|
On October 26 2018 01:25 IgnE wrote:
Do you think California is some kind of socialist wet-dream or something? Yeah it votes blue, but I don't get your questions. Do you think the people buying the property in San Francisco/LA/etc. are there to make money or to set up communism?
In many senses, California is our most successful capitalist economy. In particular, it's very successful at commoditizing something we might call "social activism" or what past generations might have called hippie culture
No, I'm not presuming that California is a socialist wet-dream, which is why I asked the questions that I asked. While California is clearly a good example of what a state that is completely dominated by Democrat politics can look like, I'm under no delusions that this necessarily means that California is what socialists would consider to be a socialist utopia. That said, I do think that California makes for an interesting case study into Democrat politics, particularly some of what the most progressive around here advocate for.
|
Why CA? Why not MA or NY? Or Vermont?
|
On October 26 2018 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2018 01:25 IgnE wrote:
Do you think California is some kind of socialist wet-dream or something? Yeah it votes blue, but I don't get your questions. Do you think the people buying the property in San Francisco/LA/etc. are there to make money or to set up communism?
In many senses, California is our most successful capitalist economy. In particular, it's very successful at commoditizing something we might call "social activism" or what past generations might have called hippie culture No, I'm not presuming that California is a socialist wet-dream, which is why I asked the questions that I asked. While California is clearly a good example of what a state that is completely dominated by Democrat politics can look like, I'm under no delusions that this necessarily means that California is what socialists would consider to be a socialist utopia. That said, I do think that California makes for an interesting case study into Democrat politics, particularly some of what the most progressive around here advocate for.
I don't think many leftish posters advocate for an extreme division between rich and poor. What is it you think the posters are advocating for? I can't think of a single leftish poster who advocates for this. In fact I've seen several complain about silicon valley, and I'm guessing this is probably why.
On October 26 2018 01:59 Plansix wrote:
Why CA? Why not MA or NY? Or Vermont?
Are those failing as bad as CA? That might be the answer.
|
CA being massive and dispersed is a far better reason for it being dysfunctional than the existence of Democrats in the majority.
|
CA is a more interesting case study because it can better serve as a proxy for national policy given its size and the fact that it deals with virtually every major national issue. Vermont and Massachusetts, for example, don’t have the same immigration issues that CA has.
|
We also have reliable ground water and aren’t on fire constantly. But we do have this horrible thing called winter and it is the devil.
Considering that California was one of the most dysfunctional state governments, with its corruption and referendums, I don’t find a lot of meat in this argument. The problems with California are similar to the problems with Chicago, cause by the culture of the state itself, rather than the political parties that inhabit that state.
|
On October 26 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:
We also have reliable ground water and aren’t on fire constantly. But we do have this horrible thing called winter and it is the devil.
Considering that California was one of the most dysfunctional state governments, with its corruption and referendums, I don’t find a lot of meat in this argument. The problems with California are similar to the problems with Chicago, cause by the culture of the state itself, rather than the political parties that inhabit that state.
I'm sure Republicans would like to blame their corruption on anything but the party facilitating it too, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
That said, California is reasonably representative of liberal ideology imo. To xDaunt's question of "why", well they're still staunch capitalists and capitalism (in the US) says that the wealthiest country on the planet cannot possibly avoid homeless people, unsafe drinking water, and so on, while also providing for the yachts our wealthy people need. So capitalists chose the yachts suggesting people seeking to get their own yacht was the only reasonable way to get the people off the street.
|
On October 26 2018 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:
We also have reliable ground water and aren’t on fire constantly. But we do have this horrible thing called winter and it is the devil.
Considering that California was one of the most dysfunctional state governments, with its corruption and referendums, I don’t find a lot of meat in this argument. The problems with California are similar to the problems with Chicago, cause by the culture of the state itself, rather than the political parties that inhabit that state. I'm sure Republicans would like to blame their corruption on anything but the party facilitating it too, but it doesn't pass the smell test. That said, California is reasonably representative of liberal ideology imo. To xDaunt's question of "why", well they're still staunch capitalists and capitalism (in the US) says that the wealthiest country on the planet cannot possibly avoid homeless people, unsafe drinking water, and so on, while also providing for the yachts our wealthy people need. So capitalists chose the yachts suggesting people seeking to get their own yacht was the only reasonable way to get the people off the street.
