Politics

Calliban · 2019-09-27 09:15:09

This board reflects perfectly the complete polarisation of US politics. The US is now effectively divided between an ageing and largely white rural populace, who want to maintain it essentially as it is; and a younger, largely urban and increasingly non-white population, that want it to become something completely different. There is no compromise between the two. You cannot compromise with someone that wants you gone.

I suspect that demographics are not on the Republican side. Roughly half of all people under the age of 15 in the US is now non-white and this proportion is growing. This demographic tends to be left-leaning, anti-traditionalist and Democrat.

I suspect that the US is heading for another civil war. If the approaching recession is anything like the last, public anger will grow at a time when government is increasingly bankrupt and unable to contain a growing sectarianism. I do not see good things ahead.

GW Johnson · 2019-09-27 12:17:40

Pessimistic, but probably accurate, Calliban

GW

kbd512 · 2019-09-27 21:56:08

I've heard all manner of utter nonsense about how America will destroy itself. It always amazes me how this trash gets recycled every few decades. I guess most people really are that ignorant of history. Figures. More than a few even cheer-lead efforts to cause that to happen. I'm not sure what level of hatred or envy is required to fuel such small-minded thinking, but that has yet to happen. A wise man wouldn't bet the farm on that happening in the near future. True wisdom seems to be in short supply these days. I do seem to recall that this same tripe was bandied about in the 60's and 70's. America's only fundamental constant has been change. Others looking on from the outside probably see chaos, but they're also stuck in their understanding of the world- and you only have to talk to them for a few minutes to understand that.

Lastly, if your only understanding of America is what you see on TV, then you have an unimaginably warped perception of what life is actually like for us. When last I checked, none of us were heading for the exit or looking to start a war with each other, including all of our Hollyweird celebrities who promised to leave after President Trump was elected. Turns out that our favorite drama queens care more about getting their next paycheck signed than who runs our country, quite possibly because then they'd have to get real jobs. I guess it's more fun to pretend to be someone they'll never be. I can understand that sentiment, even if I can't actually engage in any of that. For better or worse, the only person I know how to be is myself. In another 10 years or so, we'll probably look back on all of this and laugh. In the end, a good sense of humor is the best medicine.

Calliban · 2019-09-28 04:04:17

Kbd512, demographics is destiny. That much is unavoidable unless something very 'dramatic' happens. And certain demographics do tend to lean a certain way politically. Human beings are basically tribal; there is no changing what they are. If the past is any predictor of the future, then the US will be a socialist country in 10 years time. And demographics will entrench that position.

It is not a future that I want to see. But the writing is pretty much on the wall. The babyboomer generation, generation X and the millennials; should have had more children and gotten their heads out of the clouds. But the situation is what it is. If you are part of the dwindling number of white Americans at that point, you will need to decide whether you want to spend your remaining years living under a man like Schiff, or instead take up arms and fight for something different. This is exactly why the founding fathers insisted on the right to bare arms. And it is why the Dems want them taken away.

Last edited by Calliban (2019-09-28 04:12:35)

tahanson43206 · 2019-09-28 09:02:16

For Calliban re #1479 and prior ...

I was sorry to see you tempted to fall into the tar pit here.

A venture here cannot end well. There is still time to stop making things worse.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2019-09-28 10:01:28

This vision of America as a "socialist country" is at odds with the definition of socialism. Go look it up for yourself: socialism is when the government operates the means of production. What the leftist Democrats want is government-run programs for health care, not the production of goods. So when I hear people bemoaning how we are going socialist, I know they are spouting more political propaganda than any truth.

That being said, yes, there are changes of some kind needed. I'd rather see that done at the ballot box, rather than by armed uprisings in the streets. For one thing, there is less mess to clean up afterward. But there is a long history in this country, and many others, of how governments get sotted with the power they hold, leading to oppression of their people. Uniquely, the population of America is to one extent or another, armed. Thus they present a credible threat of armed revolution. That is supposed to make government behave better. THAT is the purpose behind our Second Amendment to the Constitution, and it poses gun violence risks inherently. That's the price we pay.

I don't think that threat has been made publicly often enough and loud enough. Because government has been misbehaving for some decades now, in many different ways. That's true under Democrat control, and under Republican control. We usually get a little bit better government when control is split, but not recently. That traces to vast numbers of politicians now prioritizing party advantage above doing good for the people.

Bad state of affairs. Remember, if you are biased toward not re-electing incumbent politicians, that inherently imposes term limits. As it turns out, that may be more important than choosing which party you want holding that office.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2019-09-28 11:26:55

I normally avoid these discussions, as they seldom end well. But I saw the direction this thread was taking and had to interject my $0.02. I'm not despondent or dejected, as there are many other guys who feel the same as I, and are also Military Veterans.

