|
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 |
United States10166 Posts
On January 07 2023 04:07 brian wrote:
i have a real ignorant question. do they have to keep voting on some kind of schedule? why would they vote 12 times if they aren’t certain they’ve got the magic number?
Nothing else to do. So just keep voting I guess. They want at least some chances to vote, and maybe some defectors will vote for McCarthy and change their mind during the day. But usually they adjourn after 3 votes.
|
On January 07 2023 04:10 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2023 04:07 brian wrote:
i have a real ignorant question. do they have to keep voting on some kind of schedule? why would they vote 12 times if they aren’t certain they’ve got the magic number? There is no real schedule but the only thing they can do is adjourn or do another vote. They can get through about 3 every 5 and a half hours or so. After they vote and before the results is officially announced they can go around and talk on the floor but as soon as its announced they need to vote again or adjourn. No nominations for anyone other than jeffries or mccarthy this might be the end. Or not maybe rebels are still voteing for someone other than mccarthy. They already unleashed the guy they will put at the head of the witch hunts and I think that was their largest piece of ammunition .
ah, and the house needs to vote for adjournment, which the dems will also not vote for.
hey look at that, some spine from democrats. that’s refreshing. I haven’t figured that out til now.
|
United States10166 Posts
13th vote looking like it'll fail too. Biggs, Boebert, Crane are all still sitting together with the rest of the Freedom Caucus and voted no. Likely Gaetz does too and that won't be enough after to flip.
|
13th vote = another loss, although the vote is getting closer... maybe #14 will be the one. I think ~3 more defectors flipping back to McCarthy is all that needs to happen.
|
Before the repeated/back-up roll call in the 13th vote (to double-check with any Reps who didn't vote a few minutes prior), Jeffries had the literal majority, not just the plurality. It would have been pretty hilarious if all of McCarthy's hard work / compromise / selling his soul was somehow made irrelevant by Jeffries magically winning due to too many Republicans being absent from the vote. That definitely won't happen though.
|
From my usual outside vision, the US is becoming more conscious of its ineffective internal workings in the socioeconomic aspect.
Reps just look ubiquitously ridiculous, even more than under the Donald, if that‘s even possible and I wouldn‘t be surprised if a bunch of them tried to escape the sinking ship by switching their allegiance.
Either way, the antiquated two-party solution looks just as it should when looking to other countries, which is likely not something to be encourages from the inside for stability reasons.
Meanwhile the arguing goes on over which anachronism to tackle first, but coincidentially the broadness of that topic is on the decline.
Like that game where everyone tries to snatch the last chair to sit on
|
On January 06 2023 23:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2023 23:41 Sermokala wrote:On January 06 2023 09:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2023 06:05 Sermokala wrote:On January 06 2023 04:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2023 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:On January 06 2023 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 06 2023 01:41 ChristianS wrote:On January 06 2023 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2023 23:06 Sermokala wrote:
[quote]
That is a bit of a red herring due to it never being released and also due to clear and obvious circumstances of the claimed way it was acquired.
Second and third paragraphs no one I've ever seen has had a problem with hunter Biden being locked up. It's been a constant "if he did crimes he should go to jail".
He's not committed these crime with impunity he has been investigated by the government and charges were rumored to be dropped after the election and they were just waiting for them not to effect the election. That hasn't happened yet which should point to the lack of actual evidence to them.