So what would you have the Democrats in California do differently?
|
On October 26 2018 03:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2018 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:
We also have reliable ground water and aren’t on fire constantly. But we do have this horrible thing called winter and it is the devil.
Considering that California was one of the most dysfunctional state governments, with its corruption and referendums, I don’t find a lot of meat in this argument. The problems with California are similar to the problems with Chicago, cause by the culture of the state itself, rather than the political parties that inhabit that state. I'm sure Republicans would like to blame their corruption on anything but the party facilitating it too, but it doesn't pass the smell test. That said, California is reasonably representative of liberal ideology imo. To xDaunt's question of "why", well they're still staunch capitalists and capitalism (in the US) says that the wealthiest country on the planet cannot possibly avoid homeless people, unsafe drinking water, and so on, while also providing for the yachts our wealthy people need. So capitalists chose the yachts suggesting people seeking to get their own yacht was the only reasonable way to get the people off the street. So what would you have the Democrats in California do differently?
Start the revolution
|
On October 26 2018 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:
We also have reliable ground water and aren’t on fire constantly. But we do have this horrible thing called winter and it is the devil.
Considering that California was one of the most dysfunctional state governments, with its corruption and referendums, I don’t find a lot of meat in this argument. The problems with California are similar to the problems with Chicago, cause by the culture of the state itself, rather than the political parties that inhabit that state. I'm sure Republicans would like to blame their corruption on anything but the party facilitating it too, but it doesn't pass the smell test. That said, California is reasonably representative of liberal ideology imo. To xDaunt's question of "why", well they're still staunch capitalists and capitalism (in the US) says that the wealthiest country on the planet cannot possibly avoid homeless people, unsafe drinking water, and so on, while also providing for the yachts our wealthy people need. So capitalists chose the yachts suggesting people seeking to get their own yacht was the only reasonable way to get the people off the street.
I dislike citing ideology as the cause of dysfunction at the local level. Even in the “liberal bastion” of MA, it has never been conservative or liberal ideology that caused problems for Worcester or Lawrence. Human frailty, corruption and neglect are. And NIMBI-ism, which is related to wealth disparity, but it a cause of many problems in my state and town.
|
On October 26 2018 04:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2018 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:
We also have reliable ground water and aren’t on fire constantly. But we do have this horrible thing called winter and it is the devil.
Considering that California was one of the most dysfunctional state governments, with its corruption and referendums, I don’t find a lot of meat in this argument. The problems with California are similar to the problems with Chicago, cause by the culture of the state itself, rather than the political parties that inhabit that state. I'm sure Republicans would like to blame their corruption on anything but the party facilitating it too, but it doesn't pass the smell test. That said, California is reasonably representative of liberal ideology imo. To xDaunt's question of "why", well they're still staunch capitalists and capitalism (in the US) says that the wealthiest country on the planet cannot possibly avoid homeless people, unsafe drinking water, and so on, while also providing for the yachts our wealthy people need. So capitalists chose the yachts suggesting people seeking to get their own yacht was the only reasonable way to get the people off the street. I dislike citing ideology as the cause of dysfunction at the local level. Even in the “liberal bastion” of MA, it has never been conservative or liberal ideology that caused problems for Worcester or Lawrence. Human frailty, corruption and neglect are. And NIMBI-ism, which is related to wealth disparity, but it a cause of many problems in my state and town.
It's how the party/ideology deals with those issues you mention that indicts them, not their existence.
|
On October 26 2018 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2018 04:05 Plansix wrote:On October 26 2018 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:
We also have reliable ground water and aren’t on fire constantly. But we do have this horrible thing called winter and it is the devil.