The problem is not what we call a system, but how it performs and whether or not it's good for the people of the country--not for illegal immigrants. I have a significant investment in this country--not just time spent at work and paying taxes--but by giving of my time and a portion of my life serving in the Army. I have a social investment by bringing 2 children into the world--both of whom are gainfully employed in very beneficial occupations.

What has brought about this division in the country is the system of "social welfare," which amounts to taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots. And if the government is doing the taking--it's at threat of gunpoint. Call it theft. Call it extortion. Call it taxation.

I see the homeless problem in California, and the political answer is to placate the homeless and do nothing about solving the root problems of mental illness and illegal immigration. Give them enough money to buy drugs and alcohol, and meanwhile we see third world and medieval diseases spreading: typhus (borne by fleas carried by rats); leprosy; exacerbated by filth and poor sanitation; tuberculosis, carried by illegal immigrants from Central America.

So--I ask myself, and anyone else who will listen: how do we save our society we have worked hard to build and make the envy of rest of the world?

This is the question I ask of politicians, and not what party they represent; not how much they need for reelection in 2 years.

Over 50 years ago, I cast my first ballot in Presidential election for JFK, and as a Democrat. I never left the Democrat party--but it sure as Hell left me.

GW Johnson · 2019-09-28 14:24:47

Oldfart1939 and I have similar histories and similar questions. We do not have the answers, but "business-as-usual" the last few years sure as hell ain't it. Myself, I was an independent. BOTH parties left me in the cold. And I despise them BOTH for that!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-09-28 14:25:40)

Terraformer · 2019-09-28 14:33:25

Don't expect any healing of the rift in America (and Britain, and the other European and Eurocolonial nations) until we actually have a debate about the big difference - *who does a country exist for*? Is it a marketplace, open to all? Is it a nation-state, for the preservation of a particular people group (and in that case, how do you define the people)? Is it for the upholding of a particular set of values, open to all who profess them - and if so, *whose* values?

I don't see how a country can survive if there is a big divide in what people think the country actually exists *for*.

GW Johnson · 2019-09-28 14:48:49

In America, we essentially decided that government existed to supply those things that private entities either could not, or would not, supply. And NOTHING ELSE!!! The answer to that question changes as time passes, but the basic question does not.

The constraint upon all of that is rule-of-law, not rule-by-a-king. THAT is inviolable! That's what we were founded upon! Not a whole lot different from the UK and its Magna Carta, in many ways! After all, the UK is the original "mother country" for what is now the USA.

Maybe that question of what government-exists-to-do is the right question-and-answer, and maybe it is not. The American experiment continues, 232 years after we adopted our original Constitution, which has been amended many times to correct flaws recognized later.

The outcome of that experiment is still in doubt. Yet, my own personal hope is that our Founders got it pretty close to right! At least they gave us a means to adapt, adopt, and improve.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-09-28 14:51:01)

kbd512 · 2019-09-28 17:46:51

Calliban,

The Founders very much believed in the right to wear sleeves, even during times of war, but they also believed in the utility of having numerous free-thinking men who were armed and of good moral character, so that they would resist any government attempts to strip them of their liberties. That was the bedrock of our way of life. Even if evil men or women or space aliens were to somehow invade or otherwise seize power from a righteous and lawful government in order to establish a tyranny, they could count on their men showing up with their guns to take care of business. And yes, that is what all totalitarians, sadly now such as many of our Democrat and even some of our Republican politicians have become, cannot abide. As such, these politicians say and do anything, no matter how perverse, in an attempt to strip us of our best means to defend ourselves from their tyranny, whether by abrogation of personal responsibility / coercion / brute force, matters not to them.

Since evil behavior can never be completely vanquished as long as humans are involved, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and having the backbone to resist all criminal attempts to take that which no one else has the right to take. Lest there be any doubt in the matter, freedom is never free. Freedom may only cost you just all that you have and all that you'll ever have. Some of us are willing to pay that awful price. Others think they can tolerate peaceful slavery. I say there is no peacefulness in slavery, nor will there ever be, thus I'm willing to pay that price to ensure that my people, my fellow Americans, enjoy the blessings of freedom and liberty. Nowhere was it written that I would have my freedoms given to me merely because I thought I should have them.

Some people seem to think those of us who are conservatives care about what skin color someone happens to have. It's a 99.9% false narrative pushed by a Democrat-run media. I say 99.9%, because there are around 0.1% of people claiming to be conservatives who do care about what skin pigmentation / religion / etc someone else happens to have. Well, I got news for them. Former President Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Republicans don't believe in this person being better than that person because of what they look like. We sure as hell don't abide slavery. That was the reason for the last Civil War between the Democrats and Republicans. We all know how that turned out.

