|
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 29 2023 23:26 Introvert wrote:So affirmative action is finally gone, at least the state sanctioned version. Excerpts that I saw look like there was no wishy washy-ness by Roberts. Should be sound and I'm sure Thomas's long concurrence is good. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdfThere are ways around it and the schools are already working on it, but at least for a today a good opinion with the right result. And based on polling, the overwhelmingly popular one too. Last year Roe, this year AA. The decades of legal groundwork are paying off on two of the top five issues conservatives and originalists have been working on. Pretty good day And of course we're not done, had one religious liberty case today (unanimous) and still a free speech and student loans one waiting.
Thomas and good should never be uttered in the same sentence. And anyone with even a remote understanding of jurisprudence knows that.
AA as a whole was very convoluted. On one hand, as an Asian, I likely suffered a disadvantage. On the other hand, systemic issues in our system should most definitely be addressed in some way, and I'm not sure that only looking at someone's socioeconomic status without accounting for race solves it. I'm sure schools will create new formulas to account for the lack of AA. They have so many metrics they collect from their students over the years that there is likely various factors/combination of factors that will effectively replace AA without explicitly saying "this is race-based."
|
i get the reaction that AA is bad because it effectively promotes discrimination based on race but, alternatively, how do you address systemic/institutional racism without addressing race as the factor?
i understand, maybe sympathize, with the perspective that it’s bad policy but I think it betrays a misunderstanding of the issues it’s addressing. i do also think that AA disproportionately harming asian people at all is a failure of its implementation though, so that does present a problem too.
i also don’t expect these institutions will do any meaningful work to put together their own replacement for it, but maybe that’s cynical.
|
On June 30 2023 01:03 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2023 23:26 Introvert wrote:So affirmative action is finally gone, at least the state sanctioned version. Excerpts that I saw look like there was no wishy washy-ness by Roberts. Should be sound and I'm sure Thomas's long concurrence is good. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdfThere are ways around it and the schools are already working on it, but at least for a today a good opinion with the right result. And based on polling, the overwhelmingly popular one too. Last year Roe, this year AA. The decades of legal groundwork are paying off on two of the top five issues conservatives and originalists have been working on. Pretty good day And of course we're not done, had one religious liberty case today (unanimous) and still a free speech and student loans one waiting. Thomas and good should never be uttered in the same sentence. And anyone with even a remote understanding of jurisprudence knows that. AA as a whole was very convoluted. On one hand, as an Asian, I likely suffered a disadvantage. On the other hand, systemic issues in our system should most definitely be addressed in some way, and I'm not sure that only looking at someone's socioeconomic status without accounting for race solves it. I'm sure schools will create new formulas to account for the lack of AA. They have so many metrics they collect from their students over the years that there is likely various factors/combination of factors that will effectively replace AA without explicitly saying "this is race-based."
The bolded is flatly false but I know the hatred for Thomas from the legal left is particularly acute.
Schools love to brag about how diverse they are, 100% they will try to find a work around. We can also ask that question that in my opinion the left ir rightly chastised for so often ignoring..."did it actually work?" The fact that the timeline for when we can get rid of AA kept getting extended hints at the probable answer.
|
|
|
Race will still be a factor it will now only negatively effect minorities getting into college. Nobody thinks it should be a factor but only the most ignorant will tell you that it isn't a factor from your zip code to your name to the kind of college you transfer from.
