|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 28 2019 12:03 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, Mayor Pete had a good night up there, and was probably the best of the bunch. Bernie did his thing, too.
But let's get real: the true winner from the past two nights is Trump. He's licking his chops right now at the prospect of facing whoever comes out of this unruly mob. There is a lot of refinement that needs to happen for all of these candidates.
Trump is not really a debater. He didn't exactly exude competence in his debates with Hillary. He's more of a tweeter.
|
On June 28 2019 12:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 12:03 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, Mayor Pete had a good night up there, and was probably the best of the bunch. Bernie did his thing, too.
But let's get real: the true winner from the past two nights is Trump. He's licking his chops right now at the prospect of facing whoever comes out of this unruly mob. There is a lot of refinement that needs to happen for all of these candidates. What do you mean by refinement? Trump is the least refined "politician" out there... How do you think the Dem nominee should play out their debates against Trump?
Trump is Trump. He can get away with things that others can't. The biggest mistake that I saw democrats make the past two nights is that they presumed that they could act like Trump (or at least how they think Trump acted in the debates) and do well with it. That's a huge mistake. They'd be better off drawing a contrast with Trump. They will never beat him at his own game. Mayor Pete seems to understand this, as does Bernie and a couple others.
|
On June 28 2019 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 12:03 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, Mayor Pete had a good night up there, and was probably the best of the bunch. Bernie did his thing, too.
But let's get real: the true winner from the past two nights is Trump. He's licking his chops right now at the prospect of facing whoever comes out of this unruly mob. There is a lot of refinement that needs to happen for all of these candidates. Trump is not really a debater. He didn't exactly exude competence in his debates with Hillary.
Agreed. He just repeated buzzwords and buzzphrases, and that's all his supporters cared about. It would be nice to see real debates in the general election, but we're not going to get that. Too many Americans simply don't care about substance.
The Democratic nominee is going to have to effectively deal with Trump's idiocy, one way or another. I think ignoring Trump's ad hominems and focusing on policy and unity would be more effective than taking Trump's bait of just mudslinging.
|
On June 28 2019 12:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 12:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 28 2019 12:03 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, Mayor Pete had a good night up there, and was probably the best of the bunch. Bernie did his thing, too.
But let's get real: the true winner from the past two nights is Trump. He's licking his chops right now at the prospect of facing whoever comes out of this unruly mob. There is a lot of refinement that needs to happen for all of these candidates. What do you mean by refinement? Trump is the least refined "politician" out there... How do you think the Dem nominee should play out their debates against Trump? Trump is Trump. He can get away with things that others can't. The biggest mistake that I saw democrats make the past two nights is that they presumed that they could act like Trump (or at least how they think Trump acted in the debates) and do well with it. That's a huge mistake. They'd be better off drawing a contrast with Trump. They will never beat him at his own game. Mayor Pete seems to understand this, as does Bernie and a couple others.
I agree with you that no one will be able to beat Trump at his own game, but I disagree that the Democratic candidates were trying to be like him. I didn't watch tonight's debate yet, but I watched last night's and there were no mentions of penis sizes or name calling or sexually assaulting people. They lacked some substance (which was going to happen, given the debate format), but they at least talked about important issues.
|
On June 28 2019 12:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On June 28 2019 12:03 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, Mayor Pete had a good night up there, and was probably the best of the bunch. Bernie did his thing, too.
But let's get real: the true winner from the past two nights is Trump. He's licking his chops right now at the prospect of facing whoever comes out of this unruly mob. There is a lot of refinement that needs to happen for all of these candidates. Trump is not really a debater. He didn't exactly exude competence in his debates with Hillary. Agreed. He just repeated buzzwords and buzzphrases, and that's all his supporters cared about. It would be nice to see real debates in the general election, but we're not going to get that. Too many Americans simply don't care about substance. The Democratic nominee is going to have to effectively deal with Trump's idiocy, one way or another. I think ignoring Trump's ad hominems and focusing on policy and unity would be more effective than taking Trump's bait of just mudslinging.
