|
Defund the Police really was a lovely rhetorical slogan that made it easy to misinform and terrify a bunch of low info voters and couldn't even get the people using it to agree on what it meant exactly. I don't know if it had any impact on the actual election, though. I don't see why it's racist to say "this was bad rhetoric for winning over voters". Coming out hard on prosecuting cops and enforcing unaccountability and actively argue for a move to to other services would have been a lot less scary than a slogan that a lot of people here as "get rid of all police". GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 5, 2020 |
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:13 |
|
|
Endorph posted:the people who were mad about a dude getting shot probably didnt care about what would be the most effective messaging for the democratic party I'm not arguing they weren't justified. I'm not even arguing the rhetoric was bad in all situations. I'm just saying it was almost certainly poor rhetoric for the Democrats to be chained too. IMO, the Democratic party should have taken a strong stand on the issue, assumed leadership, and run with their own slogans that were better and more likely to win ovters over while also producing and building sentiment towards desirable concrete results, and their absolute failure to do that is why this poor rhetoric bit them in the rear end. It's not even the fault of the protestors or the pissed off people, the way I see it - but the rhetoric is still bad. Which is a problem the Democrats make CONSTANTLY as a party, refusing to take strong stands and thus letting others define their own stances by assumption.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 21:59
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:At bare minimum they have decided his racist xenophobia is not a deal breaker for them, and are willing to ignore it for what else he offers like... Many of the ones in my extended family/social circles are just... completely unaware that he might even be remotely racist, or it just never enters their mind to consider it, or they've decided that he's not for whatever reason, and I'm beginning to believe my personal experience is not unique. At this point I actually know six different pro-blm, anti-police, anti-racism people who are also huge Trump supporters (they are absolutely hooked on blm livestreams, it's kinda weird). Four of them all regularly hang out with each other (they are also covid deniers) and reinforce each others beliefs, and the other two are married and do the same for each other. I can not emphasize enough the disconnect they have with reality. The "Donald Trump" they are voting for is purely fictional, created from hearsay and rumors spread by other people, often random internet people, who tell them things about him they think might be convincing and that's basically it. They have lists of things they are proud of him for having done that he has not done (and I suspect some of it is made up during on the fly during the conversations I have with them), and they are completely unaware of 99.9% of the things he HAS done. They don't trust anything that doesn't come from someone they trust or that doesn't already fit the pre-existing narrative they have in their brains, it's ALL fake news. They simply straight up do not believe he is racist and in some cases explicitly believe he is anti-racist. Saying they either "approve of it or are willing to ignore it" is, I think, inaccurate. They genuinely and sincerely believe he isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:He didn't significantly move minority voting, compared to how he managed to increase white votes despite whites being a smaller portion of the electorate. The available (admittedly not yet solid) evidence we have is that he absolutely did significantly increase minority voting in places that mattered and while it didn't seem to help him much in terms of winning the election it was very damaging for a lot of down-ballot races in places like Texas and Florida, enough to counteract him doing a good bit worse with whites in those areas than he did previously. Which is something we need to figure out the cause of and do something about, and I don't think it's as simple as "well those minorities are also racist". ImpAtom posted:The fact that we currently live in a world where immensely huge numbers of people across the literal planet are being brainwashed by social media cults and we have on idea how to stop it is uh, one of those looming crises that we can't really discuss because so far all the answers are "oh poo poo we are so hosed if this doesn't fizzle out." It's terrifying, honestly. These are... or were... all genuinely good people on a personal level who previously just completely disconnected from any event happening outside their towns and families in all but the loosest of ways. I don't think any of the ones I know are actually real Q-anonners themselves or have even heard of Q, I have a feeling they wouldn't keep it quiet if they were, but they are clearly engaging in similar kinds of thinking and getting a bunch of the peripheral q-anon propaganda filtering down to them somehow, and it's just... scary. Only one of them even uses facebook, and they don't seem to follow or post anything conspiratorial there. But you talk to them in person and somehow a bunch fo the insane talking points have worked their way to them, and they are hard at working helping each other fill in the gaps with whatever they decide is reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Its not a bad slogan because it "scares white people". It is a bad slogan because the clearest meaning of the slogan is "set police funding to zero", and then you have to explain how actually you do not intend for it to mean what it clearly says, which only makes people think you are probably lying to them. As far as I can tell, this is what a great many (most?) people actually and truly mean when they say it. Ghost Leviathan posted:This is the same thing people said about 'Black Lives Matter'- obviously it means white lives don't matter! Yeah except it obviously, literally doesn't. Defund the police obviously, literally means setting their funding to nothing. I think it's a pretty bad slogan from any perspective - for the few people who do try to use it but don't actually mean they want to defund the police, it's just... dumb, because they're