|
On June 30 2023 01:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2023 01:03 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 29 2023 23:26 Introvert wrote:So affirmative action is finally gone, at least the state sanctioned version. Excerpts that I saw look like there was no wishy washy-ness by Roberts. Should be sound and I'm sure Thomas's long concurrence is good. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdfThere are ways around it and the schools are already working on it, but at least for a today a good opinion with the right result. And based on polling, the overwhelmingly popular one too. Last year Roe, this year AA. The decades of legal groundwork are paying off on two of the top five issues conservatives and originalists have been working on. Pretty good day And of course we're not done, had one religious liberty case today (unanimous) and still a free speech and student loans one waiting. Thomas and good should never be uttered in the same sentence. And anyone with even a remote understanding of jurisprudence knows that. AA as a whole was very convoluted. On one hand, as an Asian, I likely suffered a disadvantage. On the other hand, systemic issues in our system should most definitely be addressed in some way, and I'm not sure that only looking at someone's socioeconomic status without accounting for race solves it. I'm sure schools will create new formulas to account for the lack of AA. They have so many metrics they collect from their students over the years that there is likely various factors/combination of factors that will effectively replace AA without explicitly saying "this is race-based." The bolded is flatly false but I know the hatred for Thomas from the legal left is particularly acute. Schools love to brag about how diverse they are, 100% they will try to find a work around. We can also ask that question that in my opinion the left ir rightly chastised for so often ignoring..."did it actually work?" The fact that the timeline for when we can get rid of AA kept getting extended hints at the probable answer.
your assumption or implication that AA didn’t work might lead one to believe that these universities love to say they’re diverse while having no actual results to suggest they are.
which, agreed, they do love to say it. whether that in turn results in them doing any work to actually do it, remains to be seen.
|
Norway28806 Posts
On June 30 2023 01:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2023 01:03 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 29 2023 23:26 Introvert wrote:So affirmative action is finally gone, at least the state sanctioned version. Excerpts that I saw look like there was no wishy washy-ness by Roberts. Should be sound and I'm sure Thomas's long concurrence is good. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdfThere are ways around it and the schools are already working on it, but at least for a today a good opinion with the right result. And based on polling, the overwhelmingly popular one too. Last year Roe, this year AA. The decades of legal groundwork are paying off on two of the top five issues conservatives and originalists have been working on. Pretty good day And of course we're not done, had one religious liberty case today (unanimous) and still a free speech and student loans one waiting. Thomas and good should never be uttered in the same sentence. And anyone with even a remote understanding of jurisprudence knows that. AA as a whole was very convoluted. On one hand, as an Asian, I likely suffered a disadvantage. On the other hand, systemic issues in our system should most definitely be addressed in some way, and I'm not sure that only looking at someone's socioeconomic status without accounting for race solves it. I'm sure schools will create new formulas to account for the lack of AA. They have so many metrics they collect from their students over the years that there is likely various factors/combination of factors that will effectively replace AA without explicitly saying "this is race-based." The bolded is flatly false but I know the hatred for Thomas from the legal left is particularly acute. Schools love to brag about how diverse they are, 100% they will try to find a work around. We can also ask that question that in my opinion the left ir rightly chastised for so often ignoring..."did it actually work?" The fact that the timeline for when we can get rid of AA kept getting extended hints at the probable answer.
The left can probably agree that it's acute, depending on how you define that. 
I think AA is a tricky subject. There are very valid reasons to oppose it, and plenty leftists do too. For one, it's a bit of a bandaid solution to a structural problem. I think there are situations where quota schemes have yielded very positive results (for example getting more female representation in politics) but I honestly don't know enough about AA in the US to say whether I support or oppose how it has been utilized politically.
In general this is the type of targeted policy I am opposed to though. I mostly subscribe to a 'rights for all', not 'benefits for few/many' type of policy - but for a 'rights for all' to be a viable approach, society must start off from a much more egalitarian point than what the US represents. Targeting based on race also strikes me as somewhat innately problematic because the races exist on such wide spectrums, but then I guess you can also argue that stuff like one drop rule means people with 3% african have experienced systematic discrimination. I can be supportive of policies like AA if they are designed to be temporary and coupled with other policies aimed at reducing class differences across the board. I haven't really seen that, though.
