|
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 August 28 2020 22:38 JimmiC wrote:
Guns escalate every situation they are a huge problem and as long as they remain this common and unregulated all of the issues around them will continue. Hell even when they are not their, that someone probably has them is enough to escalate so many scenarios. It is so strange to me that both the "law and order" party and the more left party are both still pro guns. Though I think the dems do want some regulation.
I think alot of that soft left reaction on guns is mostly due to the concession that any real gun reform is unlikely to happen due to the culture of reverence that this country has towards guns. even in deep blue states like new york gun ownership is still very important.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27228 Posts
On August 28 2020 22:35 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2020 16:04 Wombat_NornIron wrote:
Considering quite the level of sustained nature of the protests and the sheer amount of interactions there’s been a pretty damn low number of lethal interactions, which is something to be thankful for.
It’s a very politically charged time obviously, if actual looting were to occur in one’s community in such circumstances I’m pretty OK with citizens with guns playing watchmen.
I’ve never thought it was a particularly bright idea to have civilians with guns go out of their way to travel and counter-protest while ostentatiously wielding firearms, especially ones that are largely peaceful. Consciously or unconsciously cultivating via rhetoric and encouraging people to do such a thing is socially irresponsible in this climate.
Despite some rushing to judgement on this guy’s intent, I reckon he was merely some impressionable kid trying to help in his mind in response to all this talk of law and order and the Commies taking over or whatever. Got in over his head into a situation he couldn’t control rather than actively going out with the thought of shooting someone that night.
As per usual we’re getting the nice one-two punch from talking heads that pushed the idea that civilisation and law and order were breaking down to chase ratings now acting totally surprised that people got shot by somebody concerned with that.
Im not quite sure how you reconcile these two sentiments. On one hand you're saying its generally ok for "citizens with guns" to "play watchmen", but on the other hand you say that its not a good idea for for people to go out and counter protest with weapons. It seems like a very blurry line between counter protesting and playing watchmen no?
It’s me posting, of course there will be sentiments that are barely, if even at all reconcilable.
We’ve seen folks from all political stances protecting business and homes when protests have spilled over into rioting and looting.
Hold that line by all means, I rather think it’s inadvisable to be dandering around outside that defensive stance, armed and amongst your ideological opponents. They’re extremely emotionally charged and volatile situations anyway without that factor being thrown in. There’s a provocative and intimidatory slant to doing this and it can escalate fast.
|
I suspect that all these protests and riots are hurting Biden electorally. He didn't get a bump from the convention and the polling gap has narrowed. He also recently came out with a statement against riots, a sign that he recognizes he needs to pump the brakes and not be in full fledged support of the property damage etc. The white working class voters Biden needs in swing states are probably not too keen on there being large scale destruction every time there's a police involved death of a black person.
|
On August 29 2020 01:40 Doodsmack wrote:
I suspect that all these protests and riots are hurting Biden electorally. He didn't get a bump from the convention and the polling gap has narrowed. He also recently came out with a statement against riots, a sign that he recognizes he needs to pump the brakes and not be in full fledged support of the property damage etc. The white working class voters Biden needs in swing states are probably not too keen on there being large scale destruction every time there's a police involved death of a black person.
Then maybe. Just maybe. Police should stop killing us? Just food for thought.
|
The notion that Biden will shoulder what is occurring while Trump is in office is very much in dispute, how voters attribute the events of the past few months remains to be seen.
|
United States10529 Posts
On August 28 2020 15:05 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2020 14:17 reborn8u2 wrote:To clarify some things about this incident, the person with the rifle is knocked (edit: it appears he trips in other videos) to the ground, then kicked in the head (kicking a person in the head while they are on the ground is considered a deadly assault in many places in the U.S.), then hit on the head with a skateboard (also considered deadly assault in most places), he shoots the person with the skateboard (this person dies), then a 3rd person runs up to him with a pistol in his hand, the person with the rifle shoots the person with the pistol in the arm. All of this occurs in 5 seconds. Here is a link to a video of the incident. https://imgur.com/a/bX1l2yR To clarify some things about this post since you couldn't be bothered to read the link that I posted. I'll summarize the timeline. Kid with AR gets into verbal altercation of unknown origin (unknown to me at this time) with protester. Kid with AR shoots said protester (exact reason isn't known or on video that I have seen), flees the scene of crime.