saying something they don't mean. For those who actually want to defund the police, "Abolish the Police" just sounds so much better and doesn't let other folks water down the statement as easily. But like I've said before, I don't really care what slogans people use - to the extent there's failures attached to the defund the police slogan, it is 100% because Democratic leaders have been completely unwilling to step up and take a leadership role and offer any competing ideas that might actually matter. If they're suffering because of a slogan they don't believe in, it's their own drat fault (and the fault of their peers) for not coming up with something to actually run on themselves and getting ahead of things to the point where they are letting their opposition define themselves. To that extent, Defund the Police is fairly successful - it put politicians in the hotseat and basically said "Come up with something meaningful and push that narrative or we will" and... well... the Democrats chose the option where they themselves didn't have to take charge, so who are they to complain now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 06:21
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The Democrats don't have party messaging about cops. "Defund the Police" is a popular grass-roots movement, and the Republicans are going to blame the Democrats for it regardless. See the 1619 Project, also not a project of the Democratic Party. This part is exactly the problem. If they DID have some sort of party messaging, even if it was "Stop Bad Cops", the Republicans would have a more difficult time filling in the gaps, and it would make space for individual politicians to additionally run on defunding the police. Defund the police is mostly bad rhetoric for the Democratic party, not the people actually using it, and it's absurd that the party still isn't doing anything at all to get ahead of the issue and establish their own police-oriented narrative instead of letting the Republicans define it for them. Attacking the activists for the failures of the Democratic party is stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Did you actually read the article you posted? His main aim is to depoliticize Justice and let them do their own thing without interference from him, the way it's supposed to work. No president has ever done this, and it is not in fact the "way it is supposed to work". The President is expected to decide priorities for the DoJ, directly or indirectly. And based on that article, he isn't even planning on letting them do their own thing without interference from him, but is instead planning on telling him that he doesn't want them to investigate but he won't stop them. Which coming from the president is pretty explicitly guidance that that they should set their priorities elsewhere and... not do that thing. Considering Biden is going to appoint the people heading the department, it is very unlikely they are going to actively oppose Biden's wishes even were he to allow them to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:It's not. This is literally Biden fulfilling the promise he ran on. He's trying to return things to normal as much as possible (whether you agree or disagree with that promise doesn't matter here) and part of that is restoring the DoJ/AG so that they are there to carry out investigations and prosecute crimes without the office of the President weighing in on their work at every turn. Normal is the President deciding on the DoJs priorities. If we're returning to normal, we will be returning to him deciding on their priorities, and everything we know at this point indicates one of those priorities will be not prosecuting anyone from Trump's administration because it would reflect poorly on Biden politically. Handsome Ralph posted:I honestly think it'll be a case of NYS will drop indictments first (if they still plan to anyways) and then the DoJ if they're going to do anything, will follow at some point after. But it's all theory crafting at this point. Time will tell. Well we just had an article posted talking about his advisors and close staff are saying that he actively wants the DoJ to not prosecute so it's not exactly baseless
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2020 17:47
|
|
|
Isn't the guy who has taken over several of the Trump cases in New York now also the guy that has previously gone to bat killing cases that threatened Trump's family? I really don't have much hope for concrete results there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2020 19:47
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:Oh yeah, he was huge on pushing the Broken Window theory of policing along with Bill Bratton. For that alone, he loving sucks. Had he not embraced it, it's hard to imagine many other cities embracing it as well, and I'll content that did a hell of a lot of damage even if it "cleaned" NYC up. I never understood how Broken Window theory managed to turn into the actual set of policing policies that it did. It doesn't make any goddamn sense. The shift from the original set of policies seems to have largely been due to Guilianni and Bratton but they don't really follow, at all. Numerous studies since have showed the actual basic Broken Window logic actually still works - clearing trash, fixing streetlights, and enforcing building codes all lead to reductions in crime. It just doesn't survive the jump to the (somehow related?) policies proposed for police to engage in.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
Tim Whatley posted:Very cool country where less than an NFL stadium worth of people decided the election when one is ahead by like 5 million votes What are the actual numbers for deciding votes at right now? I thought it would take like three stadiums at least.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2020 21:52
|
|
|
Not winning the Senate actually is for real a huge problem for the Democrats
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Stop trying to convince the crazies. Like really, don't even try The crazy people are reasonably good at convincing the not crazy people (and convincing the crazy people to get even crazier), so this does not seem like a good strategy. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Nov 19, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