|
On June 30 2023 02:17 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2023 01:45 Introvert wrote:On June 30 2023 01:03 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 29 2023 23:26 Introvert wrote:So affirmative action is finally gone, at least the state sanctioned version. Excerpts that I saw look like there was no wishy washy-ness by Roberts. Should be sound and I'm sure Thomas's long concurrence is good. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdfThere are ways around it and the schools are already working on it, but at least for a today a good opinion with the right result. And based on polling, the overwhelmingly popular one too. Last year Roe, this year AA. The decades of legal groundwork are paying off on two of the top five issues conservatives and originalists have been working on. Pretty good day And of course we're not done, had one religious liberty case today (unanimous) and still a free speech and student loans one waiting. Thomas and good should never be uttered in the same sentence. And anyone with even a remote understanding of jurisprudence knows that. AA as a whole was very convoluted. On one hand, as an Asian, I likely suffered a disadvantage. On the other hand, systemic issues in our system should most definitely be addressed in some way, and I'm not sure that only looking at someone's socioeconomic status without accounting for race solves it. I'm sure schools will create new formulas to account for the lack of AA. They have so many metrics they collect from their students over the years that there is likely various factors/combination of factors that will effectively replace AA without explicitly saying "this is race-based." The bolded is flatly false but I know the hatred for Thomas from the legal left is particularly acute. Schools love to brag about how diverse they are, 100% they will try to find a work around. We can also ask that question that in my opinion the left ir rightly chastised for so often ignoring..."did it actually work?" The fact that the timeline for when we can get rid of AA kept getting extended hints at the probable answer. your assumption or implication that AA didn’t work might lead one to believe that these universities love to say they’re diverse while having no actual results to suggest they are. which, agreed, they do love to say it. whether that in turn results in them doing any work to actually do it, remains to be seen.
Fair enough, I'm not sure whose more cynical here lol. My natural inclination would be to say that AA was never likely to work as advertised, but that might be biased hindsight.
On June 30 2023 03:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2023 01:45 Introvert wrote:On June 30 2023 01:03 FlaShFTW wrote:On June 29 2023 23:26 Introvert wrote:So affirmative action is finally gone, at least the state sanctioned version. Excerpts that I saw look like there was no wishy washy-ness by Roberts. Should be sound and I'm sure Thomas's long concurrence is good. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdfThere are ways around it and the schools are already working on it, but at least for a today a good opinion with the right result. And based on polling, the overwhelmingly popular one too. Last year Roe, this year AA. The decades of legal groundwork are paying off on two of the top five issues conservatives and originalists have been working on. Pretty good day And of course we're not done, had one religious liberty case today (unanimous) and still a free speech and student loans one waiting. Thomas and good should never be uttered in the same sentence. And anyone with even a remote understanding of jurisprudence knows that. AA as a whole was very convoluted. On one hand, as an Asian, I likely suffered a disadvantage. On the other hand, systemic issues in our system should most definitely be addressed in some way, and I'm not sure that only looking at someone's socioeconomic status without accounting for race solves it. I'm sure schools will create new formulas to account for the lack of AA. They have so many metrics they collect from their students over the years that there is likely various factors/combination of factors that will effectively replace AA without explicitly saying "this is race-based." The bolded is flatly false but I know the hatred for Thomas from the legal left is particularly acute. Schools love to brag about how diverse they are, 100% they will try to find a work around. We can also ask that question that in my opinion the left ir rightly chastised for so often ignoring..."did it actually work?" The fact that the timeline for when we can get rid of AA kept getting extended hints at the probable answer. The left can probably agree that it's acute, depending on how you define that. I think AA is a tricky subject. There are very valid reasons to oppose it, and plenty leftists do too. For one, it's a bit of a bandaid solution to a structural problem. I think there are situations where quota schemes have yielded very positive results (for example getting more female representation in politics) but I honestly don't know enough about AA in the US to say whether I support or oppose how it has been utilized politically. In general this is the type of targeted policy I am opposed to though. I mostly subscribe to a 'rights for all', not 'benefits for few/many' type of policy - but for a 'rights for all' to be a viable approach, society must start off from a much more egalitarian point than what the US represents. Targeting based on race also strikes me as somewhat innately problematic because the races exist on such wide spectrums, but then I guess you can also argue that stuff like one drop rule means people with 3% african have experienced systematic discrimination. I can be supportive of policies like AA if they are designed to be temporary and coupled with other policies aimed at reducing class differences across the board. I haven't really seen that, though.