Considering that California was one of the most dysfunctional state governments, with its corruption and referendums, I don’t find a lot of meat in this argument. The problems with California are similar to the problems with Chicago, cause by the culture of the state itself, rather than the political parties that inhabit that state. I'm sure Republicans would like to blame their corruption on anything but the party facilitating it too, but it doesn't pass the smell test. That said, California is reasonably representative of liberal ideology imo. To xDaunt's question of "why", well they're still staunch capitalists and capitalism (in the US) says that the wealthiest country on the planet cannot possibly avoid homeless people, unsafe drinking water, and so on, while also providing for the yachts our wealthy people need. So capitalists chose the yachts suggesting people seeking to get their own yacht was the only reasonable way to get the people off the street. I dislike citing ideology as the cause of dysfunction at the local level. Even in the “liberal bastion” of MA, it has never been conservative or liberal ideology that caused problems for Worcester or Lawrence. Human frailty, corruption and neglect are. And NIMBI-ism, which is related to wealth disparity, but it a cause of many problems in my state and town. It's how the party/ideology deals with those issues you mention that indicts them, not their existence.
In a state of majority democrats, ideology doesn’t drive much of anything. Building elder and low income housing isn’t about the role of government, but navigating between the local historical society, protected wetlands and the park committe that wants to use that’s land for a bike path.
Of course, we can shoe horn any political or economic theory or ideology into that discussion. But it never manifests in the reality of the conflict. The political bifurcation is not that pronounced when there is no national TV coverage.
|
Gents, about that caravan, I would like some feedback on your thoughts about deploying the Army to block immigrants, or even the whole wall idea.
Do you think, as Trump wants, getting only the best to join the country is sustainable or a good idea ? And blanket-blocking the whole frontier ? Does security warrants restricting the rights of the 90%+ who just want to come, live, work and thrive ? This is, after all, how America has been seen for centuries across the world...
I find it probably more expensive than just getting people in, maybe spreading them across the country to restrict communautarism, training them, and having them work jobs locals don't want and take part in the economy... You are nearing a lack of workforce after all...
I am very curious, in the light of this column by Napolitano, to know if his views are shared, or if the whole idea of freedom of travel is rejected.
I have argued in this column that the right to travel is a natural right, even though it was not until 1969 that the Supreme Court recognized it as such. The courts protect natural rights by imposing a very high bar for the government to meet before it can interfere with them. That bar -- called strict scrutiny -- was crafted so as to make it nearly impossible for the government to interfere materially with personal freedoms, such as travel.
And the Constitution itself, from which all federal powers derive, does not even delegate to the federal government any power over immigration -- i.e., who can come here. It just gives it power over naturalization, i.e., who can become a citizen here.
With the whole article being a good read overall : https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-the-camp-of-the-saints-and-the-migrant-caravan
|
On October 26 2018 04:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2018 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2018 04:05 Plansix wrote:On October 26 2018 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:
We also have reliable ground water and aren’t on fire constantly. But we do have this horrible thing called winter and it is the devil.
Considering that California was one of the most dysfunctional state governments, with its corruption and referendums, I don’t find a lot of meat in this argument. The problems with California are similar to the problems with Chicago, cause by the culture of the state itself, rather than the political parties that inhabit that state. I'm sure Republicans would like to blame their corruption on anything but the party facilitating it too, but it doesn't pass the smell test. That said, California is reasonably representative of liberal ideology imo. To xDaunt's question of "why", well they're still staunch capitalists and capitalism (in the US) says that the wealthiest country on the planet cannot possibly avoid homeless people, unsafe drinking water, and so on, while also providing for the yachts our wealthy people need. So capitalists chose the yachts suggesting people seeking to get their own yacht was the only reasonable way to get the people off the street. I dislike citing ideology as the cause of dysfunction at the local level. Even in the “liberal bastion” of MA, it has never been conservative or liberal ideology that caused problems for Worcester or Lawrence. Human frailty, corruption and neglect are. And NIMBI-ism, which is related to wealth disparity, but it a cause of many problems in my state and town. It's how the party/ideology deals with those issues you mention that indicts them, not their existence. In a state of majority democrats, ideology doesn’t drive much of anything. Building elder and low income housing isn’t about the role of government, but navigating between the local historical society, protected wetlands and the park committe that wants to use that’s land for a bike path. Of course, we can shoe horn any political or economic theory or ideology into that discussion. But it never manifests in the reality of the conflict. The political bifurcation is not that pronounced when there is no national TV coverage.
