On November 18 2011 11:32 Enki wrote: Soooo the elderly don't have the right to be out protesting because they are old, and who knows if the police will lose their shit and start spraying mace in their face? Are you trolling?
I'm also not convinced that Olsen was hit by the police as opposed to protestors themselves.
This is utterly laughable. Are you trying to make yourself look foolish?
Perhaps I've missed the proof of the source of the injury. I've only heard / read allegations that it was the police, however those allegations were made by protest supporters. The police deny it. So, I guess I'm just not as quick to convict as you guys are.
Perhaps you should watch the video where he is shot in the head by a tear gas canister? And then the part where police throw a flashbang into the people running to help him? Perhaps you should even consider looking at the original evidence in the future?
EDIT: removed unnecessarily aggressive toning.
I've seen videos and all I've seen was the after-effect. I'm not going to spend my life searching through thousands of Youtube videos in the offchance one shows it. I've seen accusations, I've watched news stories from liberal and conservative networks, and never have I seen anything showing him getting hit and with what. Just him on the ground afterwards.
On November 18 2011 11:55 relyt wrote: I have a question. If lobbying and money are a problem in politics, how does one fix it? You can't stop people from lobbying and you also cant stop people from donating to campaigns.
You pass laws like we have in Canada and outlaw parts of it. Currently corporations and unions are not allowed to make any contributions in federal elections. Individual doners are limited to $5000. This will cut out the heart of a good portion of campaign funding (which is part of why the Red Machine of our Liberal party has faltered recently in raising money.) However, it guarantees that to raise funds you have to have a wide appeal and are not simply in the pocket of a couple corporations.
But you need a politician that has a vested interest in the new system or else someone very principled. Someone with a wide, base of small contributers is much more likely to pass it then someone who most benefits from the current system. For that reason it's possible Obama (if I recall correctly he was getting a pretty wide range of donations) or maybe a populist sort of politician like Ron Pau.
Can corporations still get around these rules? Sure, that's why you hear about whistleblowers and government scandals. However, you can go after the parties involved, ruin the reputation of the politician involved and maybe even have a change of government from peoples disgust over the corruption (Sponsorship Scandal in Canada- it was before the current laws in place, but there were limitations even then.)
Your current system just seems insane to me that corporations can fund hundreds of thousands of dollars to certain candidates and that you have a legalized bribery system (lobbying). Now we do have lobbyists in Canada, but our laws are pretty draconian compared to the free-for-all you seem to have.
On November 18 2011 11:55 relyt wrote: I have a question. If lobbying and money are a problem in politics, how does one fix it? You can't stop people from lobbying and you also cant stop people from donating to campaigns.
I, for one, would love to see accepting "campaign contributions" included in the bribery statutes. Of course, we'd have to deal with how do politicians get their message out, and I suppose we could come up with some requirement of the media to devote a certain amount of time to political advertising instead of political campaigns spending money on it. Perhaps the media companies with access to the White House or other government press rooms, in exchange for their access, are required to carry candidates' political messages. Eliminate the money flowing to politicians by making it illegal. Then maybe we could get an honest politician.
Which candidate? Every candidate, anyone who wants to run gets free air time to deliver whatever political message they want? Sounds like a good deal for nut-jobs, not so much for broadcast networks.
On November 18 2011 11:55 relyt wrote: I have a question. If lobbying and money are a problem in politics, how does one fix it? You can't stop people from lobbying and you also cant stop people from donating to campaigns.
I, for one, would love to see accepting "campaign contributions" included in the bribery statutes. Of course, we'd have to deal with how do politicians get their message out, and I suppose we could come up with some requirement of the media to devote a certain amount of time to political advertising instead of political campaigns spending money on it. Perhaps the media companies with access to the White House or other government press rooms, in exchange for their access, are required to carry candidates' political messages. Eliminate the money flowing to politicians by making it illegal. Then maybe we could get an honest politician.
Which candidate? Every candidate, anyone who wants to run gets free air time to deliver whatever political message they want? Sounds like a good deal for nut-jobs, not so much for broadcast networks.
Who pays for creating the ads, BTW?