You need to ask yourself how they got these videos photos and how they are being shown to you. The republicans have had it from before the presidential election, what have they done with this information? A simple "No there are not specific files (photos, videos, emails, etc) that people believe are fake/manipulated, yes it is a red herring" would have been sufficient. Hunter Biden has obviously and self-admittedly committed crimes. He's enjoyed legal impunity for those crimes despite his father having been uniquely personally responsible for destroying millions of lives for the same and lessor crimes. That's not even up for debate, it's a matter of well documented fact. I don't know what people genuinely believe his no-show job was other than bribery, granting the people bribing Hunter Biden didn't seem to be getting their money's worth. Personally I believe (besides being factually wrong) the oblivious Joe/white house narrative is more shameful, but Joe knew about the no-show job and knew better than most people that his son was a nonsensical hire outside of it being bribery. Does any of that even really involve the laptop? We knew Hunter was an addict, and we knew he took some high-paid consulting-type jobs that he surely only got because of his last name. I’m not gonna look up Biden’s history on drug enforcement policy right now (I’ll take your word for it that it’s terrible) but sans laptop you could still indict him for hypocrisy if he favored mandatory minimums for the masses, but rehab and recovery for his son. Frankly the laptop has always seemed a lot like the Podesta emails stuff. It’s this whole JJ Abrams game of “look at this super secret box, don’t you think there’s probably some dark fucked-up stuff inside?” but the actual contents are pretty disappointing. One difference is, I can still name a couple things from the 2016 email hacks that *really were* pretty bad, but I haven’t even heard *allegations* from the laptop that seemed all that meaningful. IIRC there’s alleged evidence that Biden knew about Hunter’s consulting jobs, they were explicitly given to him as bribes, and Biden even demanded 10% of his son’s income. But what were these jobs, $500,000/year? That’s great money for a guy fresh out of rehab but it’s not much for bribe money in Washington DC, especially if you’re only taking 10%. Didn’t the Saudis just give Jared Kushner like $1billion or something? I guess my point is, I don’t think the subterfuge and innuendo of the laptop story are buying you anything here. Right-wingers mostly yell about it more for the fact it was *censored* than they do for the actual contents, and everything you’re complaining about here was public information already, no? None of it is dependent on the contents of the laptop, though there's arguably some "involvement". I don't think the subterfuge or innuendo from Republicans is necessary to recognize that Joe Biden knew about the job when Hunter took it, knew he was unqualified, and knew why he was getting it anyway. Yet he and Hunter pretended Burisma needed Hunter Biden's professional help to keep them on the straight and narrow as if that isn't laughable on its face. Beyond getting clarity on whether people disputed that the laptop contents that have been released were authentically from/of Hunter Biden (they don't afaict) my other point was that regardless of what is or isn't ultimately shown in Hunter's data, Joe Biden (Hunter too for whatever that matters) is plenty deplorable based on his own actions/policy (historical and contemporary). No one should need an investigation into the laptop to see that both parties and every president is corrupted by the influence of money in US politics. Whether Joe Biden is provably in a court of law guilty of so egregiously stepping outside of normally accepted US political corruption that it would net a conviction in US criminal court (as well as the habitual/reflexive Trump whataboutism) misses the forest for the trees imo. Right but not your point is not "Hunter Biden laptop bad" but simply "US politics is shit and full of corruption". And you should know by now that this forum generally agrees with that statement. To the degree that's true that's why the discussion of stuff like chain of custody is a red herring. People know Biden and his party are corrupted by money, that lobbying/fundraising in the US is basically legalized bribery by another name, that nepotism is par for the course and so on. Regardless of what is or isn't shown by Hunter's files, no one is going to seriously argue that Joe Biden isn't a part of the normalized corruption that makes the worst version of the Burisma story look insignificant by comparison. How is it a red herring? Unless you have legitimate evidence for something you cannot state something is a fact. The laptop is not legitimate evidence. Going for a "both sides" argument is just silly. All you do with it is legitimize the very things you're complaining about so much. Because no one is going to seriously argue that Joe Biden isn't a part of the normalized US corruption (it's fair to argue it's capitalists doing capitalism imo) that makes the worst version of the Burisma story look insignificant by comparison. It's not a "both sides" argument other than I obviously don't think this is only a problem with Democrats. The chronic whataboutism regarding Republicans isn't wrong about their rampant improprieties and legalized corruption. It is a both sides argument. You don't find any difference between the sides you see them both as an equal part of the same corruption system. No one here is arguing that he isn't corrupt you're the one dismissing the story because you think corruption is just normal and both sides do it. This is the shit that really disappoints me with you. You repeatedly throw away your voice and opinion by ignoring any nuance of a situation to your overall message of revolution being our only salvation. You have a perspective that's valuable and yet you continuously refuse to share it because you hold yourself so far above any current event. It just comes off as condesending and demeaning to everyone that's genuinely interested in us politics and doesn't want to hear for the thousandths time that nilhism about none of it mattering. Do you really want to participate in a discussion about us politics or are you just wasteing all of our time? He isn't saying both sides are equal. He is saying being better than Republicans isn't good enough and even if one passes that bar one can still demand improvement, and he is unwilling to give a pass to democrats for being less corrupt than Trump. It's an entirely coherent argument and tbh I entirely agree with it, even if I differ in the sense that I'd still vote for democrats when those two are my two real choices.