I honestly don't see what this has to do with my point?
|
On October 26 2018 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2018 04:30 Plansix wrote:On October 26 2018 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2018 04:05 Plansix wrote:On October 26 2018 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:
We also have reliable ground water and aren’t on fire constantly. But we do have this horrible thing called winter and it is the devil.
Considering that California was one of the most dysfunctional state governments, with its corruption and referendums, I don’t find a lot of meat in this argument. The problems with California are similar to the problems with Chicago, cause by the culture of the state itself, rather than the political parties that inhabit that state. I'm sure Republicans would like to blame their corruption on anything but the party facilitating it too, but it doesn't pass the smell test. That said, California is reasonably representative of liberal ideology imo. To xDaunt's question of "why", well they're still staunch capitalists and capitalism (in the US) says that the wealthiest country on the planet cannot possibly avoid homeless people, unsafe drinking water, and so on, while also providing for the yachts our wealthy people need. So capitalists chose the yachts suggesting people seeking to get their own yacht was the only reasonable way to get the people off the street. I dislike citing ideology as the cause of dysfunction at the local level. Even in the “liberal bastion” of MA, it has never been conservative or liberal ideology that caused problems for Worcester or Lawrence. Human frailty, corruption and neglect are. And NIMBI-ism, which is related to wealth disparity, but it a cause of many problems in my state and town. It's how the party/ideology deals with those issues you mention that indicts them, not their existence. In a state of majority democrats, ideology doesn’t drive much of anything. Building elder and low income housing isn’t about the role of government, but navigating between the local historical society, protected wetlands and the park committe that wants to use that’s land for a bike path. Of course, we can shoe horn any political or economic theory or ideology into that discussion. But it never manifests in the reality of the conflict. The political bifurcation is not that pronounced when there is no national TV coverage. I honestly don't see what this has to do with my point?
If the ideology is not a factor in how the local problems are dealt with, how does it indict the party in question?
|
On October 26 2018 04:42 Nouar wrote:Gents, about that caravan, I would like some feedback on your thoughts about deploying the Army to block immigrants, or even the whole wall idea. Do you think, as Trump wants, getting only the best to join the country is sustainable or a good idea ? And blanket-blocking the whole frontier ? Does security warrants restricting the rights of the 90%+ who just want to come, live, work and thrive ? This is, after all, how America has been seen for centuries across the world... I find it probably more expensive than just getting people in, maybe spreading them across the country to restrict communautarism, training them, and having them work jobs locals don't want and take part in the economy... You are nearing a lack of workforce after all... I am very curious, in the light of this column by Napolitano, to know if his views are shared, or if the whole idea of freedom of travel is rejected. Show nested quote +I have argued in this column that the right to travel is a natural right, even though it was not until 1969 that the Supreme Court recognized it as such. The courts protect natural rights by imposing a very high bar for the government to meet before it can interfere with them. That bar -- called strict scrutiny -- was crafted so as to make it nearly impossible for the government to interfere materially with personal freedoms, such as travel.
And the Constitution itself, from which all federal powers derive, does not even delegate to the federal government any power over immigration -- i.e., who can come here. It just gives it power over naturalization, i.e., who can become a citizen here. With the whole article being a good read overall : https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-the-camp-of-the-saints-and-the-migrant-caravan
Blanket blocking the whole frontier?
Only to encourage legal immigration with vetting. The nation can use seasonal laborers and some level of low skilled labor. So I propose simplifying the routes of legal immigration and workers visas, while also phoning home to check out warrants and gang membership and verify details.
