What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Nancy Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry into President Trump

1. Because Trump is already suspected of improper ties to Russia, his son getting a job there is much worse than Biden's. If you'd listed a German company, you'd have a point, if such a double standard were to be applied, but we know you're just defending Trump.
Oh man... I can guarantee you that nobody here is actually defending Trump. What some of us are saying is "ffs get somebody other than Biden to run against Trump, because the chance that Biden will get mauled next year by a stream of accusations of corruption is too big, and then you'll have Trump for 4 more years and half of the world will die from facepalming too forcefully." You don't want us to die from blunt trauma caused by facepalming, do you?
Also, since Kinetic has obviously acquired a poetic licence in the last 12 months, I will paraphrase what he already expressed so much more eloquently: unless you get a president that will be seen as clean of corruption and corporate influences soon, you risk breaking the social contract between the elites and the people that made America so great. And then goodbye greatness, hello mass unrests...
 
Oh man... I can guarantee you that nobody here is actually defending Trump. What some of us are saying is "ffs get somebody other than Biden to run against Trump, because the chance that Biden will get mauled next year by a stream of accusations of corruption is too big, and then you'll have Trump for 4 more years and half of the world will die from facepalming too forcefully." You don't want us to die from blunt trauma caused by facepalming, do you?
Also, since Kinetic has obviously acquired a poetic licence in the last 12 months, I will paraphrase what he already expressed so much more eloquently: unless you get a president that will be seen as clean of corruption and corporate influences soon, you risk breaking the social contract between the elites and the people that made America so great. And then goodbye greatness, hello mass unrests...

What bugs me most about liberal Trumpophobia is that it is a mask of righteousness that hides nastiness.

Like, "OMG Trump is separating parents from children from and putting them in temporary concentration camps!" *crocodile tears* You know what? The US does this every day, every time it puts someone with children in jail. They don't give a crap, in fact Clinton contributed significantly to mass incarceration. which incidentally is a significant reason for the huge nmber of fatherless poor black famillies. (Whereas the supposedly singularly evil Trump signed the First Step Act.)

If you care about separating children from parents, how about looking at that. Unless you don't, you don't really care. You're just using it cynically as a political weapon.

Hundreds of people have died at the US-Mexican border every year for decades. Nobody cared except some border activists. Now suddenly we care about the plight of migrants, we really do!!!!1
 
What bugs me most about liberal Trumpophobia is that it is a mask of righteousness that hides nastiness.

Like, "OMG Trump is separating parents from children from and putting them in temporary concentration camps!" *crocodile tears* You know what? The US does this every day, every time it puts someone with children in jail. They don't give a crap, in fact Clinton contributed significantly to mass incarceration. which incidentally is a significant reason for the huge nmber of fatherless poor black famillies. (Whereas the supposedly singularly evil Trump signed the First Step Act.)

If you care about separating children from parents, how about looking at that. Unless you don't, you don't really care. You're just using it cynically as a political weapon.

Hundreds of people have died at the US-Mexican border every year for decades. Nobody cared except some border activists. Now suddenly we care about the plight of migrants, we really do!!!!1
I dislike how the corporate democrats hide behind the progressive left in order to also appear progressive, but in fact are just Wall Street creatures trying to preserve the status quo at all costs.
 
I dislike how the corporate democrats hide behind the progressive left in order to also appear progressive, but in fact are just Wall Street creatures trying to preserve the status quo at all costs.

Bill Clinton is the big villain in all this. He's the American Blair. The one who turned the Dems into a right-wing party, with results that we now see.
 
Bill Clinton is the big villain in all this. He's the American Blair. The one who turned the Dems into a right-wing party, with results that we now see.

By '92, the Democrats were in a rut. LBJ had discredited the progressive wing with Vietnam, Carter hammered the final nails in the New Deal's coffin and they lost two consecutive landslides to Reagan and then lost to Bush Snr. T'wasn't a pleasant time.
 
By '92, the Democrats were in a rut. LBJ had discredited the progressive wing with Vietnam, Carter hammered the final nails in the New Deal's coffin and they lost two consecutive landslides to Reagan and then lost to Bush Snr. T'wasn't a pleasant time.

