The election, a thread specifically about the election, for election discussion

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The election, a thread specifically about the election, for election discussion

«‹›627 »

PKJC: May 7, 2009

Nebalebadingdong posted:

they're not going to stop being bigoted "on their own". you cannot educate them out of racism.

No, they won't, but the fact that they can't do it on their own does not make it okay to insist that somehow marginalized groups are the ones who need to put in work to fix this.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 17, 2024 12:47

Northjayhawk: Mar 8, 2008; by exmarx

Raenir Salazar posted:

Four years of Hillary though would've allowed to cement the Supreme Court in favour of liberal causes for a generation; now even if Trump loses in 2020 the damage will have been done and impossible to retract.

Unless you are a single-issue gun voter, we kinda already won though. The SCOTUS is not going to reverse gay marriage.

Yeah, there were potentially significant victories to be had, but I don't believe we'll lose much ground.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:25

kartikeya: Mar 17, 2009

oswald ownenstein posted:

"All of my political opponents are racists"

-goons, 2004-2016

All the ones that voted for Trump, pretty much by definition, yep.

Weren't you going to mansplain to us about pregnancy, or did that get lost somewhere I didn't see it?

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:27

speng31b: May 8, 2010

Northjayhawk posted:

Unless you are a single-issue gun voter, we kinda already won though. The SCOTUS is not going to reverse gay marriage.

Yeah, there were potentially significant victories to be had, but I don't believe we'll lose much ground.

Unless another vacancy happens in the next four years.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:26

BarbarianElephant: Feb 12, 2015; The fairy of forgiveness has removed your red text.

oswald ownenstein posted:

"All of my political opponents are racists"

-goons, 2004-2016

If Trump didn't want be called a racist maybe he shouldn't have run on an anti-Mexican anti-Muslim platform.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:26

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Majorian posted:

Most of them do, yeah, but enough of them voted for Obama in '08 and '12, and then voted down Hillary last night. The fact that she so clearly represents stuff like neoliberalism, free trade, "The Establishment," etc, seems like it's a big part of the reason why. It's possible that they're all deplorables and we shouldn't waste our time going after them anymore, but I'm not quite convinced yet. I expect a lot of academics are writing their dissertations on this very topic, though.

Considering that we need those missing voters,might be best not to treat them like poo poo.

Skex posted:

What the gently caress is it with people not being able to understand basic math?

The problem wasn't that Democrats failed to "appeal" to the Republican base, the problem is that the Democrats failed to energize their own loving base. They failed because their candidate lacked the ability to fire them up, they weren't excited the whole "inevitable" thing played against Clinton. They were complacent and rested on their laurels and just expected the fear of what the Republicans could do would be enough to get people out to vote.

But it's not and it's never been how you motivate the Left.

Clinton and the DNC spent too much loving time and energy focusing on pealing off Republicans, in fact it's kind of the Clinton's signature move the whole source of the "Triangulation" nonsense that their 3rd way DLC wing of the party has banked on all the way to the detriment of the party and frankly the nation as a whole.

She and they got their asses handed to them in 2008 because the base was energized enough about the Iraq war and the mess that W made of the economy and in a grass roots revolt put Howard Dean in charge who ran the 50 state program and made huge gains in congress in 2006 and then Obama and the faction of the establishment that backed him over Clinton used that energy to propel him past her and into the White House.

But instead of taking the lesson of 2006 and 2008 to heart and maintaining that energy and keeping that cadre motivated for 2010 the DLC idiots got power back and went back to the same loosing electoral strategies that gave us W in the first place. The result was loss of the house in 2010, 2012 we barely held on to the Senate thanks mainly to Obama's coat tails then got wooped again in 2014.

The only reason their triangulation strategy worked in the first place for Bill was because he was in a three way race against two right wing candidates and they mistakenly assumed that it was their strategy of triangulation that won them the White House rather than the spoiler effect that Perot had. Then with near pathological determination they keep trying the same strategy regardless of their repeated failures with it and fail to learn the lessons because they have a false assumption on why they won in the first place.