Of course I don't think they are the same and have said as much plenty of times. I would say that while I'd love for Democrats to genuinely improve, I'm not a reformist, so I that's not my aim.
I'm confident Joe Biden, basically all politicians and corporate media will die capitalists, and capitalism is the central problem. It's not a matter of some missing regulation/reform, or the need for a heroic political savior, but capitalism at its very core is inextricable from the exploitation it leaves in its wake. So I'm not really after "improved" capitalists.
One problem I have with lesser evilism is that it means there's no one and nothing too nefarious for it's endorsers to vote for. I can disagree about where people want to draw their line, but people who can't draw one are a bit terrifying to me.
|
The House has adjourned until 10 PM... I'm assuming that's eastern time zone, so 6 hours from now. Apparently, that'll be when the 14th vote attempt is.
|
On January 06 2023 16:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On January 06 2023 01:41 ChristianS wrote:On January 06 2023 00:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2023 23:06 Sermokala wrote:On January 05 2023 14:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 05 2023 10:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 05 2023 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
Is there anything specific on the laptop that people are disputing being genuine? To answer that properly we would need access to know whats all on the laptop, but "genuine" do you mean "What the things that have been released about whats on "the laptop" means anything at all to Joe biden"? I meant 'are there specific files (photos, videos, emails, etc) that people believe are fake/manipulated?' or is that a red herring? The relations to Joe Biden are clear to me. It's also clear to me that he was aware that his son was selling influence (that he arguably didn't have) and independent of whether it was effective, it was obviously corrupt. Then there's the drugs. Had he not had such a critical role in destroying millions of people's lives for the same (often lesser) crimes he knows his son was committing, it wouldn't be so damnable. That he's done so little to remedially address what he now recognizes as the systematically cruel and horrific destruction of millions of people's lives he's uniquely personally responsible for and positioned to lead on remedying is damning enough on its own. However, seeing video/photos of Hunter Biden's crimes committed with impunity certainly amplified the "rules for thee but not for me" vibes. That is a bit of a red herring due to it never being released and also due to clear and obvious circumstances of the claimed way it was acquired. Second and third paragraphs no one I've ever seen has had a problem with hunter Biden being locked up. It's been a constant "if he did crimes he should go to jail". He's not committed these crime with impunity he has been investigated by the government and charges were rumored to be dropped after the election and they were just waiting for them not to effect the election. That hasn't happened yet which should point to the lack of actual evidence to them. You need to ask yourself how they got these videos photos and how they are being shown to you. The republicans have had it from before the presidential election, what have they done with this information? A simple "No there are not specific files (photos, videos, emails, etc) that people believe are fake/manipulated, yes it is a red herring" would have been sufficient. Hunter Biden has obviously and self-admittedly committed crimes. He's enjoyed legal impunity for those crimes despite his father having been uniquely personally responsible for destroying millions of lives for the same and lessor crimes. That's not even up for debate, it's a matter of well documented fact. I don't know what people genuinely believe his no-show job was other than bribery, granting the people bribing Hunter Biden didn't seem to be getting their money's worth. Personally I believe (besides being factually wrong) the oblivious Joe/white house narrative is more shameful, but Joe knew about the no-show job and knew better than most people that his son was a nonsensical hire outside of it being bribery. Does any of that even really involve the laptop? We knew Hunter was an addict, and we knew he took some high-paid consulting-type jobs that he surely only got because of his last name. I’m not gonna look up Biden’s history on drug enforcement policy right now (I’ll take your word for it that it’s