The other part of the problem is how the country has changed. There are more Hispanic, though they generally benefit from AA. But there are also significantly more Asians in America now than in the 60s, the opening of immigration in that same decade means that AA doesn't just affect "privileged" whites but Asians also, many of whom dont even have ancestors who participated in slavery or Jim Crow. On its face it seems grossly unjust and has exactly the problem you describe.
|
Its another case of a progressive program thats based in a "The best we can do" philosophy. Idealy we would have something better for what you describe is a changing america. We just are incapable of legislating on the federal level in this day and age. Any type of fix for minorities or poor communities in general would never make it through congress
|
It's still perfectly legal to favor poor students on college admissions which should disproportionately benefit black/hispanic/native american applicants. I expect everyone to point out how the court's ruling is going to harm minorities while conveniently ignoring that the group most penalized by the university admissions process, Asians, are themselves a minority.
|
|
|
Norway28806 Posts
On June 30 2023 04:48 BlackJack wrote:
It's still perfectly legal to favor poor students on college admissions which should disproportionately benefit black/hispanic/native american applicants. I expect everyone to point out how the court's ruling is going to harm minorities while conveniently ignoring that the group most penalized by the university admissions process, Asians, are themselves a minority.
Who is everyone in this context? Cause here I'm mostly seeing people being ambivalent, even the ones who overall consider AA positive.
|
On June 30 2023 04:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2023 04:48 BlackJack wrote:
It's still perfectly legal to favor poor students on college admissions which should disproportionately benefit black/hispanic/native american applicants. I expect everyone to point out how the court's ruling is going to harm minorities while conveniently ignoring that the group most penalized by the university admissions process, Asians, are themselves a minority. Who is everyone in this context? Cause here I'm mostly seeing people being ambivalent, even the ones who overall consider AA positive.
I should say that among the people that oppose the ruling I expect them to make an argument underpinned on the discrimination of minorities while ignoring that the AA admission processes discriminated against a minority (Asians). I don't expect a pragmatic argument based on why we should judge people on the color of their skin or why Asians score less favorably in "likeability" "courage" "kindness" "positive personality." I don't expect anyone to argue that Asians are actually less likeable or have shitty personalities therefore they got the scores they deserved.
|
Northern Ireland26986 Posts
You’re surely not surprised Blackjack is looking to start an argument on a talking point that isn’t grounded in the utterances of other people on the subject, and indeed is outright refuted in some?
Is affirmative action flawed as a policy? Absolutely. Is it targeting a real problem? Also absolutely.
But living in a culturally divided society myself, certain targeting has been more beneficial to developing fair institutions than not doing so. A Protestant/British dominated police force in a ballpark 50/50 with Catholic/Irish, not ideal for obvious reasons that we’ve tried to avoid.
Just not sure college admissions are necessarily the best place to apply the tool of affirmative action.
Politically I mean this may be entirely shielded from current moving forces. It does dovetail quite neatly with the current tenor of conservative politics and its desperate death throes of certain demographics to play the victim and maintain privilege. The idea the MAGA crowd at least actually care about Asians being potentially disadvantaged by AA is fanciful, but it seems the Supreme Court made a decision independent of such pressures, least as far as I can tell.
|
On June 30 2023 05:39 WombaT wrote:
You’re surely not surprised Blackjack is looking to start an argument on a talking point that isn’t grounded in the utterances of other people on the subject, and indeed is outright refuted in some?
Is affirmative action flawed as a policy? Absolutely. Is it targeting a real problem? Also absolutely.
But living in a culturally divided society myself, certain targeting has been more beneficial to developing fair institutions than not doing so. A Protestant/British dominated police force in a ballpark 50/50 with Catholic/Irish, not ideal for obvious reasons that we’ve tried to avoid.
Just not sure college admissions are necessarily the best place to apply the tool of affirmative action.
