|
On September 23 2008 23:19 aRod wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2008 16:16 Savio wrote:She has a very compelling story that people connect with. All her family "problems" that the media touted I think just made people realize that she has the same issues they do and she still comes out on top, achieving great things. I also think that she is the symbol of the revitalization of McCain's campaign. He was lagging and republicans weren't too excited about him. Then he picks her, grabs the "change" rub right out from Obama's feet (and keeps it), and gets republicans excited for the FIRST time. The GOP wanted to be excited by McCain never gave them a chance until now. So they have a lot of pent up energy. Those are my hypotheses anyway. If you have any feelings that Palin is a good VP pick, you need a serious reality check. There's a reason the McCain campaign is not letting her do interviews. I'll let you figure out what that is. Anyone who goes from communication major (which took her 6 years), to beauty queen, to sports caster, to major of a town of 8000, to governor for 2 years does not have the experience or the qualifications to be president. This woman wanted to teach creationism in public schools, she denies all the science of global warming and has only recently flip flopped on her views after being selected as VP pick by Mc'cain after a 15 minute interview. Yes John McCain knew this woman for 15 minutes and selected her as his VP pick. The Republican party went down to a diversity flea market and picked out the cheapest item they could find that they thought would appeal to the most voters. She is purely a pick designed to appeal to young women and angry hillary voters. There is no other reason for picking her. If you like McCain Savio, that's one thing. But if you really think Palin is a good VP pick, you need to wake up.
Oh, I certainly do think that Palin was a good VP pick. A better pick than Biden. This is why:
For a VP pick to be "good" it should: 1. Help the ticket get elected or at least not hurt it. 2. Be capable of being President should the unlikely occur.
One the first note, I think everyone knows that Palin was a better pick then Biden was. In fact she may be the best pick since Reagan chose G.H.W Bush.
When both partys had their conventions, McCain in a few days, blew past Obama in all national polls as well as intrade predictions to win, and in the RCP electoral count prediction. I think that a large part of this was the "Palin Effect". White women preferred Obama before the conventions by a few points, then favored McCain by I think 20 points right after. And there are a LOT of white women in the US.
"After her debut in Dayton and a rush of media coverage, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 53% now have a favorable opinion of Palin"
"By way of comparison, on the day he was selected as Barack Obama’s running mate, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was viewed favorably by 43% of voters."
--http://themountainsage.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/palin-makes-good-first-impression-is-viewed-more-favorably-than-biden/
"Teasing our latest NBC/WSJ poll, which comes out at 6:30 pm ET, 34% say that McCain's VP choice of Palin would make them more likely to vote for the Arizona Republican in November"
"By comparison, 24% say that Obama's choice of Biden would make them more likely to vote for Obama in November"
--http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/09/1369551.aspx
On the second point, its a lot harder to tell or to argue that she is qualified to be President. In fact, if Hillary had been the nominee, it would be really hard. But Hillary isn't the nominee, Obama is and that changes everything. Every person who says that Palin is not experienced enough, will inevitably asked why, if she isn't, Obama is.
What we have, is a first term governor with accomplishments and a first term senator without accomplishments. Now, in Obama's defense, it is harder for a Senator to stand out because anything they do has to be voted on by everyone while a governor gets credit for all that happens in a state. It has also been true that since the US was founded, Senators have been arguing that what matters most is foreign experience and governors have been arguing that executive experience matters more. So obviously Obama has more foreign experience than Palin but Palin has more executive experience.
The way I see it, if Palin isn't qualified, then its real hard to argue that Obama is.
Another thing to remember, this inevitable comparison is one that Obama loses just by being part of it. This is because he is number one on the ticket, while she is #2. There is a tiny chance that she would have to be Presient before she had 4 more years of experience, while (if elected), there is a 100% chance that Obama would have to be President.
One final point about Palin. She energized the Republican base. This is important for McCain because he was not exciting to the base. His strength has always been with moderates and independents (this is why he almost lost to Romney). So now that the base in energized (proof is in the boosted fundraising), he can run the election the way he has wanted to all along--as an indepentent thinking maverick. Thats a role he is comfortable with as opposed to trying to appease the GOP base.
