|
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 June 27 2017 01:27 Acrofales wrote:
I'm a bit confused how this could possibly be phrased as a win for Trump. Nobody was arguing that Trump couldn't block visa applications with good reason. He could just have written his travel ban exactly like Obama did.
Instead, he wrote an insane ban on absolutely everybody including people with valid visas, green card holders, and a whole list of other people with legitimate reasons and who had already been vetted. The supreme court ruling basically says "yeah, stop people from entering the US as you like, mr. president, but don't be a dumbass about it". Seems like his overreach has been shut down pretty hard, and he now has a watered down version of what he himself claimed was too watered down (or was it "sad"?) version of his travel ban.
If you're referring to my post, it's a win for the executive branch against insane judicial overreach. And reminder: "nobody was arguing x" *ahem* people were arguing intent to discriminate from campaign statements and aide statements was sufficient. That's enough lunacy and thankfully a step too far for a big liberal rebuttal.
The rest of your post recollects the dumb EO-1. EO-2 did not include many of your addressed groups of people.
|
Intent to discriminate is pretty clear; if you're gonna claim there's no discriminatory intent you'd better provide some actual evidence; especially since everyone knows there's no actual national security benefit from the orders.
but like I said earlier, a heaping dose of rationalization.
insane judicial overreach = disliking courts preventing them from violating the constitution 
|
On June 27 2017 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 01:55 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:39 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:26 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:21 Danglars wrote:On June 26 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote:Also, it looks like Trump is going to score a win on the travel ban, with the Supreme Court allowing it to go into effect provisionally (pending reargument) against persons without a "bona fide relationship to the US." EDIT: And it appears to be a per curiam opinion with no full liberal dissent. Interesting. EDIT 2: Heh, looks like the Court wants to duck this one. They direct the parties to address the following issue in the next around of briefing: whether the challenges to the EO became moot on June 14, 2017. EDIT 3: Looks like the language is narrower than initially reported: In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be en-forced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in theUnited States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2. Affirming (in reasoning) that EO-2 was a constitutional exercise of executive power. It's a welcome relief to the courts claiming the power to make national security judgements. One key argument destroyed. + Show Spoiler +Also: Wedding cake designers get writ of cert I still fail to see how the travel ban does anything in the vein of national security. It's a yet more limited version of a ban that was already limited to a selection of countries that had nothing to do with terrorism in the US. Temporarily stopping immigration from countries that cannot track their terrorists, or failed states where identities cannot be proven in any way, is a national security question at its core. Some are state sponsors of terrorism aka "nothing to do with terrorism in the US" is not for lack of trying. The majority of terrorists that have attacked not only the US, but Europe as well, have been domestic - they were there their whole lives. Shotgun-banning travel from countries that may have something to do with terrorists does nothing to address the genuine issue. If the problem is lack of tracking, maybe we ought to track what's going on in our country first. Maybe you disagree substantially on the means the president is using to fix a problem. Maybe you would argue a basis in historical deaths or attacks evidenced. It still doesn't deny his statutory and constitutional authority to do so, and the previously discussed facts of inability to vet and state sponsors of terrorism. I have no doubt Clinton would've chosen a different choice for national security, and many of her supporters disagree with Trump's approach, but elections have consequences. Best of luck next time around. And no one ever disputed that the President has that right. The issue has always been with the how. Mainly the initial ban and it blocking legitimate vetting people from entering the US. like foreign students and visa/green card holders. Something that is specificity addressed by the SCOTUS.
They say and have said that arguing animus and prejudice denies the President that right. That was the context of the denial ("Anyone else, say Hillary, would have the right to issue this exact same executive order, but Trump does not under this circumstance"). It's been in dispute in the same way the right to free speech isn't subject to Government not liking what you say. Let's not whitewash arguments made not even six months ago; rights taken away by men in black robes start becoming government-afforded privileges real fast. I understand the person Trump kind of short-circuits critical thinking because somehow people think he's president for life or something.
|
Insane judicial over reach is hyperbolic. An executive order is subject to be stayed by the courts just like every other law. The states brought these cases, saying the order would impact their economic interests and they should not be subject to the poorly thought out campaign promises of the executive branch.
