|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 17 2016 05:11 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 05:07 xDaunt wrote:On March 17 2016 05:03 oneofthem wrote:
being lazy has its benefits. you don't get involved in protests and stuff.
only protest i ever was involved in was this grad student union drive and even that was of mixed motives Such as getting laid? i call it inspirational companionship
#PussyCrushing
|
can you maybe move your juvenile "broness" to the dating thread?
|
United States43964 Posts
In possibly related news the market is now within less than 5% of an all time high (4.9% as of today). Still a long time to the election but it's entirely possible we could see it near, if not exceeding, past highs by election day which will naturally help Hillary.
|
On March 17 2016 05:17 puerk wrote:
can you maybe move your juvenile "broness" to the dating thread?
just regard it as "reaching across the aisle," or perhaps "reaching around the aisle" may be more appropriate 
Here's an interesting whisper of a report:
NPR’s Nina Totenberg reports that Senate Republicans “sent some sort of a back channel message to the White House” that they would confirm Garland in the event of a Democratic victory. “They would confirm him in the lame duck session,” Totenberg said.
This strategy might indicate the GOP’s confidence that it will keep control of the Senate after 2016. Republicans can’t block nominations for an entire presidential term, but they can settle on a candidate who, while not a conservative, is, as Orrin Hatch once said, a “consensus nominee.” If a Republican wins the White House, then they can keep blocking the nomination until inauguration and the later appointment of a more conservative candidate.
But it’s not a foregone conclusion that the Republicans will keep the Senate after November. There are more Republican seats at risk than Democratic ones, and some analysts believe that down-ballot races could be negatively affected by a Trump nomination (though that may be wishful thinking). If the Republicans lose the Senate they’ll be appointing Garland for fear of an even more liberal judge coming in.
Report: Republicans told Obama they’d confirm Merrick Garland if the Democrats win the presidential election
|
United States43964 Posts
Trying to have their cake and eat it. They were offered Garland in recognition of Obama's relatively weak position and the possibility of a stronger Republican position in the future. If they reject him, betting that their position will improve and allow them to get a much more conservative candidate, and then lose the presidential election Garland won't still be on the table.
Hell, you might as well go to a roulette table and say you're still thinking about whether or not you want to put all your money on red but you'll be happy to go with it if it subsequently happens to be red.
|
On March 17 2016 05:18 KwarK wrote:
In possibly related news the market is now within less than 5% of an all time high (4.9% as of today). Still a long time to the election but it's entirely possible we could see it near, if not exceeding, past highs by election day which will naturally help Hillary.
I made a big chunk shorting Valeant yesterday. I feel like a evil Wall Street capitalist responsible for destroying our economy.
|
On March 17 2016 04:22 OtherWorld wrote:Well to be fair, I don't think there are any law or legal obligation for a Party to hold primaries/caucuses to choose its presidential candidate? Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 04:12 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 03:54 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 03:50 writer22816 wrote:On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for? You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example. The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol. Well they are addressing legitimate concerns that people have about Muslims. Not necessarily in the best way, possibly a bit destructively, but better than many liberals who refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself and Muslims have issues that cannot simply be brushed off. So it is trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem. Politicians talking about the theological tenets of "Islam itself" are automatically out of their depth, save for maybe a few tiny exceptions, so no, it isn't even trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem. Ill-conceived rhetoric aimed towards generalizing a religion for the purposes of gaining political favor among people who literally know nothing about Islam beyond the fact that 9/11 was committed by Muslims makes the problem worse, not better. oneofthem's post focuses on the issue more appropriately; a political emphasis on more than merely the religion itself is integral to productive political discourse as to immigration policy. Thank you
Primaries is not for the people to choose a candidate, its for the party to choose a candidate. The reason you want to win the primary is because of money. You want the party to bankroll as much of your campaign as possible.