That is why Palin is a good pick imo.
|
On September 24 2008 07:37 Savio wrote: Oh, I certainly do think that Palin was a good VP pick. A better pick than Biden. This is why:
For a VP pick to be "good" it should: 1. Help the ticket get elected or at least not hurt it. 2. Be capable of being President should the unlikely occur.
Oh please.
On Point 1):
The arguments you make here may have been relevant a week or two ago, but the Palin statistical blip is fading and fading fast. While initially encouraged, voters have began a mass exodus from their new-found Republican heroine on the realization that there is nothing there.
Just look at the ticket's favorability ratings. They spiked after the RNC, and then quickly plummeted back down to reality. Palin who? Check again tomorrow and they'll have dropped further.
It's glaringly obvious now that this pick was made for political reasons. And people aren't happy about that. This severly undermines McCain's credibility as a 'reformer' or 'straight-shooter'. Voters know what's up. There is a very real possibility that McCain will die in office. You think people want Sarah Palin as the President? Seriously? Give your head a shake.
She will hurt the ticket in the long run - an effect that will be mitigated somewhat by McCain's own and the Republican's own manhandling of it in the first place.
Some good reading containing (yikes) facts and stuff
Biden brings experience, expertise, and intelligence to the ticket. Palin brings obvious political pandering that, if anything, should be an insult to the intelligence of any thinking American.
On Point 2)
If you are equating Obama's life experience with that of Palin, you are extremely naive. I don't mean that as an insult, but rather as an obvious observation.
Someone's opinion:
Have you ever watched an Obama interview or read either of his books? There is no there there with Sarah Palin, but indisputably there is a lot going on with Obama. If someone said Obama wrote his speeches would you doubt it, but who would believe Sarah Palin has written her own? Obama graduated from Harvard Law school, was elected President of the review, is an accomplished writer (considering how your grammar is at 5th grade level I understand you can't appreciate it).
After 8 years of unthinking I think it makes a little more sense to get back to someone who can think, the Democrats this cycle have had people who can, the Republicans not at all.
How is he qualified? Well, he has many years in Government, at both state level (Illinois, you know a real state) and 3 plus years at Federal level as a Senator. He was a Constitutional Law instructor at one of America's finest Universities (and could have gotten tenure track if she so desired)
Hmmm... Harvard educated Lawyer, Constitutional Law instructor, Legislator, Community Organizor at grass roots level. Yeah, I will take that over small town mayor who was elected Governor in a one party state whose total population is a fraction of one of America's biggest cities. But hey, she is pretty and hunted moose.
The point is that never, in her life, has Palin ever considered the world from an executive standpoint. She's a short-time Governer of Alaska. You think she has ever pondered national security? The economy? Health care? Education? Seriously? Of course she hasn't. Her entire career has consisted of determining how to spend oil royalties. Give me a break.
People see this. They aren't that stupid.
You want someone with not only zero experience at the national level, but also someone who has never even been bothered to contemplate these issues on a national scale to be piloting the goddamn aircraft? Especially when said aircraft is as beat up as it is right now?
Seriously?
Happy landings =P
edit: Honestly though, the VP debates are going to be ridiculous - that is if Biden and the moderators can manage to make points and ask questions without sounding condescending or harsh. Palin has been extremely sheltered from the media (one interview with Gibson where she was eaten alive and a McInterview with Hannity that shouldn't even count). If her introduction to many Americans is to be lectured mercilessly by Joe Biden, it won't help her cause.
The tough question is how to beat a child on national TV without it coming off as child abuse...
|
It doesn't really matter at all whether she's a good pick for strategical political reasons when we're talking about whether or not she should be voted for. If she's really good for the campaign but really bad for office then she's not to be approved of as that would make her a purely political and irresponsible choice. As to her experience, it has to be looked at not as a fault in itself, but just a hypocricy, given that the republicans criticize the shit out of obama for his lack of experience while she's no better. Now on the democrat side you have obama's integrity backed up by biden's experience, if we're to believe our eyes and ears when it comes to politics, and on the republican side you have mccain's experience and lack of integrity backed up by palin's lack of either.