It's emotionally satisfying to blame one person, but you're right that it's larger than just the person of BC.
 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Republican leaders were silent or supportive of President Donald Trump's public call for another foreign government, China, to investigate his political foe, while a handful voiced concern that the president was trying to enlist a rival power in his reelection effort.
Several House and Senate leaders stayed mum Friday as Trump escalated the controversy that has fueled an impeachment inquiry and plowed through another norm of American politics. The quiet continued as House Democrats released a trove of text messages showing U.S. diplomats conducted a campaign to push Ukraine to investigate former vice president Joe Biden, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination to face Trump next November, and Biden's son, Hunter.

Foreign interference in elections has long been viewed as a threat to U.S. sovereignty and the integrity of democracy, and soliciting foreign help in an election is illegal.
But Trump found support in his willingness to openly challenge that convention. Vice President Mike Pence made clear he backed the president and believes he is raising "appropriate" issues. Other allies agreed.
"I don't think there's anything improper about doing that," GOP Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said of Trump's call on China to investigate the Bidens.

And in a stunning turn of events, Republican leaders discover that it is totally ok and legit to pressure foreign governments in throwing dirt to your political rival.

Fuck this timeline.

If this was a fiction story the conservatives in the US would call it left wing SJW trollish propaganda.,
 



And in a stunning turn of events, Republican leaders discover that it is totally ok and legit to pressure foreign governments in throwing dirt to your political rival.

Fuck this timeline.

If this was a fiction story the conservatives in the US would call it left wing SJW trollish propaganda.,
Indeed now even publicly suggesting conservitises had standards at one point will get said conservatives calling you a liar
 
Nobody has standards in big politics. Never have. Has nothing to do with political affiliation.

Can someone elucidate something for me? Adam Schiff made up a bunch of Trump quotes. When called on it, he claimed he was just engaging in poetic hyperbole/doing a bit. But apparently Pelosi made statements that these quotes are real. Is this true?
 
Can someone elucidate something for me? Adam Schiff made up a bunch of Trump quotes. When called on it, he claimed he was just engaging in poetic hyperbole/doing a bit. But apparently Pelosi made statements that these quotes are real. Is this true?
Eh. It's not unclear from context that Schiff was intentionally paraphrasing, not quoting, to give his interpretation of the subtext, e.g.:
"Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates: ..."​
IIRC Pelosi was asked if Schiff made stuff up, and said he did not, which if one believes Schiff's reading of the intended message is accurate is not an unreasonable position to take either, but it is badly communicated in ways that will probably hurt the Democrats.

Although I wonder just how much ugly and corrupt crap one can suddenly 'discover' in politics if one moves from 'what is literally said' to 'what the underlying message is', so YMMV.
 
Although I wonder just how much ugly and corrupt crap one can suddenly 'discover' in politics if one moves from 'what is literally said' to 'what the underlying message is', so YMMV.
It's very easy to make up motives for the opponent this way.

but it is badly communicated in ways that will probably hurt the Democrats.
Next year all nuances will be lost and all that will remain in twitter "discussions" will be "do you remember that time when democrats made up Trump quotes he didn't say?"
 
Eh. It's not unclear from context that Schiff was intentionally paraphrasing, not quoting, to give his interpretation of the subtext, e.g.:
"Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates: ..."​
IIRC Pelosi was asked if Schiff made stuff up, and said he did not, which if one believes Schiff's reading of the intended message is accurate is not an unreasonable position to take either, but it is badly communicated in ways that will probably hurt the Democrats.

I just looked at the clip and, unless they edited it creatively, she says that Schiff used the president's own words, then Papadopolwoopoapoopalopolis says that they were made up, and she says no they weren't; she doesn't refer to the intent, but to the actual words. She could have misspoken, however.
 
There is a clear double standard as well based on political affiliation. The standard of proof is much, much lower if you don't like the guy.

Will anybody say with a straight face that, if Trump's niece had gotten caught stealing a hundred thousand bucks and just did community service, and Trump's son got a lucrative job with Gazprom, the Dems and their connected media wouldn't be making a big deal out of it? Really?

Yes, I can, because Trump has already done so much fucking worse and barely anyone keeps up with it. This would rate maybe a 2/10 on the list of corrupt things we already know he's done. One of the only major achievements of his first year of presidency was to push through tax reforms aimed to enrich himself to the tune of millions, but you think an isolated case of identity theft compares at all.