Politically I mean this may be entirely shielded from current moving forces. It does dovetail quite neatly with the current tenor of conservative politics and its desperate death throes of certain demographics to play the victim and maintain privilege. The idea the MAGA crowd at least actually care about Asians being potentially disadvantaged by AA is fanciful, but it seems the Supreme Court made a decision independent of such pressures, least as far as I can tell.
I guess we could have a discussion on the unnamed individuals of the "MAGA crowd" instead, although they don't post on this forum either.
|
On June 30 2023 00:02 Velr wrote:
From all that i could gather over the years AA as it was done in the US (no clue if other countries do it better, if at all) was actual bs.
I don't really see why this should be a rightwing position.
Make universities more affordable and improve schools (in low income areas) and much of the problem would probably go away whiteout the need for such arbitrary rules.
It probably falls apart once it's clear that the Reps have absolutely no interest in doing the other stuff tho...
Bolded - agree. Frankly I would go even further and say that there is one and only thing socialism got right and it is free education.
|
Northern Ireland26986 Posts
On June 30 2023 06:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2023 05:39 WombaT wrote:
You’re surely not surprised Blackjack is looking to start an argument on a talking point that isn’t grounded in the utterances of other people on the subject, and indeed is outright refuted in some?
Is affirmative action flawed as a policy? Absolutely. Is it targeting a real problem? Also absolutely.
But living in a culturally divided society myself, certain targeting has been more beneficial to developing fair institutions than not doing so. A Protestant/British dominated police force in a ballpark 50/50 with Catholic/Irish, not ideal for obvious reasons that we’ve tried to avoid.
Just not sure college admissions are necessarily the best place to apply the tool of affirmative action.
Politically I mean this may be entirely shielded from current moving forces. It does dovetail quite neatly with the current tenor of conservative politics and its desperate death throes of certain demographics to play the victim and maintain privilege. The idea the MAGA crowd at least actually care about Asians being potentially disadvantaged by AA is fanciful, but it seems the Supreme Court made a decision independent of such pressures, least as far as I can tell.
I guess we could have a discussion on the unnamed individuals of the "MAGA crowd" instead, although they don't post on this forum either.
I thank God every day for this small mercy he has bequeathed me.
|
Aren’t there colorblind ways of accounting, in college admissions, for structural inequality of opportunity in earlier years of education?
Like, couldn’t you take a regression line that correlates family income with students’ SAT scores, and then evaluate students by how far above the regression line they are? (In order to be evaluated in this way, a student would need to submit financial documents, just as they would when applying for financial aid.)
Or couldn’t you give extra points to, say, a student whose parents had not gone to college? For example, you could have their adjusted test score be the average between their actual test score and the maximum. So if the maximum is 800, and they scored 720, their adjusted score could be 760.
This is predicated on the idea that an admissions office believes structural inequality of opportunity is a thing and is trying to correct for it in their admissions, but is having trouble thinking of ways that are more fair than racial quotas.
Edit: this isn’t meant as an endorsement of striking down affirmative action. I just wonder if colleges are really doing all they can at selecting for the not-wealthiest students… Why would they, I guess?
|
On June 30 2023 06:35 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2023 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On June 30 2023 05:39 WombaT wrote:
You’re surely not surprised Blackjack is looking to start an argument on a talking point that isn’t grounded in the utterances of other people on the subject, and indeed is outright refuted in some?
Is affirmative action flawed as a policy? Absolutely. Is it targeting a real problem? Also absolutely.
But living in a culturally divided society myself, certain targeting has been more beneficial to developing fair institutions than not doing so. A Protestant/British dominated police force in a ballpark 50/50 with Catholic/Irish, not ideal for obvious reasons that we’ve tried to avoid.
Just not sure college admissions are necessarily the best place to apply the tool of affirmative action.
Politically I mean this may be entirely shielded from current moving forces. It does dovetail quite neatly with the current tenor of conservative politics and its desperate death throes of certain demographics to play the victim and maintain privilege. The idea the MAGA crowd at least actually care about Asians being potentially disadvantaged by AA is fanciful, but it seems the Supreme Court made a decision independent of such pressures, least as far as I can tell.
