|
Radish posted:If these guys are bad enough to get banned as college Republicans the best thing to do is to say you'll meet at some terrible bar at the far end of town and then just not go. No no no, they ARE the college Republicans. They just got kicked out of another FB group for starting a lot of heated discussions. I'm def gonna talk to the group's treasurer and maybe their leader. Argas posted:it seems like the op is the one who can't be convinced by reasonable arguments. For context, I got this redtext because I lol'd at Condiv and his friends for trying to rationalize their third-party voting, which is something I do not respect in a FPTP system on any level. Most of what he and the True Leftists™ have to say is a far cry from reasonable. Really though, there is something to be said about making your ideas better. You don't need to test them against every idiot, but I certainly want my ideas to be accessible by every idiot. This seems like a fantastic opportunity for me to hone my skills in that regard. Again, and I'll loving bold this since a lot of people have the wrong idea, I do not plan to convince any of them they are wrong, they ARE the Republican club in our uni it won't happen. My main goal is mostly to try to demonstrate I have legitimate grievances with how they use logic and interpret facts, at best. At worst, I'll just have my beers. seiferguy posted:Maybe try the "steel man" debate method: This is a great idea and I'll definitely do this. It'll probably do a lot to curb the sickburns as well, and if it doesn't I'll at least be able to call em out for not willing to engage. drat good call on this one 
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:For context, I got this redtext because I lol'd at Condiv and his friends for trying to rationalize their third-party voting, which is something I do not respect in a FPTP system on any level. Most of what he and the True Leftists™ have to say is a far cry from reasonable. there's nothing to rationalize ssneoman, and we've been over that before. my state is so blood red that there was no chance it was going to hillary, so voting for a third party was a non-factor. i'm not sure how you're supposed to win people over with your incredible logic when you can't even grasp the basics of our electoral college and winner take all delegate allocation
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
The only topics I can think of to avoid are gun control, nuclear power, and anti-vax/new age woo. Assuming you don't inexplicably love Kim Jong Un or Bashir Assad kinda dudes on the foreign politics side that pretty much skates around the areas Democrats are as bad or worse than the Republicans. Pretty much everything else is low hanging fruit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
It’d probably be more productive for to to go grab beers with the local Greens or DSA at your uni. You’d probably have a fact-based discussion with them, for starters, and maybe you’d be able to convince some of them (or who knows? You yourself might be convinced!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:It’d probably be more productive for to to go grab beers with the local Greens or DSA at your uni. You’d probably have a fact-based discussion with them, for starters, and maybe you’d be able to convince some of them (or who knows? You yourself might be convinced!) Way ahead of you there The guy who's coming with me to this (poo poo) show is basically a member of a DSA equivalent campus group. Warbadger posted:The only topics I can think of to avoid are gun control, nuclear power, and anti-vax/new age woo. Assuming you don't inexplicably love Kim Jong Un or Bashir Assad kinda dudes on the foreign politics side that pretty much skates around the areas Democrats are as bad or worse than the Republicans. Pretty much everything else is low hanging fruit. Not at all since they take certain ideas as a given, like "feminism is bad". They don't care for the hows and whys in arguments like that and getting them to engage with the subject would take me the whole evening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
As a former College Republican I an attest that any attempt to slam dunk them on anything is going to get them to close ranks. It's very much a cult-like atmosphere where they'll later refer to "resisting" the "lies" you're spreading and take it as a point of pride. A better tactic might be to point out that California now has a budget surplus, and Brown has resisted progressive pushes for spending to build up the state's Rainy Day Fund as he fears the impact a recession would have on tech and real estate there. This would introduce new information in a way they're not primed to resist, as it's coupled with criticisms of California's economic foundations and rifts within the progressive movement. The more enterprising of them might decide to explore the issue further in hopes of coming up with better points, only to accidentally educate themselves and move leftward (like I did once upon a time). Steer clear of well-traveled arguments as they've already been trained to recite a canned response or evade the issue by demanding evidence and never being satisfied with what you provide. Instead, approach the issue in a way they won't see coming. If you have the stomach for duplicity, you could start by criticising something about the Democrats' approach to climate change and point to how capitalism is solving the problem. This will open up the topic of how insurance companies, hedge funds, auto makers and even fossil fuel companies are adjusting their business plans to reflect the global push for renewables. THEN introduce particularly successful incentive programs put in place in 2009, without actually associating them with Obama. TIGER Grants, Efficiency incentives and research were all given budget boosts in the latest Omnibus. Those are all good things with Trump's name on them, even if he hates that. Getting them to associate those things as "unsung accomplishments" may help them see those programs as good, and perhaps set them up to be conflicted when the GOP inevitably attack them again. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Sometimes though, you can trick them into saving themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:This is a great idea and I'll definitely do this. It'll probably do a lot to curb the sickburns as well, and if it doesn't I'll at least be able to call em out for not willing to engage. drat good call on this one I've only heard of the steel man debate method recently, so if you do try it, let me know how it goes. The big issue is it requires good faith on both sides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:The big issue is it requires good faith on both sides this is exactly the problem, because it opens waaaaay too much into sarcasm and irony to be any good (i.e. during the summation phase the interlocutor just deflects by doing an insincere impression and that can actually plays up to their crowd depending how much of a comic they can be) also OP bungled hard already by letting them decide the home turf, which is always a bad idea if you are going for ~~serious debate~~, really just forget about that and try to be your most charming since that might actually provide some payoff in future persuasion
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:this is exactly the problem, because it opens waaaaay too much into sarcasm and irony to be any good (i.e. during the summation phase the interlocutor just deflects by doing an insincere impression and that can actually plays up to their crowd depending how much of a comic they can be) At that point I can go "see this is exactly why I don't treat what you say in good faith, etc, etc" Sure they'll miss the point but at least I'll be able to demonstrate them willfully doing so. dead comedy forums posted:also OP bungled hard already by letting them decide the home turf, which is always a bad idea if you are going for ~~serious debate~~, really just forget about that and try to be your most charming since that might actually provide some payoff in future persuasion I don't understand what the difference will be between sports bar hangout #35 and sports bar hangout #76. It's an informal debate, I just want to make sure my guns are loaded and all that. Dunno why home turf matters there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
imho if your intention is to debate for the sake of actual rhetoric effort, as in "making sure my guns are loaded", you should have a say where do you want that to happen, since a place where you feel more comfortable (like somewhere that you know that there is a liberal/progressive/socialist/whatever floats your boat crowd) allows you to be more confident and thus more persuasive if this is informal as you say, like I said, I would personally don't give an actual gently caress about rhetoric: it is much more important to be sociable af to the point that, hopefully, in the future they think "wait omg SSNeoman thinks positively about this so this subject can't be that abominable"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
I'd also recommend trying to reference issues that are personally important to you for specific reasons, at least where you're comfortable doing that. I often find success in introducing the topic of climate change with the seemingly unrelated issue of ocean acidification. My friend's boss grows coral in his basement to sell for aquariums and other uses because those species can no longer survive in their natural habitat. It's a weird story that firmly grounds the topic in "this is an issue that's apparently acknowledged by money" and can be brought up for sheer novelty. However, it also allows you to segue into how disrupting the natural carbon cycle can have real, and detrimental effects with regard to the fishing industry. You might try looking at local issues as well, maybe check nearest small-town newspaper's editorial section to see what those concerns are. Avoid the culture war bullshit, naturally, and you'll probably find issues of speculators buying up vacant homes and sitting on them while they collapse or local governments lacking the money to invest in infrastructure. They'll point to Trump's supposed support for that, but that can open up a discussion on House Conservatives demanding this come from cash-strapped states with only a modicum of federal support. Add to that Trump's repeated demands for cuts like eliminating Community Development Block Grants, which I have personally seen transform old factories into affordable apartments in my hometown. I actually wound up working closely with the guy who helped make that happen and learned a lot from him. He was that rare rural Democrat who stayed loyal despite cultural hangups and never stopped fighting even as everyone else descended into madness. He died last year, but the Dems in congress managed to not only save the CDBG program, but expand it. I don't celebrate much anymore, but I drat near cried when that I found out this old guy's struggle was still carrying on. Sometimes a good local story can help you connect and avoid getting bogged down. There are some boundaries I have to set when I'm drawn into debates in the heart of Trumpland though. I have close family members who are gay and that's one area where I flat out refuse to debate anymore because I refuse to entertain any aspersions on their character. Same goes for racial issues. Decent people will usually back off and maybe even respect the loyalty you have to people you care about, and anyone who doesn't isn't worth wasting time with anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think it's relatively easy to answer this with "Yes, in your counterfactual where humans don't have specialized skills, we would need to fundamentally shift how our society handles employment and labor specialization, who cares?". I mean, the point is that someone is going to have to do all the work that doesn't pay much, and while how much a job pays is obviously going to vary to some extent, "low skill" work with potential labor supply greater than demand is never going to pay well in the "free market" (but still needs to be done). Also, remember that this thread is about arguing with College Republicans; they're not going to be open to the idea of a fundamental shift int he way our society handles employment (unless it's in the direct of stuff like eliminating minimum wage or eliminating welfare programs). So the whole idea that everyone has the opportunity to improve their lot in life is fundamentally impossible, because even if everyone were hypothetically hard-working and talented you'd still need most of those jobs to be filled. At the very least, this line of argument will definitely force someone to openly admit that they're okay with having a permanent underclass, and that the rough portion of the population that is poor is unrelated to merit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