You're ignoring the mountains for the molehills in order to continue holding onto this inane bothsides narrative. If the best you can come up with is a few isolated cases, that doesn't at all compare to an entire political party that can agree on nothing except to continue their self-enrichment.

It's fucking 2016 all over again, Trump can do as much horrible shit as he wants, people just nod and go "Well that's terrible, but what can ya do?", meanwhile no one can shut up about Hillary's emails.
 
Last edited:
Posted this on another forum, but the more we obsess over Trump thew more the issues that put him in power in the first place go unsolved, just saying.
 
Yes, I can, because Trump has already done so much fucking worse and barely anyone keeps up with it.

Yet, people have made up endless things about him. Because the point is to damage the enemy. True, false, doesn't matter. I think you're being really naive if you think that if Trump Jr. got a job at Gazprom this wouldn't be adduced as evidence of something. He;ll, a few months ago the fashion was to talk about how horrible Trump is because his daughter was doing stuff at international meetings.

Posted this on another forum, but the more we obsess over Trump thew more the issues that put him in power in the first place go unsolved, just saying.

YES!!!!!

Trump is president because the US has massive internal problems. The whole point of Trump fixation is to ignore them.

The US is in a very anti-establishment mood. Obama ran as an anti-establishment candidate, even if he was the opposite when in power. The Trump and Sanders phenomena are further manifestations of this. The US has this mood because the status quo that was established by Reagan and coopted by Clinton is not working for the electorate. The Dems should have learned this, but they can't, because they are part of it. If they did, they would lose their donors. They would have to nominate someone like Sanders, and then their donors would go bye-bye.

That's what this is all really about. That's why they've been chasing phantoms like Russiagate and Ukrainegate instead of focussing on winning the election next year.
 
Last edited:
Yet, people have made up endless things about him.
Except none of it is made up.
Because the point is to damage the enemy. True, false, doesn't matter.
In your delusional world.

I think you're being really naive if you think that if Trump Jr. got a job at Gazprom this wouldn't be adduced as evidence of something. He;ll, a few months ago the fashion was to talk about how horrible Trump is because his daughter was doing stuff at international meetings.
🙄 Here's the goalpost shift. You didn't say "evidence of something", you said "made a big deal out of it." Meanwhile for the past 3 years, Ivanka and Jared have bee two of the most powerful people in the country with direct influence over American domestic and foreign policy, handling the highest level of classified information despite having had no security clearance until fairly recently, and representing America in negotiations with foreign heads of state despite having zero foreign policy or political qualifications whatsoever. And this gets talked about for maybe one or two hours a month.

But you think having a job at a foreign company would somehow be a bigger deal than this.

Meanwhile:
As Rudy Giuliani was pushing Ukrainian officials last spring to investigate one of Donald Trump's main political rivals, a group of individuals with ties to the president and his personal lawyer were also active in the former Soviet republic.

Their aims were profit, not politics. This circle of businessmen and Republican donors touted connections to Giuliani and Trump while trying to install new management at the top of Ukraine's massive state gas company. Their plan was to then steer lucrative contracts to companies controlled by Trump allies, according to two people with knowledge of their plans.
Oh look, Giuliani and Perry have been steering Ukrainian business contracts to people in their circle. Because if you can accuse the Democrats of it, then Trump's already done a worse version of it.

Trump is president because the US has massive internal problems.
The hilarious fact of the matter is that Trump is living proof that these internal problems of yours don't exist. Hillary raised almost double the amount of money than Trump did and still lost. As it turns out, money doesn't buy elections against a motivated (and gerrymandered) electorate. "But the donors!" is nothing more than a fabricated excuse that people like to tunnel on because it makes for an easy target. The actual root of the problems America has lie with the populace, media, and the structure of elections.

They would have to nominate someone like Sanders, and then their donors would go bye-bye.
"Everyone is corrupt except my candidate, who is the only person who can save America!" Where have I heard that before?

Bernie isn't even particularly progressive out of this current crowd, but Bernie bros continue to seem to be uniquely deluded amongst liberals. If this is the only way you can justify voting for him, no wonder he's not doing well in the polls. He hasn't even lost yet and you're already making excuses for why he will.
 