I guess we could have a discussion on the unnamed individuals of the "MAGA crowd" instead, although they don't post on this forum either. I thank God every day for this small mercy he has bequeathed me.
Would you rather have liberal democrats like this one here:
Just in case if she decides to delete tweet:
Today's Supreme Court decision is a direct attack on Black people. No Black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system which is exactly why affirmative-action based programs were needed. Today's decision is a TRAVESTY!!!
This is why conservatives were saying that liberals are racist.
|
On June 30 2023 06:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2023 05:39 WombaT wrote:
You’re surely not surprised Blackjack is looking to start an argument on a talking point that isn’t grounded in the utterances of other people on the subject, and indeed is outright refuted in some?
Is affirmative action flawed as a policy? Absolutely. Is it targeting a real problem? Also absolutely.
But living in a culturally divided society myself, certain targeting has been more beneficial to developing fair institutions than not doing so. A Protestant/British dominated police force in a ballpark 50/50 with Catholic/Irish, not ideal for obvious reasons that we’ve tried to avoid.
Just not sure college admissions are necessarily the best place to apply the tool of affirmative action.
Politically I mean this may be entirely shielded from current moving forces. It does dovetail quite neatly with the current tenor of conservative politics and its desperate death throes of certain demographics to play the victim and maintain privilege. The idea the MAGA crowd at least actually care about Asians being potentially disadvantaged by AA is fanciful, but it seems the Supreme Court made a decision independent of such pressures, least as far as I can tell.
I guess we could have a discussion on the unnamed individuals of the "MAGA crowd" instead, although they don't post on this forum either.
We could also have discussions with the people who post on this forum based on what they post and responding to what people post. its a bold idea I know.
Surrendering admissions to an algorithm opens up a whole different can of worms that would have their own lawsuits. The majority of admissions has been by committees of people reviewing them manually. Without AA being a cover there is no way to realistically fight the structural effects of what the "Best" candidates for a college by failable human beings reinforcing the same issues society has with most minorities and higher learning. The ruling by the SC seems to be something to open up universities to pointless and frivolous lawsuits over any sort of bias imaginable.
On June 30 2023 06:48 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2023 06:35 WombaT wrote:On June 30 2023 06:13 BlackJack wrote:On June 30 2023 05:39 WombaT wrote:
You’re surely not surprised Blackjack is looking to start an argument on a talking point that isn’t grounded in the utterances of other people on the subject, and indeed is outright refuted in some?
Is affirmative action flawed as a policy? Absolutely. Is it targeting a real problem? Also absolutely.
But living in a culturally divided society myself, certain targeting has been more beneficial to developing fair institutions than not doing so. A Protestant/British dominated police force in a ballpark 50/50 with Catholic/Irish, not ideal for obvious reasons that we’ve tried to avoid.
Just not sure college admissions are necessarily the best place to apply the tool of affirmative action.
Politically I mean this may be entirely shielded from current moving forces. It does dovetail quite neatly with the current tenor of conservative politics and its desperate death throes of certain demographics to play the victim and maintain privilege. The idea the MAGA crowd at least actually care about Asians being potentially disadvantaged by AA is fanciful, but it seems the Supreme Court made a decision independent of such pressures, least as far as I can tell.
I guess we could have a discussion on the unnamed individuals of the "MAGA crowd" instead, although they don't post on this forum either. I thank God every day for this small mercy he has bequeathed me. Would you rather have liberal democrats like this one here: https://twitter.com/ericareport/status/1674453321078415362Just in case if she decides to delete tweet: Today's Supreme Court decision is a direct attack on Black people. No Black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system which is exactly why affirmative-action based programs were needed. Today's decision is a TRAVESTY!!! This is why conservatives were saying that liberals are racist.
I agree conservatives are well known for their admiration of ignorance and failing to understand what people mean in their attempts to find any way to "own the libs". If you attempt to understand what they're saying in good faith you wouldn't be a conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