Instead of learning from their losses they keep doubling down. They didn't lose because they alienated their base by supporting right wing policies such as Free Trade (or capitalism gone wild as I like to call it) cozying up to the banks and corporations trying to be Republican light rather than actually running as Democrats pushing policies that benefit the masses (AKA their base).

In the process they have demoralized and depressed their base to the point where the base is "why bother, not like they're going to do anything for me anyway let their banker and corporate buddies vote for them"

There are some truisms in American politics that these DLC types just can't seem to grasp. One is you gotta dance with them that brung ya, in 2008 it was the left, progressives who elected Obama and provided a clear mandate for actual substantial PROGRESSIVE change. yet the blue dog DLC types blocked any sort of substantial reform leaving us with "don't let perfect be the enemy of the good" as Obama tried to do the best he could with what he had to work with. The DLC types watered down the ACA immediately dismissing the idea of single payer as a nonstarter and blocking the creation of a public option as a way to check the rampant premium inflation the insurance industry has been using to drive public sentiment against the ACA. This along with the bailout of the banks minus substantial reform and absent any kind of accountability for the people who destroyed the economy caused those that "brung them power" to become disenchanted with the process. I mean why put so much effort into getting these people elected if they're just going to work against us anyway?

Another is that when given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican , Republicans will always choose the real Republican. So stop trying to peal off a couple of percentage points from the right and focus on your own base.

The final truism is that Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line. The point of this one is that Democrats (lefties in general) aren't motivated by fear, We're motivated by hope, Fear is all about resisting change and that's primarily a conservative trait, in fact it's the core of their identity, Lefties simply aren't motivated by it. Because fear is the enemy of change and progress. if we let fear rule us we don't ever strive for more we don't reach for a better and more just world because the future is uncertain and there are no guaranties.

So "The other guy is worse" just isn't something that we find particularly motivating.

Believe me I fully understand the sentiment that the reality is that as bad as the DLC type Democrats are the real Republicans are worse, but I also get the sentiment of why the hell should we keep rewarding them for loving us over a little less than the Republicans do. That maybe if we stop rewarding them for doing it they might finally figure out that they need to actually pander to us a bit rather than to these mythical swing voters.

I say mythical because I frankly don't believe they exist. Sure there are some flip floppy types who don't have a cohesive political philosophy but I seriously doubt they really swing elections. particularly if each party can sufficiently motivate their base.

The fact is that the Democratic base is bigger and when they show up the left wins (see 2006 2008 2012) but when they don't show up we get 2000 2004 2010 2014 and 2016.

The GOP get that, which is why their strategy is to suppress voting period. they don't even have to particularly target Democrats (though they do) they just have to put enough impediments to inconvenience people sufficiently that only their own base really has the time to jump through all the hoops.

I'm no accelerationist, I got out and voted but I wasn't enthusiastic about it.

The thing is that while it is a valid point that all the unmotivated Democratic Voters should have went out and did the right thing by voting, it's a waste of time, because you aren't going to change or guilt millions of people into changing their behavior, you can however have some effect on the thousands in the political class to change their behavior and actions to actually cater to and work with the natural proclivities of those millions.

This is the practical solution to the problem. Not whining that the electoral college system is unfair, yes it is but it's not going to change any time soon. Not without real political power so you have a chicken egg thing with addressing it on a systemic level. And honestly if you could create a situation where we could change the EC it would become pretty much a moot point because the party of fear wouldn't be making substantial political gains anyway.

It's much more feasible and realistic to shift the thinking and behavior of the Democratic leadership than it is to shift the thinking and behavior of the masses. The trick is how to get them to understand the error in their thinking, particularly when they are so invested in it and profit so handsomely from it.

The last time the Democrats actually lived by, and legislated based on progressive liberal ideals we had a 5 term President. The strategy was so effective that it took the elites multiple decades and billions of dollars and a constitutional amendment to to even begin to undo those programs. We went from being a piss ant local power to a world dominating economic and military super power.