|
On September 24 2008 07:37 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2008 23:19 aRod wrote:On September 22 2008 16:16 Savio wrote:She has a very compelling story that people connect with. All her family "problems" that the media touted I think just made people realize that she has the same issues they do and she still comes out on top, achieving great things. I also think that she is the symbol of the revitalization of McCain's campaign. He was lagging and republicans weren't too excited about him. Then he picks her, grabs the "change" rub right out from Obama's feet (and keeps it), and gets republicans excited for the FIRST time. The GOP wanted to be excited by McCain never gave them a chance until now. So they have a lot of pent up energy. Those are my hypotheses anyway. If you have any feelings that Palin is a good VP pick, you need a serious reality check. There's a reason the McCain campaign is not letting her do interviews. I'll let you figure out what that is. Anyone who goes from communication major (which took her 6 years), to beauty queen, to sports caster, to major of a town of 8000, to governor for 2 years does not have the experience or the qualifications to be president. This woman wanted to teach creationism in public schools, she denies all the science of global warming and has only recently flip flopped on her views after being selected as VP pick by Mc'cain after a 15 minute interview. Yes John McCain knew this woman for 15 minutes and selected her as his VP pick. The Republican party went down to a diversity flea market and picked out the cheapest item they could find that they thought would appeal to the most voters. She is purely a pick designed to appeal to young women and angry hillary voters. There is no other reason for picking her. If you like McCain Savio, that's one thing. But if you really think Palin is a good VP pick, you need to wake up. Oh, I certainly do think that Palin was a good VP pick. A better pick than Biden. This is why: For a VP pick to be "good" it should: 1. Help the ticket get elected or at least not hurt it. 2. Be capable of being President should the unlikely occur.One the first note, I think everyone knows that Palin was a better pick then Biden was. In fact she may be the best pick since Reagan chose G.H.W Bush. When both partys had their conventions, McCain in a few days, blew past Obama in all national polls as well as intrade predictions to win, and in the RCP electoral count prediction. I think that a large part of this was the "Palin Effect". White women preferred Obama before the conventions by a few points, then favored McCain by I think 20 points right after. And there are a LOT of white women in the US. "After her debut in Dayton and a rush of media coverage, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 53% now have a favorable opinion of Palin" "By way of comparison, on the day he was selected as Barack Obama’s running mate, Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was viewed favorably by 43% of voters." --http://themountainsage.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/palin-makes-good-first-impression-is-viewed-more-favorably-than-biden/ "Teasing our latest NBC/WSJ poll, which comes out at 6:30 pm ET, 34% say that McCain's VP choice of Palin would make them more likely to vote for the Arizona Republican in November" "By comparison, 24% say that Obama's choice of Biden would make them more likely to vote for Obama in November" --http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/09/1369551.aspx On the second point, its a lot harder to tell or to argue that she is qualified to be President. In fact, if Hillary had been the nominee, it would be really hard. But Hillary isn't the nominee, Obama is and that changes everything. Every person who says that Palin is not experienced enough, will inevitably asked why, if she isn't, Obama is. What we have, is a first term governor with accomplishments and a first term senator without accomplishments. Now, in Obama's defense, it is harder for a Senator to stand out because anything they do has to be voted on by everyone while a governor gets credit for all that happens in a state. It has also been true that since the US was founded, Senators have been arguing that what matters most is foreign experience and governors have been arguing that executive experience matters more. So obviously Obama has more foreign experience than Palin but Palin has more executive experience. The way I see it, if Palin isn't qualified, then its real hard to argue that Obama is. Another thing to remember, this inevitable comparison is one that Obama loses just by being part of it. This is because he is number one on the ticket, while she is #2. There is a tiny chance that she would have to be Presient before she had 4 more years of experience, while (if elected), there is a 100% chance that Obama would have to be President. One final point about Palin. She energized the Republican base. This is important for McCain because he was not exciting to the base. His strength has always been with moderates and independents (this is why he almost lost to Romney). So now that the base in energized (proof is in the boosted fundraising), he can run the election the way he has wanted to all along--as an indepentent thinking maverick. Thats a role he is comfortable with as opposed to trying to appease the GOP base. That is why Palin is a good pick imo.
wow
|
honestly, are you people actually seriously arguing with him? lol
on a side note, Stalin was the greatest guy since Aristotle and nicer than mother Theresa
PROVE ME WRONG
|
I'm amazed Savio isn't banned yet.
|
Savio thinks McCain is an "indepentent thinking maverick"
LoL
|
United States22883 Posts
The Palin pick was a difficult one. McCain really wanted that strong "independent" figure which I guess ruled out Romney and Pawlenty. He was considering Lieberman but I guess Rove talked him out of it because of the problem with evangelicals (same for Ridge). Hutchinson would've likely gotten many ex-Hilary supporters, but to be perfectly honest, the purpose of choosing Palin was not to win those voters. Hutchinson is also liberal in a few areas (gun/abortion.)