terrible) but sans laptop you could still indict him for hypocrisy if he favored mandatory minimums for the masses, but rehab and recovery for his son. Frankly the laptop has always seemed a lot like the Podesta emails stuff. It’s this whole JJ Abrams game of “look at this super secret box, don’t you think there’s probably some dark fucked-up stuff inside?” but the actual contents are pretty disappointing. One difference is, I can still name a couple things from the 2016 email hacks that *really were* pretty bad, but I haven’t even heard *allegations* from the laptop that seemed all that meaningful. IIRC there’s alleged evidence that Biden knew about Hunter’s consulting jobs, they were explicitly given to him as bribes, and Biden even demanded 10% of his son’s income. But what were these jobs, $500,000/year? That’s great money for a guy fresh out of rehab but it’s not much for bribe money in Washington DC, especially if you’re only taking 10%. Didn’t the Saudis just give Jared Kushner like $1billion or something? I guess my point is, I don’t think the subterfuge and innuendo of the laptop story are buying you anything here. Right-wingers mostly yell about it more for the fact it was *censored* than they do for the actual contents, and everything you’re complaining about here was public information already, no? Reasonable people everywhere are rightfully concerned when massive social media companies censor a legitimate story in the run up to an election. That's the only thing I think is interesting about the story anyway. I couldn't care less about the crack smoking and peddling influence with bullshit consulting jobs or whatever other mole hills the Republicans are trying to make a mountain from. But I certainly don't think the arguments that some are offering, e.g. "What about the Trump Kid's profiteering?" or "If there was wrongdoing how come there were no charges" are particularly good. Nobody here would bring the "Then why hasn't he been charged?" energy to defend any wrongdoing from a team MAGA guy. I think NY Post fucked up by reporting that story. It wasn’t to a reasonable journalistic standard, and their real journalists were refusing to put their names on it. *But* I think they were within their rights to do it. Nobody should be able to tell them they can’t report a story like that, unsound though it was. I think Twitter fucked up blocking links to the story. Compared to current management that era’s moderation winds up looking pretty rosy, and there’s still an argument you could make for the decision, but blocking hyperlinks to another website is a really extreme measure, and it Streisand Effect’ed the story way further anyway. Even in the messy world of internet moderation I think it was pretty clearly the wrong call. *But* I think they were within their rights to do it. Nobody should be able to tell them how they’re allowed to moderate their website. So what? What am I supposed to take away from this? It’s an interesting case study in both journalistic practice and internet moderation, but I don’t know what else there is to yell about. NY Post published a bad article, neither their first nor their last. Twitter made a bad moderation decision, neither their first nor their last. Twitter at least changed its mind pretty quickly, and anyway that whole landscape is completely different now in ways that are mostly worse, but certainly in different ways. So why dwell on the laptop thing?
I think it's important to dwell on because many people don't see the problem with it or will outright defend it. You're one of the few people that is even on record now saying Twitter was wrong to suppress the NYPost's story. It also seems that if we just shrug our shoulders and overlook it because as you said, Twitter is a private company and should be allowed to moderate as they see fit, then we are only going to get more of this censorship. It's already repeated itself with suppression of the lab leak hypothesis. Polls even show that many people are yearning for more of this. They want the social media companies or the government to create some kind of ministry of truth to purge the internet from all the "misinformation." Then we can have the one true narrative on the popular websites and the smaller websites will just create their own echo chambers for people to be radicalized on. It's just not a good idea.
|
United States10166 Posts
On January 07 2023 06:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The House has adjourned until 10 PM... I'm assuming that's eastern time zone, so 6 hours from now. Apparently, that'll be when the 14th vote attempt is.