Perhaps the candidates that have qualified to be on the ballot. That requires some legwork. Not just any asshole can get on the ballot, they need a bunch of signatures. I'm just trying to ponder 1) Why does a politician "NEED" political contributions, and 2) how can we fill that need without giving them the money.
As for running commercials, private entities are still free to put as many commercials out there as they want. That's free speech and there's not really anything wrong with that. It's not corrupting to run a commercial getting out your point of view. The corruption comes in when politicians are given money.
This is about the only thing I agree with OWS on, the "corrupting influence of $$$" on politicians, although they blame Wall Street and I blame the politician, instead. I think it's pretty fucking stupid to blame Wall Street and not the politician for the corruption of politicians.
On November 18 2011 07:26 imperator-xy wrote: yea id just shoot all o' them
Yeah, you have some fucking problems.
Can't believe people are defending the police who enjoy macing 84 year old women, pretty sad. Then there are other people, who aren't even from the U.S, questioning why people are doing this in the first place. Holy shit, really?
If you don't know how this country works then just don't comment please, getting rather tired of reading bullshit. Maybe some don't agree with OWS and everything they are doing, I certainly don't, but there is no need to wish violence or death upon them.
Enki do you really think an 85 year old should be out in a protest like that? Talk about exploitation great photo op, maybe OWS should bring out disabled kids next in wheel chairs as a front line against the wall of police.
The police are out numbered and are not going to take chances when people are not following their requests so a little common sense should come into play here. Heck I get nervous for my 80yr old grandmother safety when there is a high curb she needs to navigate.
Still not how you fucking treat the elderly, brats. Out there or not out there, don't be idiotic. People fight for what they believe for. Now you are just on crack and insulting people. Bringing dis-abled children out? WTF.
considering the avg age of the tea party i guess they shouldn't have ever protested.
On November 18 2011 11:14 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
On November 18 2011 10:22 Expurgate wrote:
On November 18 2011 10:19 Lucidx wrote: This protest is sadly a bunch of mis-informed individuals. One can conclude that these people are angry because of the gap between rich and poor, how it's not fair that someone could be so rich.
This becomes a fundamental question of why is it unfair for someone to be rich? Let us put aside corruption, as cooperate corruption is unfair and I fully understand anger towards corrupt business practices. For example, If you believe OWS statistics, that would put my (broken) family in the 1%.
We weren't always here. My father was a police officer, and my mother was a nurse, both working full time to support the family. Then, my father took a big risk and quit his job to become a self employed consultant. He worked 15 hours a day, sometimes more, for 10 years to make his dream a reality. And now he's here, making enough to support two households comfortably.
Why demonize my father? What did he do wrong? By working hard for his family to live a comfortable lifestyle, he is now the target of these foolish protesters. Why is it unfair that he followed the American dream? That he defied the odds and made a profitable small business out of nothing.
OWS sympathizers, enlighten me. Tell me why my father is such a terrible rich person. Tell me why Apple, who made that iPhone that you're using to tweet about OWS is so bad to the 98%. I'm curious.
If you don't already know why wealth inequality is bad, there's not much we can do for you.
Also, anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in any real contest of ideas.
There is nothing wrong with income inequality, because there has always been income inequality and there always will be. No country has ever been able to eliminate it. The only problem is the lack of income mobility. The ability for the rich to become poor and the poor to become rich. What the OWS crowd want is actually less income mobility, and since it is impossible to remove income inequality they would create a society vastly worse than what we have now.
Lol... You do realize how little social mobility we have currently esp considering our historical high. You also realize number one way of increasing social mobility is though opportunity, usually given though education and i don't ever remember any ows voicing the idea of making education less available to people.
Also if you're going to shit talk you should elaborate, else i can just claim that you're out to do nothing but smear ows.
Over the past 10 years 66% of the lower 20% left their income bracket for a higher one. Only 10% of the lower 20% fell. You think that is little social mobility? 66% leave their bracket for higher incomes? Want me to look up how many of the top 1% and 5% have fallen?
Why yes, I do. Because you're not telling the truth. Why don't you play around with this for a little bit. Data collected by full-time, professional economists, who spend their lives studying this subject, show that inequality and social mobility have gotten substantially worse since.