Finally on the idea of appealing to whites, the fact is that actual real progressive policies would benefit everyone including White racists. The trick is to get into a position to enact them and keep them around long enough for the benefits to actually be visible.

Something to understand about racism in the United States is that it's an artificial construct that was intentionally created as a mechanism of control. To keep the masses divided and at each others throats so that they don't see that we all have the same boots stepping on the back of our necks. So you give Whites privilege it doesn't cost any actual capital but it gives them something to fight for, it invests them in the system because they are "better" than those lesser people. This creates an automatic conflict as both groups fight for a share of the scraps that the elites allow to fall from their table (trickle down) and saps their energy and ability to get together to pull down those elites and take their rightful share of the fruits of their collective efforts.

The thing is that if everyone had a fair shot and didn't have to fight for every scrap just to exist, They'd have less reason to fight each other.

This is the lesson the Democratic establishment needs to learn, Energize their own base, enact policies that reward those that brung em and also benefit those who should be natural allies but have been convinced to fight against their own self interest in order to protect an unearned and frankly empty privilege.

Unfortunately given history I'm not holding my breath.

Another excellent mini essay. The DNC should be purged and its time for the left to take control.

TyrantWD posted:

We don't need them going forward. There is another more persuadable group to target (college educated whites).

Yeah you'll never get enough of them to get you elections over a few percentage points. You need the poor who jsut chose to not vote HRC.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Nov 10, 2016

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:27

Nebalebadingdong: Jun 30, 2005; i made a video game.
why not give it a try!?

PKJC posted:

No, they won't, but the fact that they can't do it on their own does not make it okay to insist that somehow marginalized groups are the ones who need to put in work to fix this.

no one is insisting on that. that is stupid.

the answer is to show some moral courage, actually believe in progressivism and fight for justice for both marginalized peoples and those who are racist.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:27

TyrantWD: Nov 6, 2010; Ignore my doomerism, I don't think better things are possible

Crowsbeak posted:

Considering that we need those missing voters,might be best not to treat them like poo poo.

We don't need them going forward. There is another more persuadable group to target (college educated whites).

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:31

Gio: Jun 20, 2005

Majorian posted:

To be fair to Nate, he was a lot closer to being right than any of the other major predictors.

To be fair to Nate, they repeatedly dismissed the numbers were wrong pretty much out of hand. He was not THAT far off, but he dismissed several sources of polling error, most notably closeted Trump supporters.

538 has pissed me off for awhile now. Their pretentious self-labeling at "data journalists" is irritating, particularly when the only thing with predictive validity on their website is their forecast. Outside of that, their articles were trash. Nate and co. frequently cherry-picked data to make whatever point it is they wanted to make, which with the volatility of the polls ended up being ridiculously bipolar/reactionary (i.e. "What are the odds of a Clinton landslide?" then "Clinton's firewall could be breached" to "Most situations have Clinton Winning," all within a couple weeks time) rather than serious inspection of WHY the polls were as volatile as they were. Their articles analyzing anything non-poll related were even worse.

I also am spiteful of horserace politics and the absurd number of resources devoted to reporting on it.

Gio fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Nov 10, 2016

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:32

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Northjayhawk posted:

Unless you are a single-issue gun voter, we kinda already won though. The SCOTUS is not going to reverse gay marriage.

Yeah, there were potentially significant victories to be had, but I don't believe we'll lose much ground.

Can we really be confident about this though?

There's three justices we can get replaced by someone potentially worse than Scalia; with Thomas and Alito that's five majority even if Roberts ends up driven to being more moderate in his opinions just out of a sense of professionalism.

Three justices that can just go "Meh" on the idea that you shouldn't just straight up reverse past decisions without a good cause.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:32

citybeatnik: Mar 1, 2013; You Are All
WEIRDOS

Waltzing Along posted:

Have the conspiracy theories about rigged e voting machines started trickling in yet? I mean, the repubs haven't legitimately won an election in 28 years and it is possible that the polls were right. Did the exit polls match up with the results?