Some rumors spreading about some holdouts like Boebert voting present instead of for someone else to reduce the threshold to allow McCarthy to win. Probably the most spineless thing you can do actually, not even voting for someone to lower the threshold rather than just flat out voting for McCarthy so you can hold plausible deniability that you didn't vote for him, even tho it's effectively the same thing.
Also, vote structure needs to change. I hate how you can just not vote when you're called, or vote after the timer goes off. We need like mobile apps for the politicians to vote remotely or something, and we need to stop just letting people cast a vote well after their turn to vote is over.
|
United States10166 Posts
|
|
|
On January 07 2023 09:51 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2023 06:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The House has adjourned until 10 PM... I'm assuming that's eastern time zone, so 6 hours from now. Apparently, that'll be when the 14th vote attempt is. Some rumors spreading about some holdouts like Boebert voting present instead of for someone else to reduce the threshold to allow McCarthy to win. Probably the most spineless thing you can do actually, not even voting for someone to lower the threshold rather than just flat out voting for McCarthy so you can hold plausible deniability that you didn't vote for him, even tho it's effectively the same thing. Also, vote structure needs to change. I hate how you can just not vote when you're called, or vote after the timer goes off. We need like mobile apps for the politicians to vote remotely or something, and we need to stop just letting people cast a vote well after their turn to vote is over.
Totally agree. I don't know if it's because of some sacred tradition to vote in person, or because the average age of Congresspeople is 137 and they think a mobile app is fast food you order at the beginning of your dinner, but there's no excuse for doing a second and then a third round of checking in with each of them, one at a time. They're running our country, yet we treat them with kid gloves.
I would be shocked if moderate/establishment Republicans voted against McCarthy for making too many compromises with the nutjobs, but it would be pretty entertaining to see complete pandemonium erupt during the votes.
|
On January 07 2023 11:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2023 09:51 FlaShFTW wrote:On January 07 2023 06:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The House has adjourned until 10 PM... I'm assuming that's eastern time zone, so 6 hours from now. Apparently, that'll be when the 14th vote attempt is. Some rumors spreading about some holdouts like Boebert voting present instead of for someone else to reduce the threshold to allow McCarthy to win. Probably the most spineless thing you can do actually, not even voting for someone to lower the threshold rather than just flat out voting for McCarthy so you can hold plausible deniability that you didn't vote for him, even tho it's effectively the same thing. Also, vote structure needs to change. I hate how you can just not vote when you're called, or vote after the timer goes off. We need like mobile apps for the politicians to vote remotely or something, and we need to stop just letting people cast a vote well after their turn to vote is over. Totally agree. I don't know if it's because of some sacred tradition to vote in person, or because the average age of Congresspeople is 137 and they think a mobile app is fast food you order at the beginning of your dinner, but there's no excuse for doing a second and then a third round of checking in with each of them, one at a time. They're running our country, yet we treat them with kid gloves. I would be shocked if moderate/establishment Republicans voted against McCarthy for making too many compromises with the nutjobs, but it would be pretty entertaining to see complete pandemonium erupt during the votes.
The moderates have no alternative. Every alternative to McCarthy is either a Democrat or is more right wing than him.
|
What would be incredible is if they voted McCarthy as speaker and then moderate republicans rebel against the rules package.
|
On January 07 2023 12:12 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2023 11:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 07 2023 09:51 FlaShFTW wrote:On January 07 2023 06:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The House has adjourned until 10 PM... I'm assuming that's eastern time zone, so 6 hours from now. Apparently, that'll be when the 14th vote attempt is. Some rumors spreading about some holdouts like Boebert voting present instead of for someone else to reduce the threshold to allow McCarthy to win. Probably the most spineless thing you can do actually, not even voting for someone to lower the threshold rather than just flat out voting for McCarthy so you can hold plausible deniability that you didn't vote for him, even tho it's effectively the same thing. Also, vote structure needs to change. I hate how you can just not vote when you're called, or vote after the timer goes off. We need like mobile apps for the politicians to vote remotely or something, and we need to stop just letting people cast a vote well after their turn to vote is over. Totally agree. I don't know if it's because of some sacred tradition to vote in person, or because the average age of Congresspeople is 137 and they think a mobile app is fast food you order at the beginning of your dinner, but there's no excuse for doing a second and then a third round of checking in with each of them, one at a time. They're running our country, yet we treat them with kid gloves. I would be shocked if moderate/establishment Republicans voted against McCarthy for making too many compromises with the nutjobs, but it would be pretty entertaining to see complete pandemonium erupt during the votes. The moderates have no alternative. Every alternative to McCarthy is either a Democrat or is more right wing than him.