I think Pawlenty might have been the overall safer pick, but Palin has definitely been a wild card. If she holds her own in the debates, things might swing her way. Either that or she'll unintentionally bait Biden into being too harsh.
EDIT: She was still a bad pick, but there's not exactly a host of good republican statesmen to choose from. If being associated with Bush weren't so bad, he might've been more willing to look at one of the current administration's advisors.
|
I lost faith in the GOP when McCain won the nomination (or more accurately, lost faith in its members, although I never had much respect for the majority in the first place). The Republicans are meant to be the libertarian economics party, yet chose the most economically challenged candidate, who also picked an economically challenged VP.
+ Show Spoiler +Somewhere in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney might be having a quiet chuckle to himself.
The man who was once favoured to be John McCain's vice-presidential pick - before the Republican nominee banked sharply right with surprise wing-woman Sarah Palin - has probably noticed how the lie of the land has suddenly changed.
Last week as McCain flailed about on the economy, a running mate who was a businessman, Olympics entrepreneur, former governor of a state of 6.4 million and Washington 'outsider' might have made more political sense than a 'hockey mom' governor from Alaska.
McCain, who has admitted that economics is not his strong suit, spurned his chance to pick a number two who could have talked credibly about measures to aid the ailing economy.
McCain first claimed that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". Then he said that the United States economy was in "crisis" and he opposed a government bailout of AIG. After the Government said it was bailing out AIG, McCain said it needed to happen.
Next McCain wanted to fire the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which a president can't actually do. On Monday he urged the creation of a bipartisan oversight board to review the Government bailout of Wall Street and ironically suggested Romney should be involved.
McCain is only slightly behind in the polls - 2.7 in arrears on the RCP average yesterday - but early last week Gallup had him leading Barack Obama by 5 points.
McCain is still having to babysit his offsider - sending her to the United Nations today to meet a few foreign leaders in the hope of boosting her international credentials which, the Republicans themselves say, mainly consist of being able to see Russia from her home state and being head of the Alaska National Guard.
It's not that McCain's selection of Palin has blown up in his face.
The enthusiastic crowds at their joint appearances suggest, and poll data confirms it, that the choice of Palin has galvanised the Republican base, especially evangelicals. One poll last week showed that 47 per cent of McCain's supporters are keen on the ticket, almost twice what it was before the conventions. That's essential for party volunteers and turnout.
But Republicans make up about 30 per cent of the electorate: McCain needs independents and Democrats to win. Stirring the party faithful seems to have been Palin's main impact. Key shifts in voter preferences which were noticed immediately after the Republican Convention have now boomeranged back.
* Independents favoured Obama before the conventions, shifted to McCain just after the Republican gathering, but are now back with Obama. Last week's New York Times/CBS poll gave him a five-point lead with them.
* White women - who flirted with the Republicans after the convention - have returned to Obama. He has turned a temporary deficit into a two-point lead, 47-45 per cent. The Times says that at this point in the 2004 campaign, George W. Bush was leading John Kerry by 56 per cent to 37 per cent among white women.
* A number of polls, including the Times one, show that Obama has also regained the label of 'change' that McCain lunged for at his convention. Immediately afterwards, polls showed a marked erosion in Obama's lead on this issue. Now that lead is back out to 15-20 points. The Times poll shows that independents are pushing that gap - 61 per cent of them believe Obama can bring change to Washington and 58 per cent think McCain will not.
The Republican ticket's Eliot Ness-style, 'we'll clean up this town' bravado has deflated quicker than you can say 'Eliot Spitzer', dragged down in part by the inconvenient realities of Palin's federal funds-heavy governing record.