I continue to think Trump faces an uphill battle in 2020. His poll numbers against the Democratic frontrunners are not meaningless. And in 2016, his opponent (1) was subject to FBI criminal investigations, one of which was publicly reopened one week before the election, and (2) had her private correspondence hacked and steadily leaked leading up election day. That situation isn't going to repeat itself.
|
On June 28 2019 11:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Yang has gotten NO time. NONE. Fucking criminal.
Yang got less than 3 minutes in total out of the whole 2 hour broadcast according to NYT. The people who got the most the most time got 3-4x more speaking time than he did.
|
On June 28 2019 03:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 02:55 Danglars wrote:On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:
The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times.
And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in. This is similar to how I view it. If you see the gardener cutting plants in your backyard, you see him doing his job. A government conducts censuses to ascertain the size of its citizenry, particularly the voting population. But you remember prior gardeners using their access to rob you of valuables. That makes you vigilant, but doesn’t impute the motives of robbery to the man in your backyard. Even if it’s technically possible. I happen to quote a lawyer that also thinks the salacious documents as an absurd conspiracy theory, and it’s neglect in the decision helps inform me that the justices see no merit in it. It’s appearance is an opportunity for ridicule. Can you explain why you think the purpose of the census should be to determine number of citizens vs number of illegals? And do you think that is the current purpose, or the purpose it should change to?
The government should get a sense of citizens vs noncitizens for estimates of voting age population and impact on policy prerogatives and needs, from welfare programs to DACA programs. I include both state and federal programs. It's routine in foreign countries, and isn't used for ill purposes.
To be clear, I want the census to state multiple times that the information will not be used for deportation or raids or anything of the kind. Pay for how ever many multiple-language ads encouraging everyone from illegals to frivolous asylum seekers to visa overstays to fill it out and submit it, and no cop is going to be banging on their door. The census will never be the place for law enforcement agencies to use data for raids.
On the flip side, opposition to such a simple question looks like pure fearmongering. It's been on the census for hundreds of years, and on the long-form census with very few interruptions. The first "removal" was simply because the census was getting to be too long, so they split it into two. Nothing nefarious prevented, no big policy set. The related ACS has excellent response rates on its surveys despite a census question. I think it's simply marginal activists making a big fuss, because they don't want this whole boondoggle revealed as all fear no substance. Next will be the questions on sex hurt transgender and gender non-conforming respondents and should be removed.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 28 2019 13:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 03:08 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:55 Danglars wrote:On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in. This is similar to how I view it. If you see the gardener cutting plants in your backyard, you see him doing his job. A government conducts censuses to ascertain the size of its citizenry, particularly the voting population. But you remember prior gardeners using their access to rob you of valuables. That makes you vigilant, but doesn’t impute the motives of robbery to the man in your backyard. Even if it’s technically possible. I happen to quote a lawyer that also thinks the salacious documents as an absurd conspiracy theory, and it’s neglect in the decision helps inform me that the justices see no merit in it. It’s appearance is an opportunity for ridicule. Can you explain why you think the purpose of the census should be to determine number of citizens vs number of illegals? And do you think that is the current purpose, or the purpose it should change to? To be clear, I want the census to state multiple times that the information will not be used for deportation or raids or anything of the kind. Pay for how ever many multiple-language ads encouraging everyone from illegals to frivolous asylum seekers to visa overstays to fill it out and submit it, and no cop is going to be banging on their door. The census will never be the place for law enforcement agencies to use data for raids.
I just want to say that I appreciate the acknowledgement of the issue and the desire to take steps to address it.
|
On June 28 2019 11:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
Do white people feel safer when they see a cop like Buttigieg said?
Also Buttigieg is going to get an anomalous amount of searches related to spelling his name right, not political interest.
I can only speak for myself, but I don't, no. I mostly think "Dammit, now I'm gonna get a ticket."
I'm not too worried about getting shot though, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.
On June 28 2019 10:48 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 10:47 xDaunt wrote:
Like I said, Democrats have a pro-open borders policy problem. did you catch the moderator calling the 3 million "Americans." This "decriminalize the border" thing is the new euphemism. it could have just been a slip up, but the way he's been going...
I caught that too. I was like wtf? I don't think we deported Americans, bro.
On June 28 2019 11:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 11:11 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2019 11:07 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Harris....she's a black woman for real. I've seen that kinda fucking pointed accusation. What did she say? She pulled her race card basically.