This is your opportunity to hear their logic and be swayed into supporting them. Soon you could convert your apparently abundant free time into vocally supporting and even leading their college republican group. Later you must parlay that into a good wingnut welfare job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I mean, the point is that someone is going to have to do all the work that doesn't pay much, and while how much a job pays is obviously going to vary to some extent, "low skill" work with potential labor supply greater than demand is never going to pay well in the "free market" (but still needs to be done). Also, remember that this thread is about arguing with College Republicans; they're not going to be open to the idea of a fundamental shift int he way our society handles employment (unless it's in the direct of stuff like eliminating minimum wage or eliminating welfare programs).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's not all obvious the characteristics of our existing market would continue to exist in a hypothetical where everyone was "hardworking geniuses". In that hypothetical it's pretty easy to argue that "low skill" work would stop being a full time job, and just be the part time duties of everyone doing whatever it is that "hardworking geniuses" do. There's no reason why a genius lawyer that spends 20% of their time scrubbing the office toilets needs to be low paid compared to whatever the other geniuses are doing while spending 20% of their time maintaining their work place. Wow failure to understand specialization of labor is like a 10,000 BC mindset.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
If you yourself don't know the stuff that you want people here to show you how to convince them of then maybe it's you who is arguing in bad faith, even if your point of view on the issues are right. People that don't really know how to show how the world is spherical shouldn't be the ones to tell flat-earthers that it's not flat. They're right, but they don't really know why they are, they just have enough common-sense to buy into the correct theory. If you aren't intellectually dishonest you should already know how to demonstrate the points of view you hold, and what relevant statistics or whatever you can use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wow failure to understand specialization of labor is like a 10,000 BC mindset.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's not all obvious the characteristics of our existing market would continue to exist in a hypothetical where everyone was "hardworking geniuses". In that hypothetical it's pretty easy to argue that "low skill" work would stop being a full time job, and just be the part time duties of everyone doing whatever it is that "hardworking geniuses" do. There's no reason why a genius lawyer that spends 20% of their time scrubbing the office toilets needs to be low paid compared to whatever the other geniuses are doing while spending 20% of their time maintaining their work place. I think that it is a very big mistake to assume that any Republican is going to imagine the idea of society fundamentally transforming to meet these new conditions. Not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure what you describe wouldn't work universally, since you'd still have people who spend much more time doing stuff like "scrubbing the toilets" just because there are far more jobs like that than there are the sort of jobs that usually pay well (and many specialized jobs would still require most of a person's time)*. Basically the point is that people randomly becoming more hard working isn't going to cause them to be compensated more, at least on a population-wide scale. Even what you describe is only hypothetically possible; in reality the "hard-working geniuses" who started off with most of the money/resources (or just get lucky) would still dominate the others. *Think of it this way - if everyone distributed work more or less evenly like you describe, everyone would be spending most of their time doing "low skill" work, which simply wouldn't work for a lot of jobs that would require someone spend most of their time doing them. And there's a huge "spectrum" in this regard with uncertain definitions of "low" and "high" skill; you can't just neatly split work between "low skill" and "high skill" and give people some precise proportion that would resort in everyone carrying the same burden and being compensated equivalently (because, remember, these are Republicans and by default aren't open to the idea of just giving people the same pay for moral reasons). Since this would still be a capitalist society, the value of different work would constantly vary according to market forces, which would further complicate things. And then there's the aforementioned fact that a bunch of jobs require someone spend most of their time doing them, and that many "low skill" jobs actually require skill and couldn't just be done on the side. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Apr 2, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think that it is a very big mistake to assume that any Republican is going to imagine the idea of society fundamentally transforming to meet these new conditions. quote:Not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure what you describe wouldn't work universally quote:since you'd still have people who spend much more time doing stuff like "scrubbing the toilets" just because there are far more jobs like that than there are the sort of jobs that usually pay well (and many specialized jobs would still require most of a person's time)*. Keep in mind that the particular concept of "free market capitalism" they support basically looks like our current economy but with less welfare spending and whatever regulations they personally dislike.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