|
On March 17 2016 04:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 04:45 Danglars wrote:
Another muslims terrorist story over here, but you know there was that one psycho Christian shooter, and the Crusades, and I'm sure I heard an abortion clinic bomber, an McVeigh wasn't Muslim, was he? The gap in the middle is essentially unoccupied from the direction of the left. Plenty of political candidates or statesmen will say they're the sensible middle, but they likewise have been playing the tune of, "This Week in Nothing to do with Islam" for far too long to be believed. Because like you're saying, it's just stories. The only threat to women's reproductive rights and LGBT rights in political form is coming from Christian conservatives. I'm not seeing an Islamic political platform running. So why should a rational person be concerned with a fringe minority while a huge group of people is de-facto taking their rights away right now?
The concern about islam and politics is that they point to what the policies would look like under Iran, IS, etc... rule. That *if* you allow them to get some amount of power, the laws would be genital mutilation instead of just a lower level of pay. Its a stupid worry, but it would be dishonest to forget why that concern exists.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 17 2016 05:04 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 04:56 SK.Testie wrote:On March 17 2016 04:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I also think it's funny how people manage to think 'Trump is honest and trustworthy and he speaks his mind' while also thinking 'whenever he said something that wasn't totally gay friendly or when he spoke about what a christian he is, he was just lying because he has to pander to the republican base'. It's under the assumption that none of them are honest or trustworthy. That's literally it. There's a mutual understanding that, "all these people are lying to get elected". All of them. So they parse through and decide what is best. How I currently see it. Very tl;dr lazy version. Ted Cruz - Evil Incarnate. Sociopath who actually jizzes his pants a little every time he lies. Never seen a man who likes to lie more and who looks so happy with himself after he finishes lying. Has said he would glass the middle east. LYIN' TED. Trump - Businessman playing politics, promising walls and jobs and some nationalist pride. Will call the media out on false narratives. His campaign is capitalism in a nutshell. Looking to protect America from subversion and give it simple unified goals the country can get behind. Attempting to call out a lot of bullshit he sees in America that is being widely accepted. Has liberal leaning views, and promises that he won't allow the weaker members of society to just die in the street. Hillary - Status Quo, more Obama. Career politician whose changed her views over the years. Probably way more war hawkish than Trump. More warhawk than Obama. Will still allow the media to push completely false narratives. We have a long history of knowing that she's not trustworthy. However, watching her destroy that Benghazi committee hit club the republicans formed for her was hilarious. Just utter destruction of them. She's experienced, intelligent, and can play the game. Bernie - Great ideals, but delusional and not based in reality. Remember, Scandinavia does not have the population America has. This is very, very important. Socialism won't work in America. It's unrealistic and goes against human nature. And there's a lot of competing factions within America that try to subvert and undermine the other. America is constantly at war, and is at war with itself as well. Bernies base is such a shitshow. You have literal anarchists, communists, socialists, capitalists, SJW identity politics all over the place, and the evil boogeyman of the rich man. Lotta evil boogeyman to go around on rich and poor. This is not a unified group. It's a group that pretends at unity when most of them are attempting to elect someone they don't understand. They're young, immature, and it's shown time and time again when they are threatening violence in every direction while calling other people out for hatred. You're under the impression that America hasn't tried it in many pockets of it's own communities. But there's a lot of studies of them giving massive funding for schools and still failing in communities for instance. There's some things that genuinely help as well. Like when a Republican mayor? Governor? I forget what he was but it was on TDS and he basically gave homes to the homeless and tried to help them out. I'm not sure about the long term effects of it were, but the short term seemed to look good. Trump wins voters when he tells people that when they ship factories overseas, he will call the head of those factories and say "I hope you're ready for some new taxes". People want jobs and manufacturing to stay in America. It's going to be very strange to see how it all plays out with the robotics industry touting self driving cars, factories that don't need humans, among other things. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/anti-trump-groups-threaten-largest-civil-disobedience-action-of-the-century/It's a return of hippies who want to get their skulls cracked again or smth. I disagree with Trump's campaign being capitalism in a nutshell. Free market capitalism supports free trade agreements and lowering barriers to the global economy rather than supporting them. I'd also think more open immigration would be a great thing for capitalists considering that allows for better allocation of human capital. That aside, I agree with most of the rest of your assessment.