spunkshui posted:It’s only about half of Republicans which means it’s a lot closer to 20% of the country than 40% and that 20% doesn’t seem to be growing it’s moving in the other direction as this gets more deranged and embarrassing. Except the best survey on the issue we've seen so far indicates it's actually 88% of Republicans, not half. And every piece of data we have from this election indicates it absolutely growing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:Kids are resilient and the presumed trauma from distance learning isn't that bad, since we're talking sbout relative harm. Removing kids from their primary social exposure in an environment where many of them will have almost no other social exposure is, I would argue, quite harmful. The fact that their parents can not work and earn income is also harmful, especially in an environment here finding alternate means of child care is nearly impossible. I think the way every state is handling COVID related schooling is awful, but it's also pretty absurd to deny there's harm caused by switching to remote learning. There's a very good argument to make that the harm is worth it, but there is very clearly real harm and dismissing the actual hardship a great many families and children are facing right now as "not that bad" is absurd. And still, even if we take your argument as true, you point out we are talking about relative harm, so unless you're going to argue that shutting down indoor dining is somehow more (or at least equally as) harmful compared to keeping kids at home, your argument is still poo poo. PerniciousKnid posted:No actually, it's just loving stupid. If you're not doing enough to prevent exponential growth, you might as well do nothing at all. At best you're delaying the inevitable by a couple weeks before ending up where you would've been with no restrictions at all. At worse you're sending mixed messages about the seriousness of the disease and encouraging people to personally take risky behavior, as well as undercutting your own supposed expert authority. "Delaying things" as much as possible (ideally until the vaccine comes online) is, and always has been, the plan. There has never been a plan to eliminate the virus via lockdown measures. No state in the country has tried, or ever intended to try - the goal has always been to delay the effects as much as possible in the hopes that doing so would avoid the worst of them through some other means. With a vaccine on the horizon, the thing being delayed is definitely not "the inevitable" - every single delay is going to save lives. I agree with the general sentiment that the response has and is being mishandled, I am extremely pissed with my state leadership right now, but I think its a mistake to argue that delays are not good things and are equivalent to nothing. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Nov 20, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:My kid in a wheelchair knew isolation before covid. Its our jobs as parents to help them socialize in other ways and its our job to the guide their mental health when things go awry. Pretending everything is normal when things are not is a different kind of abuse. A psychological bubble has value to a point. Some kids will definitely experience isolation due to life circumstances outside of their control (although I'm not sure why being in a wheelchair would impose social isolation, I'll assume that's just one part of a more complicated situation). That doesn't mean the isolation isn't harmful or isn't a big deal and so applying it to everyone is just fine, especially since COVID has shut down a great majority of the "other ways" to socialize them as well. No one, absolutely no one, is saying we should "pretend everything is normal", and honestly your attitude here is really loving gross. "Bad things happening to your kid don't matter and in fact you're abusive for trying to prevent that damage" is a pretty lovely argument.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Convince the people who don't vote that they have a worthwhile reason to. Also, lmao at TwoQuestions not understanding why people eat at restaurants. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Nov 20, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:You have my envy. Have you ever considered that the problem might be the people who surround yourself with? Because I worked at my family run restaurant for several years and while we dealt with our fair share of assholes they were very much in the minority. Most of our customers were regulars and got on great with the staff, and most of those who remained mostly seemed to want to get their food, eat, socialize with their friends, and then leave.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:i like how the discourse in the u.s. is as if we're trying to figure out the solution to an incredibly complex problem like quantum entanglement, when in reality we can't even get half the population to do the equivalent of not licking electrical sockets The incredibly complex problem we're trying to figure out how to deal with is trying to fix even simple problems in a situation where about a third of the population wants to make things worse for one reason or another and another third just doesn't want to think about anything too hard. That IS an incredibly complex problem, it turns out!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:That is the fear most people fight all the time, especially when it comes to socialism, that there is no such thing as a fairer world, only a world where either I'm in control and maintaining my dignity or it's being dictated by someone else. Honestly this fear isnt even entirely unfounded. I've heard several actual real people advocate for government provided healthcare but that since the fovernment is providing it it should be able to force us to engage in desirable activities and prevent us from engaging in dangerous ones. Well actually they advocate for the second anyway, but I think its reasonable to think they'd get more support in a world where people think you're getting hurt on *their* dime. If you don't trust your fellow countrymen and your political, well, a lot of this good stuff takes on a much more sinister tone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2020 14:42
|
|
|