Last edited:
"Everyone is corrupt except my candidate, who is the only person who can save America!" Where have I heard that before?
I didn't even remotely see his post in any way as an endorsement of Sanders.
Bernie isn't even particularly progressive out of this current crowd, but Bernie bros continue to seem to be uniquely deluded amongst liberals. If this is the only way you can justify voting for him, no wonder he's not doing well in the polls. He hasn't even lost yet and you're already making excuses for why he will.
What part of the entire exchange above particularly the part about "obsessing over Trump/Bernie/insertcandidate and his/her blocs" did you not get? The clown car is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex whether they know it or not. They're all a lot more alike than they are different, this is why it is largely irrelevant and foreign policy remains fixed in a state of frozen imperialist war and the ideological establishment becomes further and further entrenched and backwards-looking/thinking. This is why the American States are a laughing stock among the developed world. They look at Vietnam and go "WTEF", they look at Iraq and go "WTEF", yet we keep doing it. Because this is essentially the same type of "head-in-ass" type thinking as Brexit Britain, but on steroids and decades in the making.
 
I didn't even remotely see his post in any way as an endorsement of Sanders.
Right, because repeatedly going on about how the only way to be not-corrupt is to elect Sanders in no way indicates any kind of support.

It's not like Alcibiades was vocal about his support on SB or anything, this is not a mystery. He's stated that he thinks Bernie is the most popular politician in the entire US, so him losing the primary must entirely be because the Democratic establishment snubbed him and totally not because Sanders just doesn't have mainstream appeal amongst Democrats.

What part of the entire exchange above particularly the part about "obsessing over Trump/Bernie/insertcandidate and his/her blocs" did you not get? The clown car is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex whether they know it or not. They're all a lot more alike than they are different, this is why it is largely irrelevant and foreign policy remains fixed in a state of frozen imperialist war and the ideological establishment becomes further and further entrenched and backwards-looking/thinking. This is why the American States are a laughing stock among the developed world. They look at Vietnam and go "WTEF", they look at Iraq and go "WTEF", yet we keep doing it. Because this is essentially the same type of "head-in-ass" type thinking as Brexit Britain, but on steroids and decades in the making.
Lol, more phantom boogeyman for you to pin blame on. Please, keep making vague allusions to shadowy cabals pulling the strings behind the scenes.
 
Last edited:
Except none of it is made up.

In your delusional world.

Dude, MSNBC just last month had to publically retract one of its attacks. The list is quite long. If you think this stuff is all true, you gotta get your head out of its partisan hole. You really think that there have been no smear attacks on Trump? Really? Uniquely among the world's politicians?

Well, no wonder you think Trump is uniquely horrible given that he's a pedophile Russian agent nepotist tax evading rapist white supremacist antisemitic misogynist traitor with dementia who wants to kill all Muslims :)

He's stated that he thinks Bernie is the most popular politician in the entire US, so him losing the primary must entirely be because the Democratic establishment snubbed him and totally not because Sanders just doesn't have mainstream appeal amongst Democrats.

I have never said anything like the above.

Lol, more phantom boogeyman for you to pin blame on. Please, keep making vague allusions to shadowy cabals pulling the strings behind the scenes.

How amusing, given the Dem's 2+-year invocations of shadowy Russian cabals. Which apparently were 100% true, including the ones that are demonstrably false!
 
Last edited:
Dude, MSNBC just last month had to publically retract one of its attacks.
Right, are you going to actually run an analysis on how often major news organizations have to retract various web articles and show that ones regarding Trump are significantly above the norm, or are you again just letting a few anecdotes form the entire basis of your argument?
The list is quite long. If you think this stuff is all true, you gotta get your head out of its partisan hole. You really think that there have been no smear attacks on Trump? Really? Uniquely among the world's politicians?
:rolleyes:

Yes, of course if you look hard enough you can find someone, somewhere, saying something wrong about any notable celebrity. The point is that very little of the actual significant issues are made up.

pedophile Russian agent nepotist tax evading rapist white supremacist antisemitic misogynist traitor with dementia who wants to kill all Muslims
And... most of these are demonstrably true. He might not be a Russian agent per se but he definitely colluding with Russia, he's definitely a nepotists, definitely evaded taxes, definitely racist, definitely a misogynist, and definitely has some age-related cognitive deficits even if it doesn't rise to the level of dementia. Traitor to the country? If the bar is to take actions for the benefit other countries at the expense of your own, then yes, definitely. The only ones questionable here are pedophile/rapist (depends if you believe his first wife; he has definitely committed sexual assault though), white supremacist (again, definitely racist and supports white supremacy, but it's questionable if he himself is a white supremacist or just likes white supremacists because they support him). The only thing here that is definitely false is him wanting to kill all Muslims.