Others witness this and chase after kid.That's when the video you posted picks up. He wasn't JUST an innocent good guy defending himself from "deadly assault in many places". If that is what you were attempting to imply. But the biggest issue for me that apparently isn't even being discussed is wtf were the cops doing that they let this kid go despite being told by the crowd what just happened. That's what I can't even begin to reconcile.
There was a video that had the first killing on video, but that was taken down from Streamables. From what it looked like, and I don't have the video anymore so my memory could fail me, was that the first protestor was chasing him through cars, he shoots the guy, comes back around to the body, there's another guy with him there (unknown affiliation) and he says to call 911. The unknown guy starts trying to stop the bleeding while it appears that Kyle was dialing in a number (presumably 911?). That's when people start pointing him out and chase him.
Was he an innocent guy? We actually have no idea about that. None. It is entirely speculation that the first killing is justified or not because we literally do not have much video evidence to prove one side or the other. The 2nd killing + 3rd shot into the guys arm are also heavily speculated. He was sucker punched in the head, then attacked by a skateboard while on the ground, then had some guy with a pistol appear to try to shoot him while down as well.
From a human perspective and putting yourself in Kyle's position, being chased by a clearly enraged mob and them physically battering you, what would you do? In no world is your answer going to be different from how Kyle reacted, shooting at people.
Was his reason for being in the State all wrong, is he 17 and shouldn't be possessing a firearm? Yes to both. He's an idiot for trying to get himself into a situation like this. But to try to call him a murderer when it's clear from video evidence that much of the interaction was self-defense based and a VERY strong self-defense for his trial, is not accurate.
|
Folks should check out WI ST 939.48, especially subsection (2)(a)
|
On August 29 2020 01:40 Doodsmack wrote:
I suspect that all these protests and riots are hurting Biden electorally. He didn't get a bump from the convention and the polling gap has narrowed. He also recently came out with a statement against riots, a sign that he recognizes he needs to pump the brakes and not be in full fledged support of the property damage etc. The white working class voters Biden needs in swing states are probably not too keen on there being large scale destruction every time there's a police involved death of a black person.
We don't really know if convention bumps for virtual conventions are going to be a thing (we'll see if one materializes after the RNC one. So far views are down for both, with the DNC having more viewers).
Riots are unpopular among everyone except the very far left - most of the people on this board who defended them did so in the "it's the only option when all the other avenues have been totally ignored" logic, rather than a "it's a good thing to do" logic. Condemning riots is just bog-standard political good sense.
The standard conservative appeals to law and order and various racist dogwhistles haven't worked on the public so far - the protests have a pretty high approval rating since George Floyd, and it ramped up BLM's approval rating. I think this is because the police have been so obviously in the wrong, SO many times throughout these protests.
As far as white appeal goes, whether this is a good strategy also really depends on the swing state, since we're going through some relocations and basically getting new ones (538 had a good article on this https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/swing-states-2020-election/ ).
Summary -
IA, Ohio, MI went very far right
GA,TX,AZ,VA are moving left.
White working class voters are the ones to target in the midwest, but minority turnout going up is better for flipping the southern states. It's not impossible for Biden to win TX/GA but lose PA/Ohio.
|
On August 29 2020 02:43 farvacola wrote:
The notion that Biden will shoulder what is occurring while Trump is in office is very much in dispute, how voters attribute the events of the past few months remains to be seen.