No, stop that.

I'm more interested in the tea leaves being read re the gutting of the VRA.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:31

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

PKJC posted:

No, they won't, but the fact that they can't do it on their own does not make it okay to insist that somehow marginalized groups are the ones who need to put in work to fix this.

The work isn't stopping people from being racist, that's impossible. The work is giving minorities better opportunities. Nothing about giving anyone opportunities requires anybody to admit that they're racist, only that the system needs to be fixed. Yelling RACIST at the top of your lungs makes you feel better, but it doesn't do anything for the racists OR the oppressed.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:33

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

Liberals throughout the media and in this thread continue to deny or ignore that there was a messaging problem in the Clinton campaign, deep flaws with the candidate, or a significant section of the public yearning for the political class to actually address their problems. Instead, they just yell themselves hoarse about racism.

You would think Barack Hussein Obama never got elected twice against stronger opposition.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:34

Proud Christian Mom: Dec 20, 2006; READING COMPREHENSION IS HARD

TyrantWD posted:

We don't need them going forward. There is another more persuadable group to target (college educated whites).

Yes a group of educated voters that you can't get jobs for
Black people that you refuse to even acknowledge policy brutality about because it'll startle the white people
and
A latino crowd that goes racist/FYGM at alarming rate

Yep that looks like a great way to never win elections again good job!

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:36

Cup Runneth Over: Aug 8, 2009; She said life's
Too short to worry
Life's too long to wait
It's too short
Not to love everybody
Life's too long to hate

I hope Tulsi Gabbard runs for President in 2020.

Duckworth would be great too but she only just got into her Senate position.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:35

PKJC: May 7, 2009

Nebalebadingdong posted:

no one is insisting on that. that is stupid.

the answer is to show some moral courage, actually believe in progressivism and fight for justice for both marginalized peoples and those who are racist.

a) multiple people in this and uspol (it is hard for me to keep track because both threads are huge) have done so, and it's sickening
b) yeah, I don't have a problem with the bigots who actually learn to stop being poo poo people, I am not and have never said it should be a scarlet letter. I have personal experience with talking to someone about casual use of slurs, being patient and talking it out is possible when it is just from a place of ignorance and unfamiliarity. I don't think that is the case with a lot of Trump voters. There are legitimately a block of them who have to be dragged kicking and screaming into progressivism and listening to those particular people is not in any way helpful.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:37

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

Northjayhawk posted:

He will be a TRUMP incumbent who did Trump things for 4 years.

That will, hopefully, blunt the natural advantage of incumbency.

The worst-case scenario is that he does Trump things, like be a thin-skinned vindictive rear end in a top hat that brazenly abuses presidential authority, and his supporters love him for it, which is completely plausible.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:37

Goatman Sacks: Apr 4, 2011; by FactsAreUseless

Cup Runneth Over posted:

Duckworth would be great too but she only just got into her Senate position.

She'd literally have the same senate experience, in the SAME SEAT, as Obama.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:36

oswald ownenstein: Jan 30, 2011; KING FAGGOT OF THE SHITPOST KINGDOM

kartikeya posted:

All the ones that voted for Trump, pretty much by definition, yep.

Weren't you going to mansplain to us about pregnancy, or did that get lost somewhere I didn't see it?

That you don't realize how unfathomably stupid you are speaks more than any post of yours ever could

Also are you seriously using the term mansplain? LOL

Here let me rub the salt in - Donald Trump is your new POTUS. Elections have consequences. :smug:

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:39

Goatman Sacks: Apr 4, 2011; by FactsAreUseless

Also does Gabbard have any appeal other than "only dem to support Bernie so Bernouts love her"? A random representative from a ridiculous excuse for a state like Hawaii isn't exactly firm credentials.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:38

LegoMan: Mar 17, 2002; ting ting ting; College Slice

dont even fink about it posted:

Liberals throughout the media and in this thread continue to deny or ignore that there was a messaging problem in the Clinton campaign, deep flaws with the candidate, or a significant section of the public yearning for the political class to actually address their problems. Instead, they just yell themselves hoarse about racism.