I have never said anything like the above.
Sanders is the most popular politician in the United States. If the Democrats are going to ignore that... well I can get another huge belly laugh like when Trump won.

Unfortunately SB makes it impossible to search for the posts of banned members, but fortunately Google could still find this because holy shit this post is deluded.

But of course, you were just earlier trying to draw an equivalency between putting immigrants into concentration camps and putting convicted juveniles in jail, so of course this has been well established.

It's obvious that you are deeply butthurt by his loss in 2016, and are trying to spin it in your head as it being because of the Evil Democratic Establishment, so you can take pleasure in their "comeuppance" when they lose because they failed to recognize the One True Savior. Of course, the reality being that Sanders wasn't elected because he doesn't have appeal with the mainstream Democratic voters, who aren't actually that into the anti-establishment rhetoric.

Which apparently were 100% true, including the ones that are demonstrably false!
Trump colluding with Russia has been 100% proven, though? I seem to recall that you live in Russia though, so your bias on this subject is quite understandable.
 
Last edited:
And... most of these are demonstrably true. He might not be a Russian agent per se but he definitely colluding with Russia, he's definitely a nepotists, definitely evaded taxes, definitely racist, definitely a misogynist, and definitely has some age-related cognitive deficits even if it doesn't rise to the level of dementia. Traitor to the country? If the bar is to take actions for the benefit other countries at the expense of your own, then yes, definitely. The only ones questionable here are pedophile/rapist (depends if you believe his first wife; he has definitely committed sexual assault though), white supremacist (again, definitely racist and supports white supremacy, but it's questionable if he himself is a white supremacist or just likes white supremacists because they support him). The only thing here that is definitely false is him wanting to kill all Muslims.

OK, please give me examples of him supporting white supremacy. "He defended them at Charlottescille" does not count,. because he explicitly did not. To actually assert this, you're going to have to use very free interpretations of his statements. I see no indication from his past history, unless you go back to the early 1970s, that he is a racist. The support of white supremacists -- of which there are 10 thousand in the United States, maximum -- does not help anyone. This is typical confusion of white populism (a powerful movement that Trump definitely does represent) and white nationalism (a fringe movement), which is done deliberately for purposes of propaganda.

Please give me examples of him colluding with Russia. Would that be when he armed Ukraine, which Obama didn't do, or when he sanctioned European companies working with Nord Stream 2, or when he pulled out of arms control agreements? Or would that be all the supposed collaboration to steal the election, which we know did not happen?

The definition of "traitor," by the way, is broad enough to include just about everyone. Like, the US spent money attacking Libya to benefit France. Obama is a traitor! NAFTA helps Mexico, not the US! Traitor Clinton!

Dude, there was just a 3-year smear campaign extravaganza dominating the media. I did not say that he was more of a target than other politicians; in fact, my point is that, like all politicians, he has been the target of smear campaigns -- such as the one that just fell apart when the Mueller Report came out, just as people were predicting, and that has probably helped Trump, just as people were predicting. (Now, if you were watching CNN and MSNBC, you wouldn't know that people were predicting this, because they didn't have such people on, because they were pushing a narrative that kept their viewers watching, which meant $$$. The only shadowy cabal here is the DNC, whoever was feeding the press all those false stories, and the profit motive.)