I agree with all those who are saying that trying to flip someone's political opinion is a waste of time. For proof, ask yourself when the last time was that your opponent's political argument, even a reasoned one, worked on you. And all people, are dumb. I attended the March For Our Lives event in my city and had a polite conversation with a small group of pro-gun people. Only one of them, gun lovers all, could even tell me what the 2nd Amendment says (it is one sentence long). A better tact is this: let your opponents defeat themselves by giving them food for thought. Pick a problem in need of a solution, something that both of you agree is broken. Let THEM tell you, step by step what they would do to fix it. Anticipate their answers, and have your counterpoints ready. Don't try to win.... be like Data: play for a tie. Frustrate their every point, do not try to get the upper hand, and the next day they will realize that they have lost when they are still wrestling with your arguments and you are loving their girlfriend on their bed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Another strategy might be this: right wingers, by definition, do not believe in "progress". Theirs is a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. Republican's, as the right wing party of record, define themselves by holding on to the past, and protecting the privileges of the ruling class (whites). Challenge them to provide you with something, anything, that needs to change in defiance of the status quo. They will almost certainly try to conceal their answer by saying they want to "change" college campuses by silencing campus liberals (agreed!) or "change" the public's attitude on the "flag" by condemning NFL/BLM. Don't take the bait. Find a topic of common concern that the current political/economic solutions simply have not fixed, and slowly get them to admit through their own words that a leftist position (one of change) is the right one. And never forget: there are as many right wingers stuck in lovely, unrewarding, low paying work as there are left wingers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
this thread sucks dude go to a bar with cool people and drink instead stop wasting your life
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 12:02
|
|
|
I get there’s truth to it that you’re probably wasting your time debating Republicans but honestly as someone who’s incredibly liberal and debated Republicans back in College in 2006 I’m incredibly curious what the environment is like today. Back then, most folks where pretty respectful. The biggest issue was the Iraq War and Gay Marriage but what’s interesting was the near unanimous consent between College Dems. and College Republicans that Global Warming was real and a big important issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Maybe don’t go at all, and stop getting involved with people who don’t deserve your time? They were ostracized for a reason, don’t let them believe for one moment that you consider their points worthy of being debated, because they’re not and debating them does nothing but legitimize them? Yikes, talk about epistemic closure. The Republicans deserve a ton of credit for inviting you, and you for going. Edit: to address the O.P., you need to decide if you want to troll (they'll love it, too) or have an intellectual conversation. If the later, I'd pick topics where there is likely disagreement among the Republicans e.g., should the government do anything to protect free speech on campus? Was the Pope right about Hell? If the former, just grab the latest college democrat/green talking points and have at it. gaj70 fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Apr 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:Yikes, talk about epistemic closure. I dare you to post a single Republican core belief, or even opinion, that is worthy of debate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Grammarchist posted:Tons of solid advice Thanks dude, I appreciate any insight you can give me on the matter! I'm reading everyone's posts here, don't worry
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
It is definitely worth going. If you get pulled into debate I think staying on topic is the best advice you can follow. I've found conservatives main tactic is to always bring up as many unrelated things as possible, because in their world all their complaints tie together regardless of how separated they might be in reality. I'd say you have the right idea going after global warming as a starting point. Most people you can walk through some very basic logical arguments. Humans extract carbon from earth > humans incinerate carbon into atmosphere > processes by which carbon returns to earth do not outpace the rate by which humans burn said carbon > wait for rebuttal. I feel this will be educational and worth your time regardless of success.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Thanks dude, I appreciate any insight you can give me on the matter! Please report back, I’m interested into how this all turns out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I dare you to post a single Republican core belief, or even opinion, that is worthy of debate. Government spending, regulation, and tax laws all need reform and simplification. And that we should impeach Hilary Clinton for deleting emails instead of sending everything to her spam folder like a real American would.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
Agreed. Proscription is a more efficient form of taxing the rich than even the most progressive wealth tax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
Sazabi posted:Government spending, regulation, and tax laws all need reform and simplification. Hillary's big deal was less about deleting email and more about doing official communications off the State Department systems, then also deleting a bunch of stuff in a way that it was not backed up for later review (everything is backed up on the gov email to avoid these situations). The deletions may or may not have happened after access to the emails was demanded. That'd get a normal person fired, the email servers forcibly taken rather than a request for copies, and probably loss of clearance. The unreasonable part there isn't so much republicans wanting Hillary to face consequences as it is that they probably wouldn't want the same for somebody doing it with an -R next to their name. Anyways, repubs think nuclear power is OK. Not really a core belief, though. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Apr 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