She did, and IMO she did it much better (and less frequently) than Booker did in night 1.
Though I'm sure it helped a lot that she was matching with Joe Biden the human piñata.
On June 28 2019 11:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Yang has gotten NO time. NONE. Fucking criminal.
As a big Yang fan, I'm disappointed. He got the least time of all 20 candidates, and was definitely not taken seriously. That said, it's somewhat his fault. The format is atrocious, but he is the only candidate who did not butt in or "follow up" at all.
Also the first question they gave him was pretty bullshit IMO (though maybe I'm biased). And then they follow up with "so your plan is to give everyone $1000 so they can pay all of it back in VAT tax?" Gimme a break. The VAST majority of Americans make less than $120,000 /year. No way are they spending $120,000 /year on VAT-taxable goods and services. But yeah, kudos MSNBC, you made him talk about new taxes as his first intro to viewers.
This isn't the end for him, as he's practically met the fall debate requirements already, but getting more attention would have helped polling and, most importantly, donors.
I urge anyone here to look more deeply into Yang. He's the real deal. 21st century Bernie Sanders
On June 28 2019 11:38 Introvert wrote:
it took a while for Harris to hit her authoritarian streak, but here it is. Wasn't Trump supposed to be a dictator?
edit: i may have missed previous "pen and phone" moments.
Bernie talked about undoing everything Trump has done via executive order in the first half of tonight's debates.
I have to imagine that the primary audience likes to hear that? But that's basically the mirror image of Trump IMO.
On June 28 2019 11:44 xDaunt wrote:
These democrats have learned all of the wrong lessons from Trump’s debate performances.
Not just that - night 1 of the debates the moderators made it pretty clear that if candidates just ignore them, they will let it happen.
Overall, I think Kamala fared very well tonight.
Buttigieg did reasonably well as expected.
Bernie rolled out his greatest hits.
Williamson had a couple good moments, but IMO the whole "harness the power of love" and "call NZ and be like 'nu'uh gurl, we da best'" were pretty huge turnoffs.
Biden is a dumpster-tier candidate and always has been.
Swalwell is the "gun control guy," but IMO the best gun control quote came from Kamala.
Hickenlooper seemed not bad, but generally unimpressive and forgettable.
Gillibrand seemed really pushy and kind of desperate. I can tell how incredibly difficult it is to stand out as a woman without seeming pushy and desperate.
I forgot Bennett was there, so... I guess forgettable kind of like Hickenlooper.
Yang basically got no time at all (apparently 2:58 total in the 2 hour debacle). I know this format is not the best for him. You can't introduce something as transformative as the Freedom Dividend in 45 second sound bytes.
Overall, I heard a lot of "orange man bad," a lot of "heart-wrenching" stories about minorities and sick people, and a lot of "these are the problems every day Americans face," but not a lot of actual solutions.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 28 2019 13:46 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 10:48 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2019 10:47 xDaunt wrote:
Like I said, Democrats have a pro-open borders policy problem. did you catch the moderator calling the 3 million "Americans." This "decriminalize the border" thing is the new euphemism. it could have just been a slip up, but the way he's been going... I caught that too. I was like wtf? I don't think we deported Americans, bro.
The US has deported a shitton of Americans over the years. Mostly people from the area that used to be north Mexico before the US decided to reclassify it as the southern United States. The US gov got very upset that there were all these Mexican looking people in what used to be Mexico so they decided to resolve it by shipping them to the rest of Mexico.
|
On June 28 2019 13:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 13:46 Dromar wrote:On June 28 2019 10:48 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2019 10:47 xDaunt wrote:
Like I said, Democrats have a pro-open borders policy problem. did you catch the moderator calling the 3 million "Americans." This "decriminalize the border" thing is the new euphemism. it could have just been a slip up, but the way he's been going... I caught that too. I was like wtf? I don't think we deported Americans, bro. The US has deported a shitton of Americans over the years. Mostly people from the area that used to be north Mexico before the US decided to reclassify it as the southern United States. The US gov got very upset that there were all these Mexican looking people in what used to be Mexico so they decided to resolve it by shipping them to the rest of Mexico.