Consider the momentum McCain had before the convention season. The McCain tortoise was grimly running Obama's hare down. He then pandered to his base with the polarising Palin.
The Times poll puts Palin's favourable rating at 40 per cent - down 4 points from last week. Her unfavourable rating is at 30 per cent, up 8 points. A Quinnipac poll gives her exactly the same ratings.
Obama's running mate Joe Biden, in contrast, is far less polarising. His ratings are 38-17 per cent in the Times poll and 40-23 per cent in the Quinnipac poll.
The Times poll shows most voters believe the economy is now getting worse and those people support Obama 62-29 per cent. Yesterday's CNN poll finds that by a two-to-one margin Americans blame Republicans for the crisis and think Obama would better handle the economy by a 10-point margin.
Palinmania now seems a trivial diversion. Romney would have been a better weapon with which to battle economic fears - particularly those of independent voters.
Romney would not have stirred the interest Palin did had he been picked, although he was able to win 11 contests and 4.2 million votes in his primary run for president.
He had his own drawbacks: a stilted phoniness before the camera, a record of positional flip-flops and a willingness to bare his fangs in attack ads which created earlier animosity with McCain.
He's also no foreign policy expert and it showed in his simplistic answers during the debates. At least he went through the process of months of considering and debating international issues.
But he had enough basic governing, business and campaigning experience to be considered acceptable enough for the VP job. And like Biden, Romney would not have been subjected to the scrutiny Palin has faced. He's a known quantity. His negatives have been factored in.
Meanwhile the drip, drip of revelations about Palin continues. Time magazine reported that her transportation department has completed a US$25 million ($36.3 million), taxpayer-funded 5km "road to nowhere" leading to the "bridge to nowhere".
Yesterday CNN said that Palin's hometown of Wasilla required women to pay for their own rape examinations while she was mayor.
There's still weeks to go until the election and the hurdle of the debates to overcome.
But it appears as though McCain made a tactical blunder going for Palin instead of a competent option who could have balanced his ticket with some economic expertise.
|
Whether or not her boost to the campaign is sustained has yet to be seen. Convention bounces are always transient. The Democrats this year had a much shorter and smaller bounce than the Republicans. That the numbers are coming down is the natural way of things. However, having a convention bounce is still valuable. It still gets your message out, invigorates your supporters and makes people start considering voting for your ticket. So she already has been beneficial. The only question is, will it continue. And I don't think that there is any evidence that she is pulling the ticket down yet.
The debates will be telling. In a way, she has a major advantage over Biden in that she is going into it with much lower expectations. That is a huge factor. But in all honesty, I don't think that the VP debates will have much of an effect. They will be going on close to the real Presidential debates where Obama has the advantage of having lower expectations.
Edit: To explain a bit about what I meant when I said it is possible that she will be the best pick since G.H.W. Bush: Bush is probably the last vp pick to have had a real positive effect on the ticket. VP's historically have no effect, or if they gaffe, they can pull you down. At the time, Reagan was sort of new to the national political scene and had little foreign experience which Bush had in spades. So most analysts believe that his selection calmed people's worries about Reagan's experience. Since then, it is not believed that any VP pick for either party has had a major effect. Palin...well we will see. She certainly was popular at her selection, but 2 months is long time in the political world.
|
United States22883 Posts
The "convention bounce" is bullshit that CNN overinflates so they can increase their ratings. She's pulling down the ticket because all of her efforts are put towards qualifying herself and no one takes her judgments or criticisms seriously. She's running on likability, and in every other department she has to play catch up.
Biden is playing the typical VP attack role and undermining McCain, with plenty of help from McCain, while Obama has sat pretty quietly and is preparing for the big October push.
Uh... Gore had plenty of impact. In fairness, Perot decided that election but the "Two Southern Boys" thing worked for Clinton and Gore had enough Washington experience to make up for Clinton's lack of it.