Yeah this is just boggling my mind. They're blaming Biden for everything bad happening under Trump's presidency. I guess I should be used to this by now but the brazenness and shamelessness of it still shocks me sometimes. Every good thing is because of Trump (including what Obama was responsible for, like the stable economy), and every bad thing is someone else's fault. I feel livid that he's made not a single attempt to address the grievances of the people who are protesting.
|
On August 29 2020 02:53 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2020 15:05 Trainrunnef wrote:On August 28 2020 14:17 reborn8u2 wrote:To clarify some things about this incident, the person with the rifle is knocked (edit: it appears he trips in other videos) to the ground, then kicked in the head (kicking a person in the head while they are on the ground is considered a deadly assault in many places in the U.S.), then hit on the head with a skateboard (also considered deadly assault in most places), he shoots the person with the skateboard (this person dies), then a 3rd person runs up to him with a pistol in his hand, the person with the rifle shoots the person with the pistol in the arm. All of this occurs in 5 seconds. Here is a link to a video of the incident. https://imgur.com/a/bX1l2yR To clarify some things about this post since you couldn't be bothered to read the link that I posted. I'll summarize the timeline. Kid with AR gets into verbal altercation of unknown origin (unknown to me at this time) with protester. Kid with AR shoots said protester (exact reason isn't known or on video that I have seen), flees the scene of crime.
Others witness this and chase after kid.That's when the video you posted picks up. He wasn't JUST an innocent good guy defending himself from "deadly assault in many places". If that is what you were attempting to imply. But the biggest issue for me that apparently isn't even being discussed is wtf were the cops doing that they let this kid go despite being told by the crowd what just happened. That's what I can't even begin to reconcile. There was a video that had the first killing on video, but that was taken down from Streamables. From what it looked like, and I don't have the video anymore so my memory could fail me, was that the first protestor was chasing him through cars, he shoots the guy, comes back around to the body, there's another guy with him there (unknown affiliation) and he says to call 911. The unknown guy starts trying to stop the bleeding while it appears that Kyle was dialing in a number (presumably 911?). That's when people start pointing him out and chase him. Was he an innocent guy? We actually have no idea about that. None. It is entirely speculation that the first killing is justified or not because we literally do not have much video evidence to prove one side or the other. The 2nd killing + 3rd shot into the guys arm are also heavily speculated. He was sucker punched in the head, then attacked by a skateboard while on the ground, then had some guy with a pistol appear to try to shoot him while down as well. From a human perspective and putting yourself in Kyle's position, being chased by a clearly enraged mob and them physically battering you, what would you do? In no world is your answer going to be different from how Kyle reacted, shooting at people. Was his reason for being in the State all wrong, is he 17 and shouldn't be possessing a firearm? Yes to both. He's an idiot for trying to get himself into a situation like this. But to try to call him a murderer when it's clear from video evidence that much of the interaction was self-defense based and a VERY strong self-defense for his trial, is not accurate.
Absolutely agree that had input myself in his place with the same weapon I would have done the same thing. Doesn't make any of it right though so I wouldn't hang my hat on that.
We don't know the context and intention behind the first altercation so it's hard to draw any real conclusions about whether his self defense in the second altercation and video previously posted is legally justified. If 5 guys jumped an armed robber does the robber in that case have the legal right to shoot the five guys?
I would imagine that those protections for use of force in self defense (mentioned in the Wisconsin statute farv pointed out) may not be present in the first shooting, as it may be reasonable to expect him to continue feeling (haven't seen the vid so I can't say for sure) rather than confront.
I agree the situation is muddy as hell without evidence to corroborate what happened before he started shooting. What I take issue with is the framing that he was (and I'll emphasize again cause it's that important to me) JUST a victim defending himself from attackers. For all the witnesses knew they were doing the same. Which is why I made my earlier remark about a good guy with a gun. In this situation. Who the hell is the good guy? Kid with gun who killed 2 people, guy who was shot himself? Trying to protect others? (Only enough cops didn't make the list in this case. Go figure lol)
|
On August 29 2020 03:13 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2020 02:43 farvacola wrote:
The notion that Biden will shoulder what is occurring while Trump is in office is very much in dispute, how voters attribute the events of the past few months remains to be seen. Yeah this is just boggling my mind. They're blaming Biden for everything bad happening under Trump's presidency. I guess I should be used to this by now but the brazenness and shamelessness of it still shocks me sometimes. Every good thing is because of Trump (including what Obama was responsible for, like the stable economy), and every bad thing is someone else's fault. I feel livid that he's made not a single attempt to address the grievances of the people who are protesting.