Ok well my source is the IRS specifically the census data. I think that beats something provided by the NYT. Also your study ignores the fact that more laws are passed the prevent social mobility (surprise, the government stops class mobility with regulation). Name for me a country that produces more wealth than the US and also follows the ideas of the OWS. There is a specific reason why one never has existed.
edit: here you are http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf • There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period. • Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005. • Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period. • The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996). • Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.
On November 18 2011 11:55 relyt wrote: I have a question. If lobbying and money are a problem in politics, how does one fix it? You can't stop people from lobbying and you also cant stop people from donating to campaigns.
I, for one, would love to see accepting "campaign contributions" included in the bribery statutes. Of course, we'd have to deal with how do politicians get their message out, and I suppose we could come up with some requirement of the media to devote a certain amount of time to political advertising instead of political campaigns spending money on it. Perhaps the media companies with access to the White House or other government press rooms, in exchange for their access, are required to carry candidates' political messages. Eliminate the money flowing to politicians by making it illegal. Then maybe we could get an honest politician.
Which candidate? Every candidate, anyone who wants to run gets free air time to deliver whatever political message they want? Sounds like a good deal for nut-jobs, not so much for broadcast networks.
Who pays for creating the ads, BTW?
You could do tiered primaries and at the end top two-4 vote getters from what ever party get public funding and only public funding they all get the same amount and that is it. Would be a tiny tiny portion of the overall federal government budget so I'm sure that money could be found somewhere.
Maybe minimum signatures to eliminate wack jobs from the start?
You know what is pretty cool we are thinking about and talking about actual solutions to one of the problems instead of just being mad at each other. This is what the movement should be about.
On November 18 2011 11:32 Enki wrote: Soooo the elderly don't have the right to be out protesting because they are old, and who knows if the police will lose their shit and start spraying mace in their face? Are you trolling?
I'm also not convinced that Olsen was hit by the police as opposed to protestors themselves.
This is utterly laughable. Are you trying to make yourself look foolish?
Perhaps I've missed the proof of the source of the injury. I've only heard / read allegations that it was the police, however those allegations were made by protest supporters. The police deny it. So, I guess I'm just not as quick to convict as you guys are.
Perhaps you should watch the video where he is shot in the head by a tear gas canister? And then the part where police throw a flashbang into the people running to help him? Perhaps you should even consider looking at the original evidence in the future?
EDIT: removed unnecessarily aggressive toning.
I've seen videos and all I've seen was the after-effect. I'm not going to spend my life searching through thousands of Youtube videos in the offchance one shows it. I've seen accusations, I've watched news stories from liberal and conservative networks, and never have I seen anything showing him getting hit and with what. Just him on the ground afterwards.
5 seconds. I'm not sure you're capable of operating your PC.
On November 18 2011 11:55 relyt wrote: I have a question. If lobbying and money are a problem in politics, how does one fix it? You can't stop people from lobbying and you also cant stop people from donating to campaigns.
I, for one, would love to see accepting "campaign contributions" included in the bribery statutes. Of course, we'd have to deal with how do politicians get their message out, and I suppose we could come up with some requirement of the media to devote a certain amount of time to political advertising instead of political campaigns spending money on it. Perhaps the media companies with access to the White House or other government press rooms, in exchange for their access, are required to carry candidates' political messages. Eliminate the money flowing to politicians by making it illegal. Then maybe we could get an honest politician.
Which candidate? Every candidate, anyone who wants to run gets free air time to deliver whatever political message they want? Sounds like a good deal for nut-jobs, not so much for broadcast networks.
Who pays for creating the ads, BTW?
You could do tiered primaries and at the end top two-4 vote getters from what ever party get public funding and only public funding they all get the same amount and that is it. Would be a tiny tiny portion of the overall federal government budget so I'm sure that money could be found somewhere.
Maybe minimum signatures to eliminate wack jobs from the start?
You know what is pretty cool we are thinking about and talking about actual solutions to one of the problems instead of just being mad at each other. This is what the movement should be about.
My fucking face. I'm sorry but wow. That is exactly what the movement is about. The general assemblies work entirely on a communication and consensus driven policy to actually work out societies real problems. I think you may be secretly more in favor of OWS than you think. I don't know about your local protest but I suggest at least stopping by one of their General Assemblies to really see for yourself.