Reagan won by revitalizing the conservative movement. Bush was the next best candidate and flaunting CIA experience didn't hurt, but Reagan's winning foreign policy moves were strong arming the Soviet Union and that was all his own doing. Carter called Reagan a warhawk and Americans decided that was ok.
|
On September 24 2008 09:54 Savio wrote: The debates will be telling. In a way, she has a major advantage over Biden in that she is going into it with much lower expectations. That is a huge factor. Pretty much everything I wanted to say about Palin has already been said, but I'm just wondering...how is having lower expectations a good thing? I mean sure it'll probably help her ego if (when) she gets pounded, but other than that, how's that an advantage, or as you say a "major" advantage?
|
a way, she has a major advantage over Biden in that she is going into it with much lower expectations
And why would that be? You defend her, than point out the fact that she is grossly misqualified for a VP debate, let alone a presidency.
Bush is probably the last vp pick to have had a real positive effect on the ticket.
Do you think "W" would have been elected if not for Cheney? The people that were crazy enough to vote for him voted for his cabinet.
|
On September 24 2008 10:30 TeCh)PsylO wrote:Show nested quote +Bush is probably the last vp pick to have had a real positive effect on the ticket. Do you think "W" would have been elected if not for Cheney? The people that were crazy enough to vote for him voted for his cabinet. I think he means Ronald Reagan picking George H W Bush was the last VP to have a positive effect on the ticket.
Edit: oh wait nvm, completely misunderstood this, sorry.
|
If she cant even keep her email secured how is she suposed to keep her country secured ? lol
|
Truth is Savio Palin's favorability ratings aren't up to par with Bidens.
More have a favorable than unfavorable view of Palin by 50 percent to 37 percent _ a bit less than the 54 percent to 30 percent for Biden.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/05/palin-poll-4-in-10-say-sh_n_124318.html
Additionally more and more people are viewing her as solely a political choice and 50 percent of people agree she's unqualified to be president.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/2-new-polls-palin-pick-no_b_123019.html
I just want you to admit that Palin "energizing the christain base" and Palin "Appealing to women voters" don't make her a good VP pick. Helping a candidate win an election doesn't make them a good VP pick regardless what side you support. What makes someone a good VP pick is intelligence, experience, views, voting history, and other things like CHARACTER. Palin is certainly lacking in experience, her views on scientific facts are hillarious, her voting history is limited, and her postions are characteristic of flipping with the political wind, and and I will go as far as saying her character pathetic. She's a communications major and beauty queen for fuck's sake. She denied global warming until joining the McCain campaign and wanted to teach creationism in public school up to this point as well. She flipped flopped on the "bridge to know where" which republicans love to broadcast and she has no foreign policy experience.
She is the worst VP pick of all time. She was picked soley to appeal to young women and angry hillary voters. This is the only reason to pick a know nothing hypocrite as your running mate
|
|
On September 24 2008 10:28 Falcynn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2008 09:54 Savio wrote: The debates will be telling. In a way, she has a major advantage over Biden in that she is going into it with much lower expectations. That is a huge factor. Pretty much everything I wanted to say about Palin has already been said, but I'm just wondering...how is having lower expectations a good thing? I mean sure it'll probably help her ego if (when) she gets pounded, but other than that, how's that an advantage, or as you say a "major" advantage?
The next day's stories reporting the performances, which are subjective, are always measured against pre-debate expectations. If Palin is expected to be trounced by Biden and holds her own she'll have won the perceptions battle. Because of low expectations Palin doesn't have to win the debate in order to win. And conversely with Biden since he is expected to mop the floor with Palin anything short of a knockout punch won't provide much of a benefit to the Obama/Biden ticket. A win by Biden is merely expected and not newsworthy, but even a small win by Palin would be treated to a million and one songs of praise.
This is why smart politicians always always try to set goals so low that they could accomplish them drunk. That way anything they do is above and beyond, exceeding expectations.
|
United States22883 Posts
Ok intrigue I swear I'm going to the gym now but aRod: posting articles from Huffington Post isn't a good way to win a political discussion.
Rove isn't an idiot. He didn't think Palin was going to magically win over Hilary's voters. Palin was chosen to win over young-middle age white males. The "Is McCain conservative enough?" issue was solved and they brought on board a hockey loving hot chick - the kind of woman many guys wish they could marry. She's the best "maverick" pick for that specific goal.
|
On September 24 2008 09:09 MYM.Testie wrote: I'm amazed Savio isn't banned yet. why would you ban someone for their political views? seems like a polite post if nothing else
maybe im missing some history : /
|
|
|
|