trump is about the real talk. real capitalism doesn't necessarily want free market, they just want to make money
|
On March 17 2016 05:40 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 04:22 OtherWorld wrote:Well to be fair, I don't think there are any law or legal obligation for a Party to hold primaries/caucuses to choose its presidential candidate? On March 17 2016 04:12 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 03:54 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 03:50 writer22816 wrote:On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for? You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example. The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol. Well they are addressing legitimate concerns that people have about Muslims. Not necessarily in the best way, possibly a bit destructively, but better than many liberals who refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself and Muslims have issues that cannot simply be brushed off. So it is trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem. Politicians talking about the theological tenets of "Islam itself" are automatically out of their depth, save for maybe a few tiny exceptions, so no, it isn't even trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem. Ill-conceived rhetoric aimed towards generalizing a religion for the purposes of gaining political favor among people who literally know nothing about Islam beyond the fact that 9/11 was committed by Muslims makes the problem worse, not better. oneofthem's post focuses on the issue more appropriately; a political emphasis on more than merely the religion itself is integral to productive political discourse as to immigration policy. Thank you Primaries is not for the people to choose a candidate, its for the party to choose a candidate. The reason you want to win the primary is because of money. You want the party to bankroll as much of your campaign as possible.
Technically the party decided it wanted voters to play a big role in how candidates were chosen. Nobody should be surprised if those voters, who are critical to accomplishing anything with said candidate, rebel when party elites decide to change the result.
|
On March 17 2016 05:40 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 04:22 OtherWorld wrote:Well to be fair, I don't think there are any law or legal obligation for a Party to hold primaries/caucuses to choose its presidential candidate? On March 17 2016 04:12 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 03:54 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 03:50 writer22816 wrote:On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for? You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example. The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol. Well they are addressing legitimate concerns that people have about Muslims. Not necessarily in the best way, possibly a bit destructively, but better than many liberals who refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself and Muslims have issues that cannot simply be brushed off. So it is trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem. Politicians talking about the theological tenets of "Islam itself" are automatically out of their depth, save for maybe a few tiny exceptions, so no, it isn't even trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem. Ill-conceived rhetoric aimed towards generalizing a religion for the purposes of gaining political favor among people who literally know nothing about Islam beyond the fact that 9/11 was committed by Muslims makes the problem worse, not better. oneofthem's post focuses on the issue more appropriately; a political emphasis on more than merely the religion itself is integral to productive political discourse as to immigration policy. Thank you Primaries is not for the people to choose a candidate, its for the party to choose a candidate. The reason you want to win the primary is because of money. You want the party to bankroll as much of your campaign as possible.
Technically no, primaries are here for the party to give the illusion that the people choose a candidate. The party could choose a candidate without primaries, and the party would still have to pay the candidate's campaign. It would also have the benefit of avoiding having a party destroy and divide itself in case of hard-fought primaries, and would save all the money the different PACs and Super PACs have spent for the primaries (I mean come on, if we add all the money that all the Republican candidates will have spent once the convention comes, what figure do we have? $300M? $700M$? That's pretty huge)
|
On March 17 2016 05:45 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 04:59 Nyxisto wrote:On March 17 2016 04:45 Danglars wrote:
Another muslims terrorist story over here, but you know there was that one psycho Christian shooter, and the Crusades, and I'm sure I heard an abortion clinic bomber, an McVeigh wasn't Muslim, was he? The gap in the middle is essentially unoccupied from the direction of the left. Plenty of political candidates or statesmen will say they're the sensible middle, but they likewise have been playing the tune of, "This Week in Nothing to do with Islam" for far too long to be believed. Because like you're saying, it's just stories. The only threat to women's reproductive rights and LGBT rights in political form is coming from Christian conservatives. I'm not seeing an Islamic political platform running. So why should a rational person be concerned with a fringe minority while a huge group of people is de-facto taking their rights away right now? The concern about islam and politics is that they point to what the policies would look like under Iran, IS, etc... rule. That *if* you allow them to get some amount of power, the laws would be genital mutilation instead of just a lower level of pay. Its a stupid worry, but it would be dishonest to forget why that concern exists.