So the moderates who are voting for McCarthy are more right wing than McCarthy?
|
On January 07 2023 12:19 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2023 12:12 gobbledydook wrote:On January 07 2023 11:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 07 2023 09:51 FlaShFTW wrote:On January 07 2023 06:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The House has adjourned until 10 PM... I'm assuming that's eastern time zone, so 6 hours from now. Apparently, that'll be when the 14th vote attempt is. Some rumors spreading about some holdouts like Boebert voting present instead of for someone else to reduce the threshold to allow McCarthy to win. Probably the most spineless thing you can do actually, not even voting for someone to lower the threshold rather than just flat out voting for McCarthy so you can hold plausible deniability that you didn't vote for him, even tho it's effectively the same thing. Also, vote structure needs to change. I hate how you can just not vote when you're called, or vote after the timer goes off. We need like mobile apps for the politicians to vote remotely or something, and we need to stop just letting people cast a vote well after their turn to vote is over. Totally agree. I don't know if it's because of some sacred tradition to vote in person, or because the average age of Congresspeople is 137 and they think a mobile app is fast food you order at the beginning of your dinner, but there's no excuse for doing a second and then a third round of checking in with each of them, one at a time. They're running our country, yet we treat them with kid gloves. I would be shocked if moderate/establishment Republicans voted against McCarthy for making too many compromises with the nutjobs, but it would be pretty entertaining to see complete pandemonium erupt during the votes. The moderates have no alternative. Every alternative to McCarthy is either a Democrat or is more right wing than him. So the moderates who are voting for McCarthy are more right wing than McCarthy?
He's saying that there is no alternative speaker than McCarthy.
|
On January 07 2023 12:21 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2023 12:19 oBlade wrote:On January 07 2023 12:12 gobbledydook wrote:On January 07 2023 11:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 07 2023 09:51 FlaShFTW wrote:On January 07 2023 06:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
The House has adjourned until 10 PM... I'm assuming that's eastern time zone, so 6 hours from now. Apparently, that'll be when the 14th vote attempt is. Some rumors spreading about some holdouts like Boebert voting present instead of for someone else to reduce the threshold to allow McCarthy to win. Probably the most spineless thing you can do actually, not even voting for someone to lower the threshold rather than just flat out voting for McCarthy so you can hold plausible deniability that you didn't vote for him, even tho it's effectively the same thing. Also, vote structure needs to change. I hate how you can just not vote when you're called, or vote after the timer goes off. We need like mobile apps for the politicians to vote remotely or something, and we need to stop just letting people cast a vote well after their turn to vote is over. Totally agree. I don't know if it's because of some sacred tradition to vote in person, or because the average age of Congresspeople is 137 and they think a mobile app is fast food you order at the beginning of your dinner, but there's no excuse for doing a second and then a third round of checking in with each of them, one at a time. They're running our country, yet we treat them with kid gloves. I would be shocked if moderate/establishment Republicans voted against McCarthy for making too many compromises with the nutjobs, but it would be pretty entertaining to see complete pandemonium erupt during the votes. The moderates have no alternative. Every alternative to McCarthy is either a Democrat or is more right wing than him. So the moderates who are voting for McCarthy are more right wing than McCarthy? He's saying that there is no alternative speaker than McCarthy.
Got it I didn't realize "moderates" were prohibited from voting for one another.
|
|
|
Gatz is the deciding vote and is waiting for the runback to best it.
I don't know what's worse if I was a republican, if McCarthy loses again or what you would have to give that man to vote for McCarthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
