case. But in my opinion the 13 per cent who did vote for them deserve better than to be further ostracised when the reason they are rejecting the established parties in the first place is that they feel nobody is listening to, let alone addressing, their everyday concerns. Ignore people for long enough and eventually they will start to get pissed off. Sweden does not have 800,000 racists, the notion simply isn’t serious. Dead Cosmonaut fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
do yall think the faithless elector stuff will make a difference? do you hope it will?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
The Snoo posted:do yall think the faithless elector stuff will make a difference? do you hope it will? if faitheless electors overturn the election results (they will not), the potential institutional damage done by Trump will be child's play by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:if faitheless electors overturn the election results (they will not), the potential institutional damage done by Trump will be child's play by comparison. I'm not so sure. There would be a lot of malheur type incidents but the main thing is the replacement would be functionally a four-year lame duck and that's . . .ok. I mean I don't think it will happen but I also don't think it's the end of the world. I mean, letter of the constitution, an elector refusing to vote for Trump is doing precisely their constitutional job, it's in Federalist 68.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Can someone explain to me what "run the country like a business" actually means for people who espouse it? I'm honestly baffled - the internet gives me plenty of hot takes on how terrible of an idea that is (thanks, more than well aware) but very little from the people who actually support it. Don't expect Trump's policy proposals to make coherent sense. It's emotion, not reason. Business good gubmint bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
The Snoo posted:do yall think the faithless elector stuff will make a difference? do you hope it will?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Can someone explain to me what "run the country like a business" actually means for people who espouse it? I'm honestly baffled - the internet gives me plenty of hot takes on how terrible of an idea that is (thanks, more than well aware) but very little from the people who actually support it. Based on Trump's history, I assume it means "don't pay the contractors, and also go bankrupt eventually." Also based on Trump's history, "Don't let black people live here". Also he's definitely gonna keep antagonizing China and other nations on twitter and expecting zero consequences, because he thinks he's doing a TV show and not representing our country as the commander in chief.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:if faitheless electors overturn the election results (they will not), the potential institutional damage done by Trump will be child's play by comparison. There would probably be a shitload of isolated bits of violence but I dunno, one thing it WOULD get us is no more electoral college and wouldn't that be great
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Can someone explain to me what "run the country like a business" actually means for people who espouse it? I'm honestly baffled - the internet gives me plenty of hot takes on how terrible of an idea that is (thanks, more than well aware) but very little from the people who actually support it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
The Snoo posted:do yall think the faithless elector stuff will make a difference? do you hope it will? The damage would be pretty severe, but I don't think it would be as bad as four years of unchecked Republican control of the government. But as you said it's not happening and I feel sorry for anyone clinging on to that delusion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:The damage would be pretty severe, but I don't think it would be as bad as four years of unchecked Republican control of the government. They're not going to overturn, but the story kicking around is that there age going to be some 5-6 faithless anti-Trump electors. I support anything that attacks his legitimacy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not so sure. There would be a lot of malheur type incidents but the main thing is the replacement would be functionally a four-year lame duck and that's . . .ok. I disagree. I think there'd be a fairly severe backlash from republicans who felt like they had the election stolen from them. There'd be a rise in right wing terror attacks, assassination attempts and 2020 would be even more nuts than this year. Joe Average does not give one single gently caress about the Federalist papers. He just knows what his friends are saying on facebook and at work and in his local watering hole and church and maybe that radio show he listens to on his way to work. If the election swings to the democrats despite winning (even though Hillary may win by more than two percentage points) I predict poo poo going off the rails quick. A Trump administration would be bad. loving with the legitimacy of the presidency would be worse. America doesn't have any old world pillars and very little in the way of a shared national identity, just the idea of America. gently caress with it too much and things begin to unravel. We're a country made up of countries. It could break apart someday if people aren't careful. The idea is growing more on me that neither party is truly liked enough to win on their own merits anymore. There seems to be a fairly stark rejection of neo-liberalism and globalism, though most people probably couldn't put their fingers on it. Worldwide people who reject neo-liberalism and globalism are winning no matter how lovely or racist their views are. The socialists that weren't stomped on by the left seem to win over the right wing ones, but only, again, when they aren't torn down. Obama won on a change platform and there really wasn't much radical change at all. He won over Romney, a by the numbers republican and Hillary, despite her hubris, could've won if she'd embraced some sort of change policy. Instead she promised to continue Obama's policies, which are now the status quo. Trump, despite being a con-artist, racist, liar and sexual predator won because he promised change. I think the winner in 2020 is going to be the one who can conceivably promise change of some sort. Doesn't matter what really. When you think about it the candidate on the right was the only person who looked as if he would and could deliver change of some sort and the only credible challenger on the left to Hillary was also promising change. Here's your winning strategy for 2020: 1. It's the economy, stupid. People vote their wallets because they're disconnected from almost all of the horrors of this world save for poverty. 