You would think Barack Hussein Obama never got elected twice against stronger opposition.

I personally acknowledge she was a horrible candidate, but she was running against Donald loving Trump. It's hard to imagine being so horrible that you can lose to everything he is.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:38

Jastiger: Oct 11, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

dont even fink about it posted:

Liberals throughout the media and in this thread continue to deny or ignore that there was a messaging problem in the Clinton campaign, deep flaws with the candidate, or a significant section of the public yearning for the political class to actually address their problems. Instead, they just yell themselves hoarse about racism.

You would think Barack Hussein Obama never got elected twice against stronger opposition.

This argument is bad because the same people voted against Barack Hussein Obama. Its not like there wasn't racism. The difference was that MORE people came out against the D's and less D's turned out to vote.

Using past election success as a bell weather against racism is dumb. They were just out voted last time, they didnt' just go away or exist.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:39

negromancer: Aug 20, 2014; by FactsAreUseless

A lot of people are pretty much discounting voter suppression out of hand, and with those razor thin margins I really don't see how they are.

Oh wait, I do. It's easier to call a woman a bad candidate and blame minorities than it is to confront the fact that white people white'd up the election and here we are.

Dr. Luau posted:

BS? It's not. Well, perhaps hate crime isn't the appropriate term, so I apologize for being unclear. But far more whites are killed by African-Americans than the obverse.

How far back are we taking these numbers?

And you do realize that racially motivated killings are usually not prosecuted when its white on black?

And if white people getting killed is your issue, then you do realize FAR more white people are killed at the hands of other white people?

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:41

Nebalebadingdong: Jun 30, 2005; i made a video game.
why not give it a try!?

PKJC posted:

There are legitimately a block of them who have to be dragged kicking and screaming into progressivism and listening to those particular people is not in any way helpful.

you don't have to LISTEN to their dumbshit racist prattle. you fight for justice for them! unconditionally and without mercy! donald trump carried the rust belt by simply threatening rich property owners that would outsource their jobs. i mean, goddamn, no wonder he didn't need a ground game.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:41

Goatman Sacks: Apr 4, 2011; by FactsAreUseless

Clinton probably would have won without Russian intelligence leaks and J. Edgar Comey, but it shouldn't have been close enough for them to matter.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:41

nachos: Jun 27, 2004; Wario Chalmers! WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Goatman Sacks posted:

Also does Gabbard have any appeal other than "only dem to support Bernie so Bernouts love her"? A random representative from a ridiculous excuse for a state like Hawaii isn't exactly firm credentials.

Since when do we care about credentials?

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:41

Grammaton: Feb 3, 2004; Cleric

Will the GOP in Congress actually cooperate with all the crazy things Trump wants to do on Day 1, or will they fight him on many of them? I forsee a civil war in the GOP for the coming 4 years.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:41

Sundae: Dec 1, 2005

OneEightHundred posted:

The worst-case scenario is that he does Trump things, like be a thin-skinned vindictive rear end in a top hat that brazenly abuses presidential authority, and his supporters love him for it, which is completely plausible.

Don't forget the possibility that he only gets some of his Trump plans through because a few manage to get blocked by courts or the democratic party, the republican party goes all out screaming about the dems interfering with everything as if 2008-2016 never happened, they blame all their failed policies on the dems blocking the other ones, and the base eats it up and gives them 4 more years.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:40

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

LegoMan posted:

I personally acknowledge she was a horrible candidate, but she was running against Donald loving Trump. It's hard to imagine being so horrible that you can lose to everything he is.