The concern should be addressed where it is relevant, which is at the local level where isolated, deeply segregated communities have these issues. On the national scale it is not relevant and it is not a threat to 99% of Americans, in contrast to Christian fundamentalism which seems to be an issue in many states where it creeps into legislation, be it education, lgbt rights or reproductive rights
|
Christian Fundamentalism is definitely a larger issue because of the population samples. However, if 40% of your population were Muslim, it would be pretty shit I'd imagine. Especially because their religion has the victim complex to feel aggrieved enough to always take violent retribution for slights.
But yes, the whole Ken Ham creationism museum and them trying to "teach the alternative" is complete garbage.
|
The Senate GOP's Supreme Court blockade showed signs of cracking almost immediately after President Barack Obama unveiled his nominee — even as Mitch McConnell and his allies reiterated their vow not to hold any confirmation hearings before the November elections.
A handful of GOP senators said they would at least meet with Merrick Garland, the chief justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals whom Obama nominated for the nation’s highest court on Wednesday. Meanwhile, some Republicans acknowledged they could move Garland’s nomination during the lame-duck session, should their party lose both the White House and control of the Senate this fall.
Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican on the Judiciary Committee who is generally deferential on presidential nominees, said “yes” when asked whether he would move to confirm Garland in the lame-duck session if Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, wins in November.
“For those of us who are concerned about the direction of the court and wanting at least a more centrist figure than between him and somebody that President Clinton might nominate, I think the choice is clear — in a lame duck,” Flake said Wednesday after Obama named Garland.
Source
|
Man, every country with majority Muslim population must be a violent hell hole if that is true??? So why isn’t that the case? Oh yeah…….
|
This lame-duck scenario is so dumb...Why would the Republicans give the Democrats an entire election of "they won't confirm a supreme judge"...
If your going to cave then cave in 2 months time and get it over with before the general election starts.
|
On March 17 2016 05:49 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 05:40 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 17 2016 04:22 OtherWorld wrote:Well to be fair, I don't think there are any law or legal obligation for a Party to hold primaries/caucuses to choose its presidential candidate? On March 17 2016 04:12 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 03:54 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 03:50 writer22816 wrote:On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for? You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example. The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol. Well they are addressing legitimate concerns that people have about Muslims. Not necessarily in the best way, possibly a bit destructively, but better than many liberals who refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself and Muslims have issues that cannot simply be brushed off. So it is trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem. Politicians talking about the theological tenets of "Islam itself" are automatically out of their depth, save for maybe a few tiny exceptions, so no, it isn't even trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem. Ill-conceived rhetoric aimed towards generalizing a religion for the purposes of gaining political favor among people who literally know nothing about Islam beyond the fact that 9/11 was committed by Muslims makes the problem worse, not better. oneofthem's post focuses on the issue more appropriately; a political emphasis on more than merely the religion itself is integral to productive political discourse as to immigration policy. Thank you Primaries is not for the people to choose a candidate, its for the party to choose a candidate. The reason you want to win the primary is because of money. You want the party to bankroll as much of your campaign as possible. Technically no, primaries are here for the party to give the illusion that the people choose a candidate. The party could choose a candidate without primaries, and the party would still have to pay the candidate's campaign. It would also have the benefit of avoiding having a party destroy and divide itself in case of hard-fought primaries, and would save all the money the different PACs and Super PACs have spent for the primaries (I mean come on, if we add all the money that all the Republican candidates will have spent once the convention comes, what figure do we have? $300M? $700M$? That's pretty huge)
That's how it used to be done. We moved away from that because it turns out that the political establishment isn't all that great at predicting what the actual voters want, and the system was rife with opportunities for intrigue and backroom nonsense.