Is that what the moderator was referencing? Because I thought he said something like "we deported 3 million Americans in Obama's term(s)."
I will admit I'm not really informed about this topic.
|
On June 28 2019 14:05 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 13:57 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 13:46 Dromar wrote:On June 28 2019 10:48 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2019 10:47 xDaunt wrote:
Like I said, Democrats have a pro-open borders policy problem. did you catch the moderator calling the 3 million "Americans." This "decriminalize the border" thing is the new euphemism. it could have just been a slip up, but the way he's been going... I caught that too. I was like wtf? I don't think we deported Americans, bro. The US has deported a shitton of Americans over the years. Mostly people from the area that used to be north Mexico before the US decided to reclassify it as the southern United States. The US gov got very upset that there were all these Mexican looking people in what used to be Mexico so they decided to resolve it by shipping them to the rest of Mexico. Is that what the moderator was referencing? Because I thought he said something like "we deported 3 million Americans in Obama's term(s)." I will admit I'm not really informed about this topic.
no, the moderator meant that Obama administration, by it's own counting method, deported about 3 million people in his eight years. The fact that he called them "Americans" is either a revealing slip up, or, given what else we saw tonight, entirely intentional. Obama did not deport 3 million US citizens.
|
United States41989 Posts
On June 28 2019 14:05 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 13:57 KwarK wrote:On June 28 2019 13:46 Dromar wrote:On June 28 2019 10:48 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2019 10:47 xDaunt wrote:
Like I said, Democrats have a pro-open borders policy problem. did you catch the moderator calling the 3 million "Americans." This "decriminalize the border" thing is the new euphemism. it could have just been a slip up, but the way he's been going... I caught that too. I was like wtf? I don't think we deported Americans, bro. The US has deported a shitton of Americans over the years. Mostly people from the area that used to be north Mexico before the US decided to reclassify it as the southern United States. The US gov got very upset that there were all these Mexican looking people in what used to be Mexico so they decided to resolve it by shipping them to the rest of Mexico. Is that what the moderator was referencing? Because I thought he said something like "we deported 3 million Americans in Obama's term(s)." I will admit I'm not really informed about this topic.
No, not in Obama's terms, or at least not that many. Americans do get deported from time to time but not in huge numbers the way they used to.
|
On June 28 2019 13:46 Dromar wrote:
As a big Yang fan, I'm disappointed. He got the least time of all 20 candidates, and was definitely not taken seriously. That said, it's somewhat his fault. The format is atrocious, but he is the only candidate who did not butt in or "follow up" at all.
Good strategy from him then, possibly. No mistakes caused by talking too much, and now his supporters are allowed to go off about how he's treated.
|
On June 28 2019 16:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 13:46 Dromar wrote:
As a big Yang fan, I'm disappointed. He got the least time of all 20 candidates, and was definitely not taken seriously. That said, it's somewhat his fault. The format is atrocious, but he is the only candidate who did not butt in or "follow up" at all.
Good strategy from him then, possibly. No mistakes caused by talking too much, and now his supporters are allowed to go off about how he's treated.
And they have very much gone off. There's rumblings that his mic was cut off during the debates. The only clip I've seen as "proof" of this though, I heard him speak. It was really quiet though. Maybe his mic was turned down, maybe he was too far away, whatever. Obviously MSNBC had a ton of mic and tech issues both nights so it's absolutely possible.
Regardless, he does have a legitimate "bias" narrative as he only got 2:58 of speaking time, less than any other candidate. And there are actually a ton of examples of MSNBC trying to pretend Yang doesn't exist; more than one could disqualify as coincidence.