NoDamage posted:Given how narrow the margin of victory was in several key states (particularly WI/AZ/GA) I'm guessing he probably would have won if not for his disastrous Covid response. Give people four years to forget about that and they'll vote for him again. People keep saying this but honestly I think his COVID response is a big reason why he was able to increase his own turnout and make it so close. For a significant portion of the country, his COVID response was downright amazing - he was the one who shut down the chinese coming in and then he protected us from the liberals that were trying to use it as an excuse to ruin and control people's lives. I don't actually know anyone who was turned off him by his COVID response - every Trump->Biden voter i know has some other reason. And while COVID almost certainly turned a chunk of the population against him, it absolutely activated a bunch of other non voters who felt personally aggrieved by the government attempts to control their behaviour (usually over a "hoax") and saw Trump as the only one willing to defend them from it, and so they were politically activated. Plus all the folks who rationalize we need to keep the same leadership during an emergency. Its an open question whether COVID helped or hurt Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2020 14:56
|
|
|
eXXon posted:You can spend all the time you want debunking flat Earth nonsense without accomplishing anything of any value. I do think it's worth spending time understanding what's behind it, at least. It's appropriate you bring up the flat Earth nonsense, since the Q stuff is an almost direct offshoot of the evangelical christian-derived Flat Earth movement (which is part of a larger conspiratorial religious movement that has quickly folded the Trump cult into itself to propagate, offering them organizational and media tools and propaganda guidelines to help them spread). And debunking flat earth stuff has actually accomplished quite a bit of value - although that's almost certainly limited to publicly debunking it on places like youtube (the debunkings are more popular than the flat earth material and drive the flat earth material out of people's algorithms, since it's still the same "topic", and seem to be an effective block on people getting sucked down the rabbit hole). Directly engaging with people who have gone down the hole already isn't really productive. But we absolutely don't need to be searching through the poo poo they say for any sort of truth. The stuff that matters is all insane, and it's hidden behind a dozen layers of misdirection and obfuscation because this poo poo is a slickly built pipeline, and it's scary as hell and you really do want to minimize exposure if you're at all disposed towards conspiratorial thinking. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Nov 22, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2020 07:17
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:The Senate should maintain its role an power though. Look at any ethnic or regional minority in Europe and you'll see why simple majority rule isn't the most equitable form of government. Minority rule is less equitable, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
quote:Parties and candidates that say less controversial things, and are associated with less-controversial ideas, win more elections. I noticed a major, glaring flaw with this guys central axiom.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I think the issue is that you can either say "it's not socialism. It's not radical at all!" and "Yes! It's radical! You should like radical!" The more radical something is, the less popular it usually is and the more likely the attacks work. Except the problem is that the Republicans have been running on "Yes! It's radical! You should like radical!" for around a decade at least and it's worked exceptionally well for them. The Democratic belief that it's impossible to persuade people of things despite the last 60 years of Republicans successfully doing so over and over again is infuriating.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:It's very easy to persuade people to break things because breaking things is fast and "easy". It seems a lot harder to tell someone "it might take a couple years for you to see the benefits of x but trust us" Except the biggest things the GOP has done to convince a tone of voters to turn out lately is all long term poo poo like border walls and abortion bans via supreme court nominations and "The Plan" to drain the swamp? This doesn't even make any sense. That's ignoring that there's a fuckton of policy that could be pushed easily on a "breaking things is fast and easy" approach, like M4A and trust busting and prosecuting the Trump admin and loving up the police cartel and the Democrats are even more opposed to that stuff than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:I'm congenitally incapable of listening to Tucker without jumping through a window, but I'm guessing it's the standard FUD with no special evidence? Summary: Like usual, he leads by pointing out some real problems, several actual flaws with our electoral system, that are irrelevant to his ultimate point. He also does not point out those flaws are due to intentional efforts by Republican to undermine said system, and then begins making poo poo up by following a tangent and blaming the Democrats for it by association. He ultimately concludes, I believe, that Donald Trump won the election and it was stolen from him but I gotta be honest I wasn't able to finish it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 06:19
|
|
|
The only problem with him his that he is yet another example of systemic bias in favour of a socioeconomic class that historically does not have the best interests of the country or its people at heart, putting their own class interests first. There may be nothing wrong with him on an individual level, just like there might be nothing wrong with a company rejecting any individual black candidate in favour of a white one they prefer for whatever reason. But when looked at as yet another example in a long line of the same thing happening, the systemic bias is clear, and it's not a sins-of-the-father sort of situation to be frustrated that of course it's another one of those guys, again, even though there are almost certainly plenty of folks from other socioeconomic classes that are qualified.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:The argument actually being made by several posters, and that's addressed in this post, is that Mayorkas is unqualified to serve as a cabinet official, at least in part, because his father owned a factory under the Batista regime. Has anyone actually claimed this makes him unqualified to serve as a cabinet official? Because I haven't seen that, and I'm not sure where you're getting it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 06:40