Well, it happened. I guess it turns out it can always be worse.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:40

Seanzor: Mar 22, 2013

disjoe posted:

I have a real question and I don't know where to ask it

If Trump repeals Obamacare day one or whatever, what happens to all those people under 26 who are on their parents' insurance but have a job where they can get their own coverage if they want? My girlfriend is freaking out about it (she can't afford her birth control without insurance) and I keep telling her that they'll at least have pseudo-open enrollment right after the law is passed, but with Trump I'm not sure of even that.

That loss of coverage should be a "qualifying event" to allow immediate enrollment, so she should be fine. If she's worried, though, she should confirm with HR.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:41

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Any Hillbots still in denial?

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:42

Suckthemonkey: Jun 18, 2003

TyrantWD posted:

We don't need them going forward. There is another more persuadable group to target (college educated whites).

We tried that this election. It didn't work.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:42

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

Recoome posted:

Any Hillbots still in denial?

Signs point to yes:

negromancer posted:

A lot of people are pretty much discounting voter suppression out of hand, and with those razor thin margins I really don't see how they are.

Oh wait, I do. It's easier to call a woman a bad candidate and blame minorities than it is to confront the fact that white people white'd up the election and here we are.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:42

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

The Kingfish posted:

Signs point to yes:

hahahahahaha

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:44

Cup Runneth Over: Aug 8, 2009; She said life's
Too short to worry
Life's too long to wait
It's too short
Not to love everybody
Life's too long to hate

Goatman Sacks posted:

She'd literally have the same senate experience, in the SAME SEAT, as Obama.

In that case bring it on. Duckworth 2020.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:46

disjoe: Feb 18, 2011

Nebalebadingdong posted:

you don't have to LISTEN to their dumbshit racist prattle. you fight for justice for them! unconditionally and without mercy! donald trump carried the rust belt by simply threatening rich property owners that would outsource their jobs. i mean, goddamn, no wonder he didn't need a ground game.

Seriously.

If you have any kind of legal or political experience or talent, go to these people. Talk to them. Listen to their problems, and fight for them. And you know what? When you tell them you're similarly helping African Americans in the community, they begin to understand that racially divisive rhetoric can be bullshit. You're building a bridge between those communities and laying the groundwork for left populism.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:47

The Kingfish: Oct 21, 2015

Suckthemonkey posted:

We tried that this election. It didn't work.

What did Hillary offer college educated whites?

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:47

Slaan: Mar 16, 2009; ASHERAH DEMANDS I FEAST, I VOTE FOR A FEAST OF FLESH

disjoe posted:

I have a real question and I don't know where to ask it

If Trump repeals Obamacare day one or whatever, what happens to all those people under 26 who are on their parents' insurance but have a job where they can get their own coverage if they want? My girlfriend is freaking out about it (she can't afford her birth control without insurance) and I keep telling her that they'll at least have pseudo-open enrollment right after the law is passed, but with Trump I'm not sure of even that.

From what I'm hearing and reading, the Republicans are likely to pass the Obamacare repeal almost immediately, but they will phase it out over a couple of years. They literally have no plan to replace it right now and spooling up whatever plan they prefer would take years, just like Obamacare did. So its likely she'll be fine at least until 2018.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:48

kartikeya: Mar 17, 2009

oswald ownenstein posted:

That you don't realize how unfathomably stupid you are speaks more than any post of yours ever could

Also are you seriously using the term mansplain? LOL

Here let me rub the salt in - Donald Trump is your new POTUS. Elections have consequences.

No, dude, you were going to tell us all about pregnancy and how we don't know anything about the consequences of it. Don't be shy.

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 17, 2024 12:47

oswald ownenstein: Jan 30, 2011; KING FAGGOT OF THE SHITPOST KINGDOM

Recoome posted:

hahahahahaha

This thread is a literal salt mine. They're throwing everything out - racist, homophobe, you're a piece of poo poo for supporting Trump, voter suppression, white people are evil - it's loving wonderful

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Nov 10, 2016 02:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The election, a thread specifically about the election, for election discussion

«‹›627 »