|
On June 28 2019 13:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2019 03:08 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:55 Danglars wrote:On June 28 2019 02:34 Mohdoo wrote:On June 28 2019 02:08 Falling wrote:On June 28 2019 01:51 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 28 2019 01:40 Danglars wrote:The citizenship question decision “splits the baby.” Throws out challenge based on enumerations and Census act. Demands for poor explanation anyways. More in lawyer tritter thread. Only passing reference was made to the salacious claim that it’s all founded in racism. That’s what a country counting the citizens of the country is now reduced to in partisan times. https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/1144260345629986819And in other news, the Supreme Court does not suddenly change 200 years of gerrymandering. Eldridge Gerry, the namesake, still kicking since 1812. It's called racist, because it is founded with racist intentions. Not hard to understand. But it's not an inherently racist piece of information to want to know. The category differences is status of citizenship/non-citizenship, not a division of ethnicity. This is a classic, if A then B. B, Therefore A. Pointing out that something is technically possible is not always constructive. If I see someone holding a gun with a face mask on prowling around my back yard, I could open the door and invite him in, since he might give me money. But most of the time, that person is not looking to give me money. It could be that he wanted to be anonymous and to protect his money until he gave it to me. But I have a lot of data that indicates masks and weapons usually mean theft, so I'm going to not invite him in. This is similar to how I view it. If you see the gardener cutting plants in your backyard, you see him doing his job. A government conducts censuses to ascertain the size of its citizenry, particularly the voting population. But you remember prior gardeners using their access to rob you of valuables. That makes you vigilant, but doesn’t impute the motives of robbery to the man in your backyard. Even if it’s technically possible. I happen to quote a lawyer that also thinks the salacious documents as an absurd conspiracy theory, and it’s neglect in the decision helps inform me that the justices see no merit in it. It’s appearance is an opportunity for ridicule. Can you explain why you think the purpose of the census should be to determine number of citizens vs number of illegals? And do you think that is the current purpose, or the purpose it should change to? The government should get a sense of citizens vs noncitizens for estimates of voting age population and impact on policy prerogatives and needs, from welfare programs to DACA programs. I include both state and federal programs. It's routine in foreign countries, and isn't used for ill purposes. To be clear, I want the census to state multiple times that the information will not be used for deportation or raids or anything of the kind. Pay for how ever many multiple-language ads encouraging everyone from illegals to frivolous asylum seekers to visa overstays to fill it out and submit it, and no cop is going to be banging on their door. The census will never be the place for law enforcement agencies to use data for raids. On the flip side, opposition to such a simple question looks like pure fearmongering. It's been on the census for hundreds of years, and on the long-form census with very few interruptions. The first "removal" was simply because the census was getting to be too long, so they split it into two. Nothing nefarious prevented, no big policy set. The related ACS has excellent response rates on its surveys despite a census question. I think it's simply marginal activists making a big fuss, because they don't want this whole boondoggle revealed as all fear no substance. Next will be the questions on sex hurt transgender and gender non-conforming respondents and should be removed. I understand the use of a citizen question in the census and I can see the benefit from having that statistic available to the government but I have to ask if you understand the other side of the current argument because it seems you don't.
You know about the documents found on the late Thomas Hofeller's hardrives right?
Your aware of his proposed plan to use the question to further gerrymander districts?
From what I understand the governments defence of the question has followed the arguments Hofeller proposed.
Do you see how people can see a connection between the return of the question and the plan to use such a question to further gerrymandering?
And that in light of such a possible connection they are very hesitant to downright hostile to adding the question back in?
Can you really call the opposition to the question fearmongering when the evidence is right there about how they would use it to negatively impact minorities?
|
This is chilling. The fact that the POTUS discusses how great silencing the press would be with a dictator that jails and kills opposing journalists is absolutely appalling.
Why don’t republicans react on shit like that? It should be way beyond partisanship. I just don’t get those people.
|
After the first round, I like Sanders, Warren, Harris, and maybe Mayor Pete. The rest I would vote for if forced to, but I wouldn't be thrilled about it.
|
On June 28 2019 20:47 farvacola wrote:
After the first round, I like Sanders, Warren, Harris, and maybe Mayor Pete. The rest I would vote for if forced to, but I wouldn't be thrilled about it.
Is there a Democrat (not just the candidates) you wouldn't vote for if "forced"? As in is there any Democrat that meets the constitutional requirements to be president that you wouldn't vote for if "forced" for 2020?
If not, I presume it's clear why this leads inexorably to disaster.
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina?
|
On June 28 2019 21:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Wouldn't "Americans" be an accurate descriptor for peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina?
Accurate but not useful, because "peoples anywhere from Alaska to Argentina" isn't what "americans" is used for in almost all contexts. It's the trouble with words being able to carry multiple meanings, which is most words in most languagues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