Rather than intellectually defeating bigoted or otherwise destructive ideas by permitting freedom of speech, however disgusting at times, these regressive types have taken to trying to silence anyone voicing an opinion they disagree with. Even if I disagree with an opinion being voiced, I've always been of the opinion that free speech I disagree with demands more free speech explaining why bad ideas are bad. I probably won't convince the person I'm speaking to that their idea is flawed, but I may convince others who hear that bad idea why it is not in our best interest. That is the best and only way to defeat bad ideas (racism, sexism, robbing Peter to pay Paul / communism / socialism, government control of everything / totalitarianism, the list is endless).

I use the term "regressive" quite a lot. It has a specific meaning to me. It's not a political label or smear, even if the behavior stemming from it angers me. It applies to anyone who attempts to apply little kid thinking to matters that require mature cost/benefit analysis and decision making. Therefore, people applying "regressive" thinking have "regressed" back into their formative years because they still lack the maturity required to consider the totality of their decision making. Children typically only consider themselves in their thought process. That may not always be true of children, but the generalization exists because universality is not required for the generalization to remain generally true. People who call themselves adults cannot merely consider what is best for them in their thinking and behavior at the exact moment that they had a thought that they agreed with. Often times people who are actually "regressive" will choose to label themselves as "progressive". Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. They frequently claim that whatever satisfies their own personal desires is best for everyone, all evidence to the contrary.

Educating yourself, starting a family, holding a job, and/or defending our nation are all part of investing in our way of life. None of those things are easy to do at all, but being an American, to me at least, is not about how easy or difficult your life is- all of which are a matter of perspective. In my own life, bearing truth faith and allegiance to the same are not mere suggestions to be followed whenever it's convenient to do so. Our way of life must be earned. If it's not, then it will not be appreciated as the truly remarkable way of life that it is.

As far as demographics are concerned, I'm always interested in filling our ranks with like-minded individuals who cherish our founding principles, irrespective of what they look like or where they come from. If we have to import those people from abroad, then I don't really see that as a problem. As long as the people coming here share our values, there is no problem for America or the American way of life. I can't speak to what that ultimately says about what's happening everywhere else, but I'm guessing it's not what I'd hope for since I advocate for expanding freedom and opportunity wherever possible.

GW,

Private health care is a for-profit industry, so yes, the Democrats' attempts to turn that into a state-run monopoly is socialism. If their ultimate goal is not to turn America into another Venezuela, then it's not at all apparent to me from looking at the places where they have total control of the government- California, for example. Thus far, our own health care model has produced more innovation than the rest of the world combined. When medical advances are made, they're most likely made here in America or because of American investment. That means that these benefits come because of our current health care model, rather than in spite of it. The notion that our health care must be the same for everyone, everywhere, and at all times leads to absurdly bad outcomes for everyone.

If you don't think that's true, then go visit a VA clinic, because that's "government run health care". They're so bad at providing any health care that President Trump signed a bill allowing veterans to get treatment from private providers, to be paid for by our government. That is NOT the type of health care I want and if you ever experienced it for yourself, it wouldn't be the type of health you'd want, either. Since I disagree with torturing people, I would not even send ISIS fighters to our VA. That's how little I think of government run health care.

GW Johnson · 2019-09-28 19:12:56

Kbd512:

"Private health care is a for-profit industry, so yes, the Democrats' attempts to turn that into a state-run monopoly is socialism." No sir, it is not! Not by the dictionary definition! Period! Go look it up for yourself.

Whether the government-run system some (but not all) democrats espouse is something we really want to do is a matter of debate. The "socialism" name-calling that you resort to, stands directly in the way of getting that debate done. You need to face up to that. Is that REALLY what you want to do? I hope not.

My own father-in-law was a VA-only sort of government dependent. While there were flaws in the care he received, by and large, his care was actually adequate. My wife and I lived through all that, in very great detail. For decades. Those flaws derive less from "government-run", and more from "good enough for government work". There is a VERY fundamental difference between the two.

My own health care comes from Medicare Parts A and B and D, plus a privately-obtained supplement that I pay for. Neither does the whole job. But, between what the government does, and what the supplement does, I have never in all my life had better or more cost-effective health care! Somehow or another, THAT is the model we all might really want.

What is so hard to understand about that, unless your political glasses are too cloudy to see it for what it really is?

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-09-28 19:15:18)

GW Johnson · 2019-09-28 19:30:06

All that being said (post 1487 just above), the issue of guns vs gun control is another sensitive issue. I happen to believe in Constitutional rights, but I also recognize that such rights have limits. For example, your right to swing your fist ends BEFORE you hit my nose! For another example, we DO NOT ALLOW crying "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. That stuff is long-established law.

Myself, I have no problem with the 1934-vintage ban on private ownership of machine guns (and some other items of mass killing). The public death toll was just too large to tolerate, when such were legal. We-the-people simply did not need machine guns to be a credible threat of armed