|
|
|
Aruan posted:The larger point is that constructing a narrative condemning someone because of who their parents are is lovely. The larger point seems to be something you're not actually capable of grasping, since this isn't what people are doing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 06:54
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Please explain it, then - I'd like to see both sides of this argument engage each other substantively and in good faith. I did, and no one bothered to respond to or engage with it. quote:he is yet another example of systemic bias in favour of a socioeconomic class that historically does not have the best interests of the country or its people at heart, putting their own class interests first. The point is that there may or may not be anything wrong with this particular guy and there can still be something wrong with the fact that Biden picked someone like him, from that particular socioeconomic class, instead of the other options available to him.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 07:03
|
|
|
Madkal posted:You are arguing that every white kid out of South Africa, regardless of age, is a terrible person because of their parents, regardless of their qualifications. No one is arguing he's a terrible person because of his parents. Aruan posted:What socioeconomic class? Was he raised in wealth and luxury? Or do you mean that he became wealthy because he was a partner in a lawfirm? You realize being a member of a socioeconomic class has very little to do with being raised in wealth and luxury, right? ... holy poo poo, you don't actually have any idea what class actually is or means, do you? That explains so much.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 07:14
|
|
|
Pick posted:Yeah, all slap fighting aside, that's quite illegal. It is absolutely not illegal to discriminate against someone based on socioeconomic status and it's exceptionally common and accepted. In fact, this class loyalty, extending employment and financial opportunities to those who bear certain class markers, is a defining feature of the upper classes in this country and why everyone seeking "important" jobs is so desperate for the ability to signal they are members of those classes effectively. There's no law against preferring someone from an Ivy League, for example. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Nov 24, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Not something that incorrectly frames his own history. His family were not refugees. They did not flee anything. Do we know this? There were a good number of genuine refuge-seekers from Cuba for various reasons. The government actually did persecute a lot of members of various groups at the time and they were pretty tough especially on antisocialist agitators, and it sounds like his dad might have been one of those.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Can you tell me why it matters that this group of ghouls put kids in cages with cold indifference vs the current group that put them there with malevolence? I assume this comes back to some kind of argument about how cold indifference will lead to better cages even though it was cold indifference that built the cages in the first place. The one's doing it out of malice went on to start actively separating children from their family rather than doing it to ones already separated, keeping them in cages for much, much longer, and then lost a bunch of them. The malice is worse because it leads to worse outcomes, and does so much more quickly and much more thoroughly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
Rea posted:So Parler, the chud social network, just hosed up their website and had raw PHP with all of their internal credentials publicly visible. Database password, API keys, etc. Expect some fun things from that. This is the "free speech" place that's been making the news the last couple days for repeatedly censoring it's users content (specifically trying to prevent anyone from saying they should protest skip the georgia runoff or vote third party). That's quite a one-two punch.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:I'm really sad about movie theaters tbh. I don't mind the big corporate ones needing to realign with reality, which they should have been doing before the pandemic, but the local, small-run theaters were treasures. The one in my neighborhood has kept themselves alive because they also have an attached ice cream shop, so they've been selling ice cream and movie theater food (lots of popcorn packages) to go (all very well-arranged, with clearly marked lines outside for social distancing, etc.), but I don't know if they can make it all the way through another year. Do you live in a small town west of Boston off route 2?  Or is this just the thing that many of the small movie theaters are doing now to try and stay alive.I love my little local theatre (I don't think the owner even makes any real money on it. He spent a good chunk of his post-retirement buying it because he loved going there as a kid, definitely a passion project). I really hope they somehow pull through this. The guy who owns it seems really great, the people who work there are all great, and it's gonna be a real loss to the town if it goes under.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Wait, McConnell could deny even voting on cabinet picks? The gently caress kind of nonsense system did we build? This system is rebuilt, essentially, every two years. The Senate decides their own rules. The moment McConnel is out of power its very likely to change to work some other way. Bicyclops posted:Guessing we're in the same town drat, hah, what are the odds. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
That is Steve Harvey's house lol
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:13 |
|
|
LeeMajors posted:is it really? lol This is the same one, right? https://oklahoman.com/article/5664753/hot-property-steve-harveys-new-atlanta-estate-is-no-joke
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2020 04:46
|
|