|
On June 27 2017 02:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On June 27 2017 01:55 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:39 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:26 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:21 Danglars wrote:On June 26 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote:Also, it looks like Trump is going to score a win on the travel ban, with the Supreme Court allowing it to go into effect provisionally (pending reargument) against persons without a "bona fide relationship to the US." EDIT: And it appears to be a per curiam opinion with no full liberal dissent. Interesting. EDIT 2: Heh, looks like the Court wants to duck this one. They direct the parties to address the following issue in the next around of briefing: whether the challenges to the EO became moot on June 14, 2017. EDIT 3: Looks like the language is narrower than initially reported: In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be en-forced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in theUnited States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2. Affirming (in reasoning) that EO-2 was a constitutional exercise of executive power. It's a welcome relief to the courts claiming the power to make national security judgements. https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/879349760498565120One key argument destroyed. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/879347347762884608Also: Wedding cake designers get writ of cert I still fail to see how the travel ban does anything in the vein of national security. It's a yet more limited version of a ban that was already limited to a selection of countries that had nothing to do with terrorism in the US. Temporarily stopping immigration from countries that cannot track their terrorists, or failed states where identities cannot be proven in any way, is a national security question at its core. Some are state sponsors of terrorism aka "nothing to do with terrorism in the US" is not for lack of trying. The majority of terrorists that have attacked not only the US, but Europe as well, have been domestic - they were there their whole lives. Shotgun-banning travel from countries that may have something to do with terrorists does nothing to address the genuine issue. If the problem is lack of tracking, maybe we ought to track what's going on in our country first. Maybe you disagree substantially on the means the president is using to fix a problem. Maybe you would argue a basis in historical deaths or attacks evidenced. It still doesn't deny his statutory and constitutional authority to do so, and the previously discussed facts of inability to vet and state sponsors of terrorism. I have no doubt Clinton would've chosen a different choice for national security, and many of her supporters disagree with Trump's approach, but elections have consequences. Best of luck next time around. And no one ever disputed that the President has that right. The issue has always been with the how. Mainly the initial ban and it blocking legitimate vetting people from entering the US. like foreign students and visa/green card holders. Something that is specificity addressed by the SCOTUS. They say and have said that arguing animus and prejudice denies the President that right. That was the context of the denial ("Anyone else, say Hillary, would have the right to issue this exact same executive order, but Trump does not under this circumstance"). It's been in dispute in the same way the right to free speech isn't subject to Government not liking what you say. Let's not whitewash arguments made not even six months ago; rights taken away by men in black robes start becoming government-afforded privileges real fast. I understand the person Trump kind of short-circuits critical thinking because somehow people think he's president for life or something.
Just as there are times that speech illegal, Trump's actions on immigration could be illegal.
|
On June 27 2017 02:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On June 27 2017 01:55 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:39 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:26 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:21 Danglars wrote:On June 26 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote:Also, it looks like Trump is going to score a win on the travel ban, with the Supreme Court allowing it to go into effect provisionally (pending reargument) against persons without a "bona fide relationship to the US." EDIT: And it appears to be a per curiam opinion with no full liberal dissent. Interesting. EDIT 2: Heh, looks like the Court wants to duck this one. They direct the parties to address the following issue in the next around of briefing: whether the challenges to the EO became moot on June 14, 2017. EDIT 3: Looks like the language is narrower than initially reported: In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be en-forced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in theUnited States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2. Affirming (in reasoning) that EO-2 was a constitutional exercise of executive power. It's a welcome relief to the courts claiming the power to make national security judgements. https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/879349760498565120One key argument destroyed. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/879347347762884608Also: Wedding cake designers get writ of cert I still fail to see how the travel ban does anything in the vein of national security. It's a yet more limited version of a ban that was already limited to a selection of countries that had nothing to do with terrorism in the US. Temporarily stopping immigration from countries that cannot track their terrorists, or failed states where identities cannot be proven in any way, is a national security question at its core. Some are state sponsors of terrorism aka "nothing to do with terrorism in the US" is not for lack of trying. The majority of terrorists that have attacked not only the US, but Europe as well, have been domestic - they were there their whole lives. Shotgun-banning travel from countries that may have something to do with terrorists does nothing to address the genuine issue. If the problem is lack of tracking, maybe we ought to track what's going on in our country first. Maybe you disagree substantially on the means the president is using to fix a problem. Maybe you would argue a basis in historical deaths or attacks evidenced. It still doesn't deny his statutory and constitutional authority to do so, and the previously discussed facts of inability to vet and state sponsors of terrorism. I have no doubt Clinton would've chosen a different choice for national security, and many of her supporters disagree with Trump's approach, but elections have consequences. Best of luck next time around. And no one ever disputed that the President has that right. The issue has always been with the how. Mainly the initial ban and it blocking legitimate vetting people from entering the US. like foreign students and visa/green card holders. Something that is specificity addressed by the SCOTUS. They say and have said that arguing animus and prejudice denies the President that right. That was the context of the denial ("Anyone else, say Hillary, would have the right to issue this exact same executive order, but Trump does not under this circumstance"). It's been in dispute in the same way the right to free speech isn't subject to Government not liking what you say. Let's not whitewash arguments made not even six months ago; rights taken away by men in black robes start becoming government-afforded privileges real fast. I understand the person Trump kind of short-circuits critical thinking because somehow people think he's president for life or something.