I think the logic is that the worst aspects of the response to George Floyd etc would become associated with the democratic party. The mayors involved are all democratic and basically fighting with trump. Trump is trying to capitalize on the situation with tweets like this:
And this is Wisconsin we're talking about, an important swing state (although nevuk's point about relocations is interesting).
Another point is that a lot of democrats have expressed sympathy and basically total support for what is happening, as if to excuse or even endorse the destruction. But I think everyone is now realizing that they need to pump the brakes.
|
On August 29 2020 02:53 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2020 15:05 Trainrunnef wrote:On August 28 2020 14:17 reborn8u2 wrote:To clarify some things about this incident, the person with the rifle is knocked (edit: it appears he trips in other videos) to the ground, then kicked in the head (kicking a person in the head while they are on the ground is considered a deadly assault in many places in the U.S.), then hit on the head with a skateboard (also considered deadly assault in most places), he shoots the person with the skateboard (this person dies), then a 3rd person runs up to him with a pistol in his hand, the person with the rifle shoots the person with the pistol in the arm. All of this occurs in 5 seconds. Here is a link to a video of the incident. https://imgur.com/a/bX1l2yR To clarify some things about this post since you couldn't be bothered to read the link that I posted. I'll summarize the timeline. Kid with AR gets into verbal altercation of unknown origin (unknown to me at this time) with protester. Kid with AR shoots said protester (exact reason isn't known or on video that I have seen), flees the scene of crime.
Others witness this and chase after kid.That's when the video you posted picks up. He wasn't JUST an innocent good guy defending himself from "deadly assault in many places". If that is what you were attempting to imply. But the biggest issue for me that apparently isn't even being discussed is wtf were the cops doing that they let this kid go despite being told by the crowd what just happened. That's what I can't even begin to reconcile. There was a video that had the first killing on video, but that was taken down from Streamables. From what it looked like, and I don't have the video anymore so my memory could fail me, was that the first protestor was chasing him through cars, he shoots the guy, comes back around to the body, there's another guy with him there (unknown affiliation) and he says to call 911. The unknown guy starts trying to stop the bleeding while it appears that Kyle was dialing in a number (presumably 911?). That's when people start pointing him out and chase him. Was he an innocent guy? We actually have no idea about that. None. It is entirely speculation that the first killing is justified or not because we literally do not have much video evidence to prove one side or the other. The 2nd killing + 3rd shot into the guys arm are also heavily speculated. He was sucker punched in the head, then attacked by a skateboard while on the ground, then had some guy with a pistol appear to try to shoot him while down as well. From a human perspective and putting yourself in Kyle's position, being chased by a clearly enraged mob and them physically battering you, what would you do? In no world is your answer going to be different from how Kyle reacted, shooting at people. Was his reason for being in the State all wrong, is he 17 and shouldn't be possessing a firearm? Yes to both. He's an idiot for trying to get himself into a situation like this. But to try to call him a murderer when it's clear from video evidence that much of the interaction was self-defense based and a VERY strong self-defense for his trial, is not accurate.
If you take a gun to a place, wait for people to show up, get into an argument and solve it by shooting someone, that's not self defense. If a bank robber is killing a civilian in the heist that is trying to take the gun from him, he is convicted of murder. WHy is this different? He could have changed the course of this at every interaction he had, from the moment he stepped out of the house. He is probably not a stone cold killer that had the intent to murder someone that day, but self defense also needs to be withing reasoning.
Also, are you saying that upon realizing you just killed someone, the expected behaviour now is to double down on the shooting? Hpw about letting go of the weapon? How about realizing you fucked up and changing your behaviour.
|
On August 29 2020 03:03 farvacola wrote:
Folks should check out WI ST 939.48, especially subsection (2)(a)
Could this be used as legal justification for violence at a voting station?
|
On August 27 2020 08:37 Amui wrote:
I don't even think eventually be a threat is a requirement.
The only requirement from what I can tell is the officer be willing to pull the trigger. That is not a particularly high bar, and then they make up whatever excuses they want and it generally gets handwaved away. The only difference is that nowadays, video footage is a lot more accessible. Even then there's examples of it being handwaved away.[/QUOTE]
In every shooting the only requirement is the person holding the gun be willing to pull the trigger. Simple physics. From a legal standpoint for civilians it is reasonable assessment of the situation responding to potential serious bodily injury or death. This is no different than self defense with every single weapon one might defend themselves with btw. Cops standard is easier for them, I disagree with this.