On November 18 2011 11:55 relyt wrote: I have a question. If lobbying and money are a problem in politics, how does one fix it? You can't stop people from lobbying and you also cant stop people from donating to campaigns.
I, for one, would love to see accepting "campaign contributions" included in the bribery statutes. Of course, we'd have to deal with how do politicians get their message out, and I suppose we could come up with some requirement of the media to devote a certain amount of time to political advertising instead of political campaigns spending money on it. Perhaps the media companies with access to the White House or other government press rooms, in exchange for their access, are required to carry candidates' political messages. Eliminate the money flowing to politicians by making it illegal. Then maybe we could get an honest politician.
Which candidate? Every candidate, anyone who wants to run gets free air time to deliver whatever political message they want? Sounds like a good deal for nut-jobs, not so much for broadcast networks.
Who pays for creating the ads, BTW?
Perhaps the candidates that have qualified to be on the ballot. That requires some legwork. Not just any asshole can get on the ballot, they need a bunch of signatures. I'm just trying to ponder 1) Why does a politician "NEED" political contributions, and 2) how can we fill that need without giving them the money.
That's a tricky line to walk. You could very quickly find yourself in a position where the incumbent majority is in position to control which politicians receive free air-time.
On November 18 2011 12:12 Kaitlin wrote: As for running commercials, private entities are still free to put as many commercials out there as they want. That's free speech and there's not really anything wrong with that. It's not corrupting to run a commercial getting out your point of view. The corruption comes in when politicians are given money.
So something like a PAC would still be entirely legal?
On November 18 2011 12:12 Kaitlin wrote: This is about the only thing I agree with OWS on, the "corrupting influence of $$$" on politicians, although they blame Wall Street and I blame the politician, instead. I think it's pretty fucking stupid to blame Wall Street and not the politician for the corruption of politicians.
On November 18 2011 11:32 Enki wrote: Soooo the elderly don't have the right to be out protesting because they are old, and who knows if the police will lose their shit and start spraying mace in their face? Are you trolling?
I'm also not convinced that Olsen was hit by the police as opposed to protestors themselves.
This is utterly laughable. Are you trying to make yourself look foolish?
Perhaps I've missed the proof of the source of the injury. I've only heard / read allegations that it was the police, however those allegations were made by protest supporters. The police deny it. So, I guess I'm just not as quick to convict as you guys are.
Perhaps you should watch the video where he is shot in the head by a tear gas canister? And then the part where police throw a flashbang into the people running to help him? Perhaps you should even consider looking at the original evidence in the future?
EDIT: removed unnecessarily aggressive toning.
I've seen videos and all I've seen was the after-effect. I'm not going to spend my life searching through thousands of Youtube videos in the offchance one shows it. I've seen accusations, I've watched news stories from liberal and conservative networks, and never have I seen anything showing him getting hit and with what. Just him on the ground afterwards.
On November 18 2011 11:32 Enki wrote: Soooo the elderly don't have the right to be out protesting because they are old, and who knows if the police will lose their shit and start spraying mace in their face? Are you trolling?
I'm also not convinced that Olsen was hit by the police as opposed to protestors themselves.
This is utterly laughable. Are you trying to make yourself look foolish?
Perhaps I've missed the proof of the source of the injury. I've only heard / read allegations that it was the police, however those allegations were made by protest supporters. The police deny it. So, I guess I'm just not as quick to convict as you guys are.
Perhaps you should watch the video where he is shot in the head by a tear gas canister? And then the part where police throw a flashbang into the people running to help him? Perhaps you should even consider looking at the original evidence in the future?
EDIT: removed unnecessarily aggressive toning.
I've seen videos and all I've seen was the after-effect. I'm not going to spend my life searching through thousands of Youtube videos in the offchance one shows it. I've seen accusations, I've watched news stories from liberal and conservative networks, and never have I seen anything showing him getting hit and with what. Just him on the ground afterwards.
On November 18 2011 11:32 Enki wrote: Soooo the elderly don't have the right to be out protesting because they are old, and who knows if the police will lose their shit and start spraying mace in their face? Are you trolling?