OP as many have mentioned you are not going to pursued them about anything, the blowback effect is real and they will talk circles around themselves and chuckle amongst themselves. It will be dumb poo poo like 'Sounds exactly like something a liberal will say' and then they will chuckle and elbow each other in the ribs and then smile. Or they'll say something like 'bottom line, more white people are murdered by the police so there just can't be a problem'. No the only way someone is going to change their mind is if they pursued themselves. I'm a marketing guy, and the absolute best way to get someone to regret a purchase is to get them to explain exactly why they decided to purchase something. On the flipside, if you want someone to rate an experience as more positive, you get them to enumerate all of the ways that the experience could have been improved. It's all kinds of hosed up. And they've shown something similar when it comes to political policy. Do you want someone to change their mind about a policy? Then get them to describe exactly how that policy would be implemented. So here's how I would play it. Go in and literally do not use a declarative statement. Only ask questions. Of course there are exceptions, like if you show up and they roll their eyes and say "oh golly here comes a ~*liberal*~, let's charge him 30% more for cookies" just shrug your shoulders and say something like "Yeah I mean obviously the country's divided and I just want to open a dialogue, is that okay with you?" Then just ask questions. You don't even have to ask tough or leading questions, but if you feel that there is a gap in their understanding, ask about it. Not poo poo like "Why are you all soulless racists?" You can also ask broad ones as well. My favorite when it comes to welfare and handouts is to ask why there are so many homeless veterans. And not in a gotcha way, it is an avenue towards a real discussion. "What if there are more job seekers than jobs, like at the beginning of the recession?" Nothing you say is going to change their mind. It's what you can get them to say that will change their mind. And on the flipside you can also ask what the other side can do to improve. "What does the left need to do do reach out to people in the middle or to the right?" They'll yuck it up a bit but then go "yeah but seriously."
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Thanks dude, I appreciate any insight you can give me on the matter! Thanks! Hope the experience is positive, or at least memorable. I don't know if any of this is still relevant to the experience of a conservative in this day and age, but if they lean really hard on "conservative intellectual heavyweights" there's a few aspects of Hayek and Friedman that were an important part of helping me think my way out of rightist circles. Both wrote specifically about the issue of demand collapse, wherein working people don't make enough money to spend on anything more than absolute basics. To their credit, they both saw this as a problem and suggested a solution in the form of a negative income tax, akin to a form of UBI. Nixon actually considered the measure, as it would allow for the elimination of government bureaucracies handling welfare and replace it with a stealthy redistribution of wealth that cements capitalism in society. If they really want government programs eliminated, this remains the best way to do it and keep the economy stable. The basic concept comes up in a lot of UBI vs. Traditional Social Program arguments on the left, as there are obviously potential pitfalls. For your purposes though, it allows another opportunity to legitimately make this an educational experience for both sides. Conservatives, especially insecure ones, love to hear about dischord on the Left and they might be willing to adopt the Friedman-Hayek-Nixon position if it's presented as a bona fide "conservative" solution. Bonus points if you can actually start an argument in favor of traditional government programs from there and get them to try UBI on for size. If one of them starts bringing it up in their circles, other conservatives who only trust other conservatives might get introduced to it as well and be inspired to learn more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:I dare you to post a single Republican core belief, or even opinion, that is worthy of debate. It's more fun to identify areas where the other side probably has the better argument. I'll start: 1) the Democrats are ahead of Republicans on criminal justice reform. The R's just have a vague notion that 'too many things are felonies,' but don't really have concrete ideas on what to do about it. 2) the feminist position that you can solve a host of thorny issues (overpopulation, many environmental issues, etc) by 'empowering women.' 3) The D willingness to act internationally (including militarily) for reasons other then pure national interest (aka R2P doctrine) 4) the D's traditional willingness to assist the losers from globalization, though I question whether this is still a priority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
Just have a beer and talk about sports (but not Colin Kaepernick)
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
gaj70 posted:
Just to be clear, are you claiming that this is wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
gucci bane posted:Just to be clear, are you claiming that this is wrong? I'm claiming it's right. I'll take it one step further. 20 years ago, I was skeptical about whether it would make any measurable difference. I was wrong. gaj70 fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
So when’s this shitshow supposed to take place?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Makw sure to joke about jill stein and make an"IM NOT A CROOK" subtle reference
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Ask them about how they feel about diapers, OP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 05:37
|
|