I find those seeing ambiguity in the Blake incident kinda odd. No one will know exactly what the officers thought at the time he reached into the car after resisting arrest. Not hard to imagine its the videos they likely see in training of similar situations where the suspect comes out with a gun and kills officers. Maybe past trauma or interactions. Doesn't even matter.
Jacob Blake is alive if he doesn't resist the police probably 99.999999999% of the time. Simple physics.
What he had in the car or reached for or is irrelevant. it was physically impossible for the officers to know what was in the car cause they don't have super human powers.
Blake is similar to almost all the other big media shootings as well.
Should the drug war end as it the primary target to solve the problem - Yes
Should unconstitutional qualified immunity for police be ended? - Yes
Should no knock raids to the tune of 50,000 nationwide a year end? - Obvious
Is framing the problem around racial lines based on pretty weak statistical coincidences? - No. Which is why multiple decades have seen the progressive side seperated from the libertarian side and prevented from effectively solving the issue.
|
Jacob Blake is alive. He is currently paralyzed. We will hear more from him.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27228 Posts
On August 29 2020 04:49 Toc1982 wrote:I don't even think eventually be a threat is a requirement. The only requirement from what I can tell is the officer be willing to pull the trigger. That is not a particularly high bar, and then they make up whatever excuses they want and it generally gets handwaved away. The only difference is that nowadays, video footage is a lot more accessible. Even then there's examples of it being handwaved away.
In every shooting the only requirement is the person holding the gun be willing to pull the trigger. Simple physics. From a legal standpoint for civilians it is reasonable assessment of the situation responding to potential serious bodily injury or death. This is no different than self defense with every single weapon one might defend themselves with btw. Cops standard is easier for them, I disagree with this.
I find those seeing ambiguity in the Blake incident kinda odd. No one will know exactly what the officers thought at the time he reached into the car after resisting arrest. Not hard to imagine its the videos they likely see in training of similar situations where the suspect comes out with a gun and kills officers. Maybe past trauma or interactions. Doesn't even matter.
Jacob Blake is alive if he doesn't resist the police probably 99.999999999% of the time. Simple physics.
What he had in the car or reached for or is irrelevant. it was physically impossible for the officers to know what was in the car cause they don't have super human powers.
Blake is similar to almost all the other big media shootings as well.
Should the drug war end as it the primary target to solve the problem - Yes
Should unconstitutional qualified immunity for police be ended? - Yes
Should no knock raids to the tune of 50,000 nationwide a year end? - Obvious
Is framing the problem around racial lines based on pretty weak statistical coincidences? - No. Which is why multiple decades have seen the progressive side seperated from the libertarian side and prevented from effectively solving the issue.
[/QUOTE]
The police don’t have superpowers, neither does Blake. Cop takes a few steps back how does even a hypothetical knife wielding Blake reach him, how does Blake get a weapon from the car based on how the people were aligned? He’s not the Flash. I’ll maybe rewatch, would rather not, I’m going off memory here and that’s not especially reliable.
The progressive side is largely separated from libertarians for obvious enough reasons. When aligned sure that’s great.
I have respect for actual libertarians and their views, Wegandi for example in here. Thing is a lot of libertarians just say that they are and are a worse breed of conservative in their rhetoric and views.
|
Well this is an interesting story.
I actually believe it too. Thank God for the deep state i suppose.
https://truthout.org/articles/former-dhs-official-claims-trump-wanted-to-maim-migrants-at-us-mexico-border/?fbclid=IwAR2f7Yn-oMyiKQ_OXTPKHEY2o2WK0e61JLcu8sn9JgiqCcrXUr9PWJzmB8E
Former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Chief of Staff Miles Taylor claimed in a podcast earlier this week that President Donald Trump told administration officials he wanted to “maim” and “shoot” migrants at the southern border.
Taylor, who served as chief of staff to former DHS Kirstjen Nielsen before departing the agency with her in April 2019, made the remarks Monday on an episode of “The New Abnormal” podcast from The Daily Beast.