The US is not a nation of whoever wants to pay some coyotes to get ferried across. It’s a nation of citizens. These citizens determine our immigration policy, whether that be open borders, yearly limits, quotas on skilled immigrants, or whatever combination. The motives and disposition of who comes in does not enter into the calculus. Any sovereign nation can and should determine immigration rates into their country and enforce their own borders. The extent to which certain nations like my own have decided to let chaos reign has resulted in the rise of far-right elements and reactionary elements that will do harm if the problem is not addressed.
I agree with the interpretation that Congress has plenary power to make immigration law, similar to its actual listed power of naturalization rules. The passed federal statutes give a rubric for executive powers under that constitutional right.
Laws restricting or loosening immigration standards go back more than a century. It’s not like immigrants desiring to come here in the past were any more or less deserving of admission than those clamoring to come in now. Congress is the natural position for crafting immigration law and the executive branch is the right place to administer it. Your only natural right to live and work applies to either the citizenship of your parents or the birthright citizenship of your country of birth (the first being the stronger right, the second more of a prudent consideration). Freedom of travel is nonsense whether it’s a libertarian or far-left wet dream. Nations are sovereign.
|
On October 26 2018 04:42 Nouar wrote:Gents, about that caravan, I would like some feedback on your thoughts about deploying the Army to block immigrants, or even the whole wall idea. Do you think, as Trump wants, getting only the best to join the country is sustainable or a good idea ? And blanket-blocking the whole frontier ? Does security warrants restricting the rights of the 90%+ who just want to come, live, work and thrive ? This is, after all, how America has been seen for centuries across the world... I find it probably more expensive than just getting people in, maybe spreading them across the country to restrict communautarism, training them, and having them work jobs locals don't want and take part in the economy... You are nearing a lack of workforce after all... I am very curious, in the light of this column by Napolitano, to know if his views are shared, or if the whole idea of freedom of travel is rejected. Show nested quote +I have argued in this column that the right to travel is a natural right, even though it was not until 1969 that the Supreme Court recognized it as such. The courts protect natural rights by imposing a very high bar for the government to meet before it can interfere with them. That bar -- called strict scrutiny -- was crafted so as to make it nearly impossible for the government to interfere materially with personal freedoms, such as travel.
And the Constitution itself, from which all federal powers derive, does not even delegate to the federal government any power over immigration -- i.e., who can come here. It just gives it power over naturalization, i.e., who can become a citizen here. With the whole article being a good read overall : https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-the-camp-of-the-saints-and-the-migrant-caravan
It is entirely rational and productive to have a selective immigration policy when your nation has a higher number of immigrant applicants than what your nation needs or desires to accept. So yes, give me the best, the brightest, the wealthiest, and the most culturally compatible. Those are the ones who are mostly likely to be productive contributors to society. What we don't need is a bunch of poor migrants who are going to be net drains on public services money.
And yes, security absolutely trumps the desires of the immigrant to come and work/live in the country. Nations necessarily have enforceable borders. Without such borders, you no longer have a nation.
How America has operated in the past doesn't really apply to how it operates and should operate now. The circumstances today are very different than they were 150 or even 100 years ago. National needs are different. Public benefits structures are completely different. One thing that we definitely don't need is more cheap labor or other downward pressures on wage growth. Income inequality is a big enough issue as it is, and immigration does not help it.
As for Napolitano, I completely disagree with his opinions in that article. He's wrong about nationalism, he's wrong about the constitutionality of immigration law in the US, and he's wrong about the application of Constitutional protections to people seeking entry to the country.
|
Is the "blue wave" turning purple?
Republican-affiliated voters have outpaced Democratic-affiliated voters in early voting in seven closely watched states, according to data provided by TargetSmart and independently analyzed by the NBC News Data Analytics Lab.
GOP-affiliated voters have surpassed Democratic-affiliated ones in early voting in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, Tennessee and Texas, the data showed.
Only in Nevada have Democratic-affiliated voters exceeded Republican-affiliated voters so far in early voting, according to the data.
Key Senate races are underway in seven of those eight states and will prove pivotal in determining which party controls the chamber.
The latest data suggests robust enthusiasm among early Republican voters that could put a dent in Democratic hopes for a "blue wave" in next month's midterm elections.