Danglars, your posts would almost be reasonable if you could somehow restrain you need to talk down to people that disagree with you at every turn. You like to talk like the reasonable party, but can’t help yourself. It damages every argument you make and puts you squarely in the camp of internet conservatives wanting to “trigger the liberals”.
|
Does today's SCOTUS ruling (if it even technically is a ruling) even apply at all to the religious or animus aspect? It seemed more procedural to me, specifically that the total injunction halting all parts of the travel ban was not appropriate judicial procedure as a preliminary injunction. It sounds like people are counting chickens before they hatch on whether this is a constitutional exercise of executive powers.
They're still going to have actual arguments on it in the next round of briefings, after all.
Edit: As near as my non-lawyer eyes read it, they seem to be mostly saying something akin to the preliminary injunction system is designed to protect a specific class while cases are deliberated and non-US nationals with no ties to the US do not fall into that class
|
On June 27 2017 02:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 01:27 Acrofales wrote:
I'm a bit confused how this could possibly be phrased as a win for Trump. Nobody was arguing that Trump couldn't block visa applications with good reason. He could just have written his travel ban exactly like Obama did.
Instead, he wrote an insane ban on absolutely everybody including people with valid visas, green card holders, and a whole list of other people with legitimate reasons and who had already been vetted. The supreme court ruling basically says "yeah, stop people from entering the US as you like, mr. president, but don't be a dumbass about it". Seems like his overreach has been shut down pretty hard, and he now has a watered down version of what he himself claimed was too watered down (or was it "sad"?) version of his travel ban. If you're referring to my post, it's a win for the executive branch against insane judicial overreach. And reminder: "nobody was arguing x" *ahem* people were arguing intent to discriminate from campaign statements and aide statements was sufficient. That's enough lunacy and thankfully a step too far for a big liberal rebuttal. The rest of your post recollects the dumb EO-1. EO-2 did not include many of your addressed groups of people.
Insofar as I understand what has happened so far is that the EO-1 has been thrown out completely as being trash, while the EO-2 has been allowed, but in a further restricted form... which is about the same form of visa stop as Obama issued to sort out the vetting process after foiling a plot from Iraqi terrorist-sympathizers who entered the US as refugees? Later immortalized by Conway as the dread Bowling Green Massacre.
As for the "intent" part, I don't think the SCOTUS has even begun to delve into that yet (although I might be wrong). CNN seems to think this is far from over (which would make sense) and is just a first check on the legality of the EOs themselves. I guess they could still find even EO-2 unconstitutional if they are convinced it only exists to discriminate against muslims and the national security measure is a cover, but that is a more complicated case, that I guess will unfold over the coming weeks (months?)
|
United States42022 Posts
Wasn't Trump's stated intent to temporarily pause immigration from those countries for the 90 days it would take to review and overhaul the system? Because surely that's done by now anyway.
|
The city of Seattle's study on the effects of its minimum wage increases are in.
tl;dr: mixed results on an $11/hr minimum wage - "the relatively modest estimated wage and hours
impacts of the first phase-in create considerable statistical uncertainty" - but the further increase to $13/hr was clearly a mistake - "within Seattle,low-wage workers lost $3 from lost employment opportunities for every $1 they gain due to higher hourly wages".
|
It is a balancing act and I don’t think anyone really though that raising the wage would have zero impact on the economy. The question is how much is to much? And will that change if we do the same nationally? Because doing it state by state might result in a race to the bottom for some states attempting to attract businesses.
|
|
|
It's also interesting in that the studies focusing on just the restaurant sectors of the Seattle economy show some more promising results from the 13 dollar wage. Those jobs seem to lose fewer hours than other professions.
Minimum wage differential by type of business when? (the answer is never)
|
On June 27 2017 03:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:It's also interesting in that the studies focusing on just the restaurant sectors of the Seattle economy show some more promising results from the 13 dollar wage. Those jobs seem to lose fewer hours than other professions. Minimum wage differential by type of business when? (the answer is never)
Is that the state that actually pays their servers? I feel like every other state already has tip based wages having a different scale already.
Washington is the state that has tip based employees on the same scale as non-tip jobs.
|
The restaurant sectors benefit from an exception for employees who are paid tips. Those positions still have an $11/hr minimum wage.
(E): The paper for the general study also reproduces and discusses the restaurant-sector results.
|
On June 27 2017 03:22 KwarK wrote:
Wasn't Trump's stated intent to temporarily pause immigration from those countries for the 90 days it would take to review and overhaul the system? Because surely that's done by now anyway.
it's in the same cabinet as the plan to destroy ISIS.
|
On June 27 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 02:47 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On June 27 2017 01:55 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:39 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:26 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:21 Danglars wrote:On June 26 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote:Also, it looks like Trump is going to score a win on the travel ban, with the Supreme Court allowing it to go into effect provisionally (pending reargument) against persons without a "bona fide relationship to the US." EDIT: And it appears to be a per curiam opinion with no full liberal dissent. Interesting. EDIT 2: Heh, looks like the Court wants to duck this one. They direct the parties to address the following issue in the next around of briefing: whether the challenges to the EO became moot on June 14, 2017. EDIT 3: Looks like the language is narrower than initially reported: In practical terms, this means that §2(c) may not be en-forced against foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in theUnited States. All other foreign nationals are subject to the provisions of EO–2. Affirming (in reasoning) that EO-2 was a constitutional exercise of executive power. It's a welcome relief to the courts claiming the power to make national security judgements. https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/879349760498565120One key argument destroyed. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/879347347762884608Also: Wedding cake designers get writ of cert I still fail to see how the travel ban does anything in the vein of national security. It's a yet more limited version of a ban that was already limited to a selection of countries that had nothing to do with terrorism in the US. Temporarily stopping immigration from countries that cannot track their terrorists, or failed states where identities cannot be proven in any way, is a national security question at its core. Some are state sponsors of terrorism aka "nothing to do with terrorism in the US" is not for lack of trying. The majority of terrorists that have attacked not only the US, but Europe as well, have been domestic - they were there their whole lives. Shotgun-banning travel from countries that may have something to do with terrorists does nothing to address the genuine issue. If the problem is lack of tracking, maybe we ought to track what's going on in our country first. Maybe you disagree substantially on the means the president is using to fix a problem. Maybe you would argue a basis in historical deaths or attacks evidenced. It still doesn't deny his statutory and constitutional authority to do so, and the previously discussed facts of inability to vet and state sponsors of terrorism. I have no doubt Clinton would've chosen a different choice for national security, and many of her supporters disagree with Trump's approach, but elections have consequences. Best of luck next time around. And no one ever disputed that the President has that right. The issue has always been with the how. Mainly the initial ban and it blocking legitimate vetting people from entering the US. like foreign students and visa/green card holders. Something that is specificity addressed by the SCOTUS. They say and have said that arguing animus and prejudice denies the President that right. That was the context of the denial ("Anyone else, say Hillary, would have the right to issue this exact same executive order, but Trump does not under this circumstance"). It's been in dispute in the same way the right to free speech isn't subject to Government not liking what you say. Let's not whitewash arguments made not even six months ago; rights taken away by men in black robes start becoming government-afforded privileges real fast. I understand the person Trump kind of short-circuits critical thinking because somehow people think he's president for life or something. Danglars, your posts would almost be reasonable if you could somehow restrain you need to talk down to people that disagree with you at every turn. You like to talk like the reasonable party, but can’t help yourself. It damages every argument you make and puts you squarely in the camp of internet conservatives wanting to “trigger the liberals”.
"Nobody has disputed that right" runs contrary to the broad argument present in this same thread that these rights are subject to judicial consent/interpretation stretching back to the campaign trail (Watch what you say, or your presidency might be constrained by men in black robes!). That and the dithering on the EO-1 vs EO-2 that sweeps away the context of my original post (hey, I even tried highlighting through the tweets) earns the tone of my response. In short, you've ignored the tone of liberal posters here and the "thread standard snark" that I see little point in rising above at every post. Secondly, sidestepping to green card holders and admitted foreign students is entirely sidestepping the central point.
|
On June 27 2017 03:24 Buckyman wrote:The city of Seattle's study on the effects of its minimum wage increases are in. tl;dr: mixed results on an $11/hr minimum wage - "the relatively modest estimated wage and hours impacts of the first phase-in create considerable statistical uncertainty" - but the further increase to $13/hr was clearly a mistake - "within Seattle,low-wage workers lost $3 from lost employment opportunities for every $1 they gain due to higher hourly wages".
Yeah 538 reporting on the study highlighted that affected workers lost 125$/month after the increase to 13$. I hope Seattle treats its lowest-income workers better in the future.
|
On June 27 2017 01:12 Nevuk wrote:
The voter participation being higher before Nixon is mostly due to the lowered voting age iirc. 21 was the limit before then but it got changed due to the draft age being 18. 18-21 year olds have by far the lowest voting participation.