Taylor said he could not get through a meeting without Trump “doing 20 tangents, becoming irascible, turning red in the face, demanding a diet Coke, spewing spit.”
“Literally out of goddamn nowhere, he’d be like, ‘You know who’s just my favorite guy? The MyPillow guy. Do any of you have those pillows?'” Taylor said, referencing his first in-person interaction with the president, at a meeting about the construction of a wall on the southern border with Mexico.
“Donald Trump hates it when people take notes,” Taylor recalled, reasoning it had something to do with the content of those meetings.
“He says, ‘We got to do this, this, this and this,’ all of which are probably impossible, illegal unethical,” Taylor said, echoing allegations from a number of former senior staffers such as former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former National Security Adviser John Bolton.
As he was writing down Trump’s ideas while the president spoke, Taylor said, “He looks over me and he goes, ‘You fu*king taking notes?'”
“I’ve actually seen him do that so many times in meetings,” Taylor said. “‘Why the hell are you taking notes?'”
When discussing border security, Taylor said, Trump would concoct “sickening” schemes “to pierce the flesh” of migrants at the southern border, “maim” and gas them.
“He wanted to maim them, and tear gas them and shoot them,” Taylor said. “And I’m not even being hyperbolic.”
|
On August 29 2020 04:59 IgnE wrote:
Jacob Blake is alive. He is currently paralyzed. We will hear more from him.
He's also handcuffed to his bed by police (despite you know, the paralysis), who refuse to say why and say they aren't trying to arrest him, according to his dad. Weird situation.
On August 29 2020 03:39 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2020 03:13 Starlightsun wrote:On August 29 2020 02:43 farvacola wrote:
The notion that Biden will shoulder what is occurring while Trump is in office is very much in dispute, how voters attribute the events of the past few months remains to be seen. Yeah this is just boggling my mind. They're blaming Biden for everything bad happening under Trump's presidency. I guess I should be used to this by now but the brazenness and shamelessness of it still shocks me sometimes. Every good thing is because of Trump (including what Obama was responsible for, like the stable economy), and every bad thing is someone else's fault. I feel livid that he's made not a single attempt to address the grievances of the people who are protesting. I think the logic is that the worst aspects of the response to George Floyd etc would become associated with the democratic party. The mayors involved are all democratic and basically fighting with trump. Trump is trying to capitalize on the situation with tweets like this: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1299391572384059397And this is Wisconsin we're talking about, an important swing state (although nevuk's point about relocations is interesting). Another point is that a lot of democrats have expressed sympathy and basically total support for what is happening, as if to excuse or even endorse the destruction. But I think everyone is now realizing that they need to pump the brakes.
In about 4-5 more years the transition will be complete, but 2016 was really the worst possible timing - the old core of the party, white union democrats, were still angry about NAFTA and racist appeals have also always worked on a large percentage of white people.
Have that at the same time that minority populations are booming in several states, but not yet an outright majority in any state (outside of California, where they're super concentrated) and there's a situation where Hillary could lead by 3% nationally but still lose key states. GA/TX were both closer than IA, which would've been absurd as little as 3-4 years before.
The same thing is true for this election, but not to as great an extent - Biden probably needs to be up 3.5-4% in popular vote to win - Trump still has an electoral college advantage, but not as much as before.
In 2018 GA/TX went from being 5/9% GOP to 2-3% GOP, and the question is basically if the demographic change there is rapid enough to change votes by a couple more percentage points in 2020. In 2024 I think they will be, but 2020 is a total toss-up as to whether it will be easier for a democrat to win the sunbelt or the rustbelt.
The only state I'd totally give up on is WI. It's got too many structural advantages for GOP voting - if the GOP loses there, it's because they've lost every other swing state, and they have gone in HARD on voter suppression there.
Sidenote - I'm planning on doing either early voting or directly depositing my ballot to the board of elections. I frankly don't trust Ohio not to try and fuck with mail-in votes, given how diehard some of the GOP here can be (though it's nowhere near as bad as Wisconsin - I don't expect the state GOP here to try, just some fringe lunatics in the post office).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