Republicans typically dominate early voting by absentee ballots, while Democrats tend to have the advantage with in-person early voting. So, for example, the entire early voting picture in Florida, which has yet to begin in-person voting, is incomplete.
Read the rest here.
The correct answer is that there never was a blue wave. It was all manufactured. And it's looking increasingly likely that what is coming might be the opposite. Poor Nate Silver may be in for another bad night.
|
On October 26 2018 05:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2018 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2018 04:30 Plansix wrote:On October 26 2018 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2018 04:05 Plansix wrote:On October 26 2018 03:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 26 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:
We also have reliable ground water and aren’t on fire constantly. But we do have this horrible thing called winter and it is the devil.
Considering that California was one of the most dysfunctional state governments, with its corruption and referendums, I don’t find a lot of meat in this argument. The problems with California are similar to the problems with Chicago, cause by the culture of the state itself, rather than the political parties that inhabit that state. I'm sure Republicans would like to blame their corruption on anything but the party facilitating it too, but it doesn't pass the smell test. That said, California is reasonably representative of liberal ideology imo. To xDaunt's question of "why", well they're still staunch capitalists and capitalism (in the US) says that the wealthiest country on the planet cannot possibly avoid homeless people, unsafe drinking water, and so on, while also providing for the yachts our wealthy people need. So capitalists chose the yachts suggesting people seeking to get their own yacht was the only reasonable way to get the people off the street. I dislike citing ideology as the cause of dysfunction at the local level. Even in the “liberal bastion” of MA, it has never been conservative or liberal ideology that caused problems for Worcester or Lawrence. Human frailty, corruption and neglect are. And NIMBI-ism, which is related to wealth disparity, but it a cause of many problems in my state and town. It's how the party/ideology deals with those issues you mention that indicts them, not their existence. In a state of majority democrats, ideology doesn’t drive much of anything. Building elder and low income housing isn’t about the role of government, but navigating between the local historical society, protected wetlands and the park committe that wants to use that’s land for a bike path. Of course, we can shoe horn any political or economic theory or ideology into that discussion. But it never manifests in the reality of the conflict. The political bifurcation is not that pronounced when there is no national TV coverage. I honestly don't see what this has to do with my point? If the ideology is not a factor in how the local problems are dealt with, how does it indict the party in question?
Well that we disagree on for what to me seems like obvious reasons. Namely that who is even dealing with those problems is heavily influenced by the party and it's alleged ideology.
|
On October 26 2018 06:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +Is the "blue wave" turning purple?
Republican-affiliated voters have outpaced Democratic-affiliated voters in early voting in seven closely watched states, according to data provided by TargetSmart and independently analyzed by the NBC News Data Analytics Lab.
GOP-affiliated voters have surpassed Democratic-affiliated ones in early voting in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, Tennessee and Texas, the data showed.
Only in Nevada have Democratic-affiliated voters exceeded Republican-affiliated voters so far in early voting, according to the data.
Key Senate races are underway in seven of those eight states and will prove pivotal in determining which party controls the chamber.
The latest data suggests robust enthusiasm among early Republican voters that could put a dent in Democratic hopes for a "blue wave" in next month's midterm elections.
Republicans typically dominate early voting by absentee ballots, while Democrats tend to have the advantage with in-person early voting. So, for example, the entire early voting picture in Florida, which has yet to begin in-person voting, is incomplete. Read the rest here. The correct answer is that there never was a blue wave. It was all manufactured. And it's looking increasingly likely that what is coming might be the opposite. Poor Nate Silver may be in for another bad night.
Unless it turns out there is one, and it wasn't manufactured. Then you'll look very silly indeed.
At one point there certainly did look to be heavy momentum. Or did you forget the Democrats taking Alabama already? Lots of little victories in unusual places. The momentum just seems to be fading a bit. Whether that results in middling results, glorious victory or embarrassing defeat, doesn't mean the wave didn't happen or wasn't there. It just might not have been as big as a lot of people were hoping. Certainly there are some races that are a lot closer than expected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