2. Promise change. Doesn't matter what really, just bust something that voters don't like. Deliver if you are able if you want another four years. For example I think that the person who can promise to end the drug war could very well win the next election. Stuff like that. 3. Be likable. I feel like Trump really never won on his own merits. He was sensational so the media covered him at unprecedented rates. He is not a politician, so he sort of has that outsider feel to him. He's also lacks polish which despite how awful he is must be refreshing to people who are used to politicians who are all about fake smiles and phrasing their words carefully enough that they don't get eviscerated by media soundbites taken out of context. And in the end he promised the moon to anyone and everyone. He is a giant middle finger from the American voters to the democrats and republicans, even if the republicans benefit. I think what bothers me the most now is that the bar is just so low to get elected now. It's both refreshing and scary. Imagine a bunch of demagogues bullshitting their way into the national stage. You don't need a lot of big donors. You just need media attention. And old style media is so starved for cash that they'll cover anyone who gets them ratings. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Looks like broken machines are going to make a recount in Michigan almost impossible http://trib.al/qMCaZ6b
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Let me clarify: I'm presuming that the electors / House put in another Republican, someone like Kasich. I think a lot of people would be very upset yes and we'd get Malheurs but even most Republicans didn't actually like or want Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Can someone explain to me what "run the country like a business" actually means for people who espouse it? I'm honestly baffled - the internet gives me plenty of hot takes on how terrible of an idea that is (thanks, more than well aware) but very little from the people who actually support it. It doesn't mean anything, that's the beauty of it! It's one of those speaking points that sounds good but it really means nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Let me clarify: Kasich? I guess. The problem is that he garnered what, barely double digits of the republican vote? No legitimacy. Same problems that Hillary would have, only the republicans would rip each other apart, not the republicans and the democrats butting heads. Trump is probably going to be a lousy and dangerous administrator, but he sure as hell can destroy. The republican party may not survive Trump TV if they yank the rug out from under him. At least not in their current form. Fried Watermelon posted:It doesn't mean anything, that's the beauty of it! When Trump says something that sounds interesting unless he puts forth real substance into it (which is rare) odds are there's no actual plan. Zip. Zero. He's a showman. He grabs attention. He's good at it. But unless the depth is shown to be there it's bullshit. His opinions are made from 100% pure strain bullshit. He falls apart when pressed about his ideas because he has none. Just bullshit. Stop trying to read into any deeper meaning with the man. There isn't any. He exists in the moment and says whatever seems most advantageous to him at that very second. Peace. War. White nationalism. Multiculturalism. Run America like a business. Make America Great Again. Lock her up. No, not really. Bring back coal. No, not really. Drain the swamp. No, not really. No plan. Just bullshit. Now that he's going to be forced to govern he's probably going to gently caress up and gently caress up hard. And with republicans with no one to really obstruct them or to blame their problems on when they fail he'll have a harder time of spinning that bullshit. It'll fall apart eventually. Don't know when. Don't know how. It'll probably be stupid though. Not anything really of substance. Just catchy enough to chant at rallies. A meme made reality that sums up a rejection of his style of politics. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The GOP is definitely going to lose more than a couple governors mansions in 2 years. MA is almost guaranteed to throw Baker out so long as Martha loving Coakley remains in permanent exile. Why do you say Baker is guaranteed to lose? He is one of the most popular governors in the country and the Democrats really don't have anyone to run against him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Why do you say Baker is guaranteed to lose? He is one of the most popular governors in the country and the Democrats really don't have anyone to run against him. It's going to depend entirely on how far he can distance himself from Trump. And if he can make sure Mass Health keeps functioning just as well after the ACA gutted. If our our state health care goes down the tubes he is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:It's going to depend entirely on how far he can distance himself from Trump. And if he can make sure Mass Health keeps functioning just as well after the ACA gutted. If our our state health care goes down the tubes he is hosed. We'll have to see what Baker does over the next two years with respect to Trump, but I am not optimistic that he can be defeated easily. Baker has largely projected himself in his term as separate from the national Republican party and presented an "apolitical" image in that regard. Tying him to Trump would not be easy given how much of a never Trumper he was throughout the election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
I feel like every American politics thread needs a PSA at the top of every page for the next eight years: Globalization (or perhaps globalisation if you're a dirty Brit) is an economic and political phenomenon in the last century marked by increased economic integration of the global economy, among other things. Globalism is an alt-right buzzword that essentially translates to NWO and Jewish banker conspiracies. Anytime you see globalism render it as (((globalism))) to understand what they're getting at. Globalization is a real thing that people are mad about for varying degrees of justifiable reasons. Globalism is conspiracy theory racist tripe. The difference matters and it's super annoying to constantly see alt-right trash getting validated by people who can't be bothered to figure out the difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I feel like every American politics thread needs a PSA at the top of every page for the next eight years: Source your quotes? Opposing being able to shuffle the manufacturing of base economic commodities to countries that are labor/human rights disasters to save a buck, putting it out of sight, and also destroying the economic and political voice of the working poor (that would normally be doing that work under proper regulation) is somehow supposed to be racist? At least my I-phone is *fab, all our cast metal is **cheap, and my new outfit is ***affordable and fly * headquarters in Ireland to avoid taxes, installs suicide nets at Chinese factories ** imports from china, wonders why steel industry died in the US, global warming is up, and there is no EPA in China *** watches another garment factory making wal-mart clothes in Bangladesh fall over because we blessed them with jobs from the job creators at the cheapest possible rate Grognan fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 17:38
|
|