I believe that I have made my position on the Dems quite clear. It does not involve the belief that Sanders is a white knight who was cruelly shafted by the DNC. Again, it is --

The West in general is in an antiestablishment mood in which the status quo -- the consensus that was built up from 1985-1995 or so -- is being rejected. This takes rightwing forms (Trump, Le Pen) and leftwing forms (Syriza, Sanders, Gabbard) and neutral forms (Brexit) depending on where you are. The Democrats lost in 2016 because they represented the status quo. The rational thing for them to do, if their primary goal is to control the White House, would be to nominate some anti-status-quo candidate who would take votes from Trump. But they can't do that, because that would put the position of establishment politicians in jeopardy. Hence, there has been an orgy of blaming what has happened on everything but actual problems -- it was totally the racist Russia Jill Stein Sanders Susan Sarandon Facebook ad menace, and not unpopular international trade deals and foreign wars, guys.

Their strategy appears to me to be to try to scaremonger the Dem base into voting in huge numbers, rather than attracting votes via popular ideas (note that Trump voters are to the left of Biden on Medicare!). HE'S A NAZI IF YOU DON'T VOTE THERE WERE BE DEATH IN THE STREETS VOTE! In fact, they can't hunt for Trump voters, since they've already presented them all as raving maniacal racists.

The end result of this is going to be increasing polarization as problems are left to fester and as the electorate feels more and more powerless and cheated. And then you're going to get mass unrest, not silly demonstrations by Nazi and Antifa LARPers.
 
OK, please give me examples of him supporting white supremacy. "He defended them at Charlottescille" does not count,. because he explicitly did not. To actually assert this, you're going to have to use very free interpretations of his statements. I see no indication from his past history, unless you go back to the early 1970s, that he is a racist.
Nicolas-Cage.jpg



Where do I even fucking start? I suppose all the birther conspiracy is him not being racist? The time he accused a Hispanic judge (born in America) of being biased because "he's a Mexican", where even fucking Republicans like Paul Ryan called him out on being racist? When he stereotyped a room full of Jews to their faces? When he called all countries in Africa "shitholes"?

Look at the fucking length of this Wikipedia page. The utter level of denial required to go "I see no evidence Donald Trump is racist" is fucking mind-boggling. "Very free" doesn't even begin to cover how ridiculously contrived you have to be to justify not-racist interpretations for most of this, but I'm sure you will go and say how none of this can be interpreted as racist.

Yet according to people like you, you can't be racist unless you flat-out say "I believe X race is superior."

Please give me examples of him colluding with Russia. Would that be when he armed Ukraine, which Obama didn't do, or when he sanctioned European companies working with Nord Stream 2, or when he pulled out of arms control agreements? Or would that be all the supposed collaboration to steal the election, which we know did not happen?
Oh look, more outright denial. We know he colluded with Russia for information on Hillary Clinton, that was the whole conclusion of the Mueller investigation. Only blind idiots actually think "we know" it didn't happen, when the actual statement was that he totally was not innocent but couldn't be prosecuted because the Justice Department policy is that the President can't be prosecuted.
The definition of "traitor," by the way, is broad enough to include just about everyone. Like, the US spent money attacking Libya to benefit France. Obama is a traitor! NAFTA helps Mexico, not the US! Traitor Clinton!
How about the time he refused to implement the sanctions on Russia that was passed nearly unanimously by a bipartisan Congress (in one of the last acts committed by the GOP with their vestigial spine before evolving it away entirely)? And the time he told the Russians he was perfectly ok with them interfering with US elections? Funny how when both parties agree that Russia hacking the DNC was bad, Trump is the only one who disagrees. :unsure:

I believe that I have made my position on the Dems quite clear. It does not involve the belief that Sanders is a white knight who was cruelly shafted by the DNC.
And I believe that you have made your status as a habitual liar whose reputation precedes him quite clear. You can repeat your drivel however many times you want (you're also wrong, but that's besides the point), it's not going to erase all the times you snidely implied that only Sanders is capable of defeating Trump and saving America.

It's true that there's a significant anti-establishment majority in the GOP, but that's patently not true for the Democrats. The majority of Democratic voters are pro-establishment--what they really want is a return to the Clinton/Obama days. This is why Biden was far and away in the lead in the polls months before he even announced he was running, and it's why Sanders is holding steady at 15-17%. Warren is overtaking him precisely because she is much less aggressively anti-establishment than him. Sanders's base is the "burn it all down" malcontents, and there just aren't that many in the Democratic party.
 
Last edited:
Why am I not surprised he spent more time responding to the part about Sanders than he did to the actual point of the post?
 
Back
Top Bottom