|
On March 17 2016 06:02 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2016 05:49 OtherWorld wrote:On March 17 2016 05:40 Naracs_Duc wrote:On March 17 2016 04:22 OtherWorld wrote:Well to be fair, I don't think there are any law or legal obligation for a Party to hold primaries/caucuses to choose its presidential candidate? On March 17 2016 04:12 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 04:05 LegalLord wrote:On March 17 2016 03:54 farvacola wrote:On March 17 2016 03:50 writer22816 wrote:On March 17 2016 03:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
having read some more of the thread now, let me add to my previous post that the idea of anyone justifying their hatred for Islam through Islam's stance towards homosexuality, while planning on voting for a GOP candidate, is a fucking joke. Seriously, how do some of you guys fail to see that all the progressive values you hate Islam for not sharing are also hardly shared by the party you plan on voting for? You do realize that the same logic works both ways, right? GOP candidates aren't "progressive" and yet somehow they are the ones speaking more honestly about Islam. During WWII the allies had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. If the regressive left continues to try and shut down constructive conversation and repeat meaningless platitudes, you can hardly be surprised if more reasonable people consider voting Republican and the far-right groups start gaining ground. See Germany for example. The notion that GOP candidates are "speaking more honestly about Islam" is hardly well-established enough to be referenced without a great deal of qualification. In other words, you haven't proven "that the same logic works both ways," you've merely proven that you agree with the rhetoric of the GOP lol. Well they are addressing legitimate concerns that people have about Muslims. Not necessarily in the best way, possibly a bit destructively, but better than many liberals who refuse to acknowledge that Islam itself and Muslims have issues that cannot simply be brushed off. So it is trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem. Politicians talking about the theological tenets of "Islam itself" are automatically out of their depth, save for maybe a few tiny exceptions, so no, it isn't even trivially true that GOP candidates do a better job than complete ignorance of the problem. Ill-conceived rhetoric aimed towards generalizing a religion for the purposes of gaining political favor among people who literally know nothing about Islam beyond the fact that 9/11 was committed by Muslims makes the problem worse, not better. oneofthem's post focuses on the issue more appropriately; a political emphasis on more than merely the religion itself is integral to productive political discourse as to immigration policy. Thank you Primaries is not for the people to choose a candidate, its for the party to choose a candidate. The reason you want to win the primary is because of money. You want the party to bankroll as much of your campaign as possible. Technically no, primaries are here for the party to give the illusion that the people choose a candidate. The party could choose a candidate without primaries, and the party would still have to pay the candidate's campaign. It would also have the benefit of avoiding having a party destroy and divide itself in case of hard-fought primaries, and would save all the money the different PACs and Super PACs have spent for the primaries (I mean come on, if we add all the money that all the Republican candidates will have spent once the convention comes, what figure do we have? $300M? $700M$? That's pretty huge) That's how it used to be done. We moved away from that because it turns out that the political establishment isn't all that great at predicting what the actual voters want, and the system was rife with opportunities for intrigue and backroom nonsense.
Yes, that's true. Though to be fair with a well-functioning democracy (read : something with more than 2 nationwide parties), the process should be that each party proposes a candidate who represents that party's ideas, and then voters vote according to which party represent their ideas best. It shouldn't be that each party basically base its ideas on what voters want.
|
I think a lot of people on my fb see "Sanders needs 57 percent" and think that means 50 to 57. No. It means 43 to 57.
|
On March 17 2016 06:14 Mohdoo wrote:
I think a lot of people on my fb see "Sanders needs 57 percent" and think that means 50 to 57. No. It means 43 to 57.
#theydidthemath
In other news, is anyone as disbelieving as I that the Republican "screw Obama" pact has held strong for 7 years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