I'm also not convinced that Olsen was hit by the police as opposed to protestors themselves.
This is utterly laughable. Are you trying to make yourself look foolish?
Perhaps I've missed the proof of the source of the injury. I've only heard / read allegations that it was the police, however those allegations were made by protest supporters. The police deny it. So, I guess I'm just not as quick to convict as you guys are.
Perhaps you should watch the video where he is shot in the head by a tear gas canister? And then the part where police throw a flashbang into the people running to help him? Perhaps you should even consider looking at the original evidence in the future?
EDIT: removed unnecessarily aggressive toning.
I've seen videos and all I've seen was the after-effect. I'm not going to spend my life searching through thousands of Youtube videos in the offchance one shows it. I've seen accusations, I've watched news stories from liberal and conservative networks, and never have I seen anything showing him getting hit and with what. Just him on the ground afterwards.
On November 18 2011 11:55 relyt wrote: I have a question. If lobbying and money are a problem in politics, how does one fix it? You can't stop people from lobbying and you also cant stop people from donating to campaigns.
I, for one, would love to see accepting "campaign contributions" included in the bribery statutes. Of course, we'd have to deal with how do politicians get their message out, and I suppose we could come up with some requirement of the media to devote a certain amount of time to political advertising instead of political campaigns spending money on it. Perhaps the media companies with access to the White House or other government press rooms, in exchange for their access, are required to carry candidates' political messages. Eliminate the money flowing to politicians by making it illegal. Then maybe we could get an honest politician.
Which candidate? Every candidate, anyone who wants to run gets free air time to deliver whatever political message they want? Sounds like a good deal for nut-jobs, not so much for broadcast networks.
Who pays for creating the ads, BTW?
You could do tiered primaries and at the end top two-4 vote getters from what ever party get public funding and only public funding they all get the same amount and that is it. Would be a tiny tiny portion of the overall federal government budget so I'm sure that money could be found somewhere.
Maybe minimum signatures to eliminate wack jobs from the start?
You know what is pretty cool we are thinking about and talking about actual solutions to one of the problems instead of just being mad at each other. This is what the movement should be about.
My fucking face. I'm sorry but wow. That is exactly what the movement is about. The general assemblies work entirely on a communication and consensus driven policy to actually work out societies real problems. I think you may be secretly more in favor of OWS than you think. I don't know about your local protest but I suggest at least stopping by one of their General Assemblies to really see for yourself.
If that's what the movement is about, then "Occupy Wall Street" is a pretty fucking stupid name. How about "Stop the Corruption" ? What does eliminating corrupt politicians have to do with this 99% crap ? OWS is class-warfare and is NOT about corrupt politicians. It's about preventing people from preventing people from getting to work. It's about acting like they are the only ones whose rights matter. It's about shouting down opposition viewpoints as "brain-washed". It's about Unions preventing businesses from operating. Unions are a big part of the corrupting influence in politics.
Start a movement with the sole goal of getting corruption out of politicians, starting with eliminating political contributions and I'm in support. I won't, however, be imposing upon the rights of others, however, as this OWS shit does every day.
I have a question. I heard abstention is about 50 % in the US. Are there studies what the inclinations of those 50 % are? Would they have voted for Democrat or Republican Parties or would they prefer something else? Why are they not voting? I tried finding stuff with Google, but I could not get it to work like I wanted and did not find anything.
A second question I have is, are there discussions about changing the way the US congress works, so that "weird" parties like a Green Party that would get, for example, 10 % across all the US, but 0 % of the electoral districts, gets representatives into the US house of representatives? What happens to everything that is not "mainstream" like the Democrat and Republican Parties in the US? This second question makes me think that lobbying is useful and needed in the US and cannot be abolished.
On November 18 2011 11:32 Enki wrote: Soooo the elderly don't have the right to be out protesting because they are old, and who knows if the police will lose their shit and start spraying mace in their face? Are you trolling?
I'm also not convinced that Olsen was hit by the police as opposed to protestors themselves.
This is utterly laughable. Are you trying to make yourself look foolish?