I can argue the voting age should be increased to 25 since thats when the brain fully matures. I am seeing a trend of voting for populist presidents now which is not how our democracy is intended to function. Whether it be kids indoctrinated into conservationism on Trump or what they are doing with Zuckerburg or Sanders for a socialist approach. People arent looking at the real policy and more focused on what these leaders say not as what they do. Trumps claim to drain the swamp yet hiring international banking elite is worrisome to me to say the least. We'll see though i hope he isnt getting ready for another war -_-
|
On June 27 2017 04:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2017 02:53 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2017 02:47 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On June 27 2017 01:55 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:39 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:34 Danglars wrote:On June 27 2017 00:26 NewSunshine wrote:On June 27 2017 00:21 Danglars wrote:On June 26 2017 23:37 xDaunt wrote:
Also, it looks like Trump is going to score a win on the travel ban, with the Supreme Court allowing it to go into effect provisionally (pending reargument) against persons without a "bona fide relationship to the US."
EDIT: And it appears to be a per curiam opinion with no full liberal dissent. Interesting.
EDIT 2: Heh, looks like the Court wants to duck this one. They direct the parties to address the following issue in the next around of briefing: whether the challenges to the EO became moot on June 14, 2017.
EDIT 3: Looks like the language is narrower than initially reported:
[quote] Affirming (in reasoning) that EO-2 was a constitutional exercise of executive power. It's a welcome relief to the courts claiming the power to make national security judgements. https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/879349760498565120One key argument destroyed. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/879347347762884608Also: Wedding cake designers get writ of cert I still fail to see how the travel ban does anything in the vein of national security. It's a yet more limited version of a ban that was already limited to a selection of countries that had nothing to do with terrorism in the US. Temporarily stopping immigration from countries that cannot track their terrorists, or failed states where identities cannot be proven in any way, is a national security question at its core. Some are state sponsors of terrorism aka "nothing to do with terrorism in the US" is not for lack of trying. The majority of terrorists that have attacked not only the US, but Europe as well, have been domestic - they were there their whole lives. Shotgun-banning travel from countries that may have something to do with terrorists does nothing to address the genuine issue. If the problem is lack of tracking, maybe we ought to track what's going on in our country first. Maybe you disagree substantially on the means the president is using to fix a problem. Maybe you would argue a basis in historical deaths or attacks evidenced. It still doesn't deny his statutory and constitutional authority to do so, and the previously discussed facts of inability to vet and state sponsors of terrorism. I have no doubt Clinton would've chosen a different choice for national security, and many of her supporters disagree with Trump's approach, but elections have consequences. Best of luck next time around. And no one ever disputed that the President has that right. The issue has always been with the how. Mainly the initial ban and it blocking legitimate vetting people from entering the US. like foreign students and visa/green card holders. Something that is specificity addressed by the SCOTUS. They say and have said that arguing animus and prejudice denies the President that right. That was the context of the denial ("Anyone else, say Hillary, would have the right to issue this exact same executive order, but Trump does not under this circumstance"). It's been in dispute in the same way the right to free speech isn't subject to Government not liking what you say. Let's not whitewash arguments made not even six months ago; rights taken away by men in black robes start becoming government-afforded privileges real fast. I understand the person Trump kind of short-circuits critical thinking because somehow people think he's president for life or something. Danglars, your posts would almost be reasonable if you could somehow restrain you need to talk down to people that disagree with you at every turn. You like to talk like the reasonable party, but can’t help yourself. It damages every argument you make and puts you squarely in the camp of internet conservatives wanting to “trigger the liberals”. "Nobody has disputed that right" runs contrary to the broad argument present in this same thread that these rights are subject to judicial consent/interpretation stretching back to the campaign trail (Watch what you say, or your presidency might be constrained by men in black robes!). That and the dithering on the EO-1 vs EO-2 that sweeps away the context of my original post (hey, I even tried highlighting through the tweets) earns the tone of my response. In short, you've ignored the tone of liberal posters here and the "thread standard snark" that I see little point in rising above at every post. Secondly, sidestepping to green card holders and admitted foreign students is entirely sidestepping the central point.
I have no problem with you talking shit to liberal posters that are hyperbolic. I just tire of your performance piece as the only reasonable person dealing with all these hysterical left leaning people. You can’t preach about the cold condescension of the democrats one day and then shit talk the entire left the next. Well, you totally can, but someone might call you out on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