Perhaps I've missed the proof of the source of the injury. I've only heard / read allegations that it was the police, however those allegations were made by protest supporters. The police deny it. So, I guess I'm just not as quick to convict as you guys are.
Perhaps you should watch the video where he is shot in the head by a tear gas canister? And then the part where police throw a flashbang into the people running to help him? Perhaps you should even consider looking at the original evidence in the future?
EDIT: removed unnecessarily aggressive toning.
I've seen videos and all I've seen was the after-effect. I'm not going to spend my life searching through thousands of Youtube videos in the offchance one shows it. I've seen accusations, I've watched news stories from liberal and conservative networks, and never have I seen anything showing him getting hit and with what. Just him on the ground afterwards.
The video doesn't show the protester being struck with a tear gas canister, the narrator of the video even says as much.
You just CBA to even read the person you're responding to?
So...throwing it at him while he's on the ground the second time while people are coming to help him doesn't count Ok cool.
It was out of line by the cop, but no, it doesn't count because a tear gas canister isn't the same thing as a flash-bang grenade, which did not do that damage to his head.
On November 18 2011 12:29 Kaitlin wrote: If that's what the movement is about, then "Occupy Wall Street" is a pretty fucking stupid name. How about "Stop the Corruption" ? What does eliminating corrupt politicians have to do with this 99% crap ? OWS is class-warfare and is NOT about corrupt politicians. It's about preventing people from preventing people from getting to work. It's about acting like they are the only ones whose rights matter. It's about shouting down opposition viewpoints as "brain-washed". It's about Unions preventing businesses from operating. Unions are a big part of the corrupting influence in politics.
Start a movement with the sole goal of getting corruption out of politicians, starting with eliminating political contributions and I'm in support. I won't, however, be imposing upon the rights of others, however, as this OWS shit does every day.
This. Exactly this. If OWS was actually about getting rid of corruption in politics it wouldn't be called OWS. They should be angry at congress and trying to get corporate money out of politics, not waving class warfare signs and ignorant things like "$20 minimum wage" and "wipe all student" debt. what a joke
On November 18 2011 12:31 Ropid wrote: I have a question. I heard abstention is about 50 % in the US. Are there studies what the inclinations of those 50 % are? Would they have voted for Democrat or Republican Parties or would they prefer something else? Why are they not voting? I tried finding stuff with Google, but I could not get it to work like I wanted and did not find anything.
A second question I have is, are there discussions about changing the way the US congress works, so that "weird" parties like a Green Party that would get, for example, 10 % across all the US, but 0 % of the electoral districts, gets representatives into the US house of representatives? What happens to everything that is not "mainstream" like the Democrat and Republican Parties in the US? This second question makes me think that lobbying is useful and needed in the US and cannot be abolished.
1.) A majority of people don't vote because quite frankly they dont care. They just continue their life either way.
2.) Anyone can run however it's difficult to campaign without the money and reputation from one of the bigger parties.
People don't vote for a number of reasons around here in the US:
-because they feel their vote wouldn't matter (electoral college not taking a direct popular vote into effect has an effect on this. For example I live in a republican dominated area so a democratic presidential vote isn't going to do much)
-voting polling booths often close pretty early (5 PM close in some states makes it tougher for people to vote after work).
-they don't like the candidates (IMO the democratic and republication candidates that will end up getting their party nominations really don't have much of a difference.)
-they are uninformed or unable to choose which candidate they prefer, and rightly shouldn't be voting
On November 18 2011 12:31 Ropid wrote: I have a question. I heard abstention is about 50 % in the US. Are there studies what the inclinations of those 50 % are? Would they have voted for Democrat or Republican Parties or would they prefer something else? Why are they not voting? I tried finding stuff with Google, but I could not get it to work like I wanted and did not find anything.
A second question I have is, are there discussions about changing the way the US congress works, so that "weird" parties like a Green Party that would get, for example, 10 % across all the US, but 0 % of the electoral districts, gets representatives into the US house of representatives? What happens to everything that is not "mainstream" like the Democrat and Republican Parties in the US? This second question makes me think that lobbying is useful and needed in the US and cannot be abolished.
I don't vote because it's been empty promises. No one I can truly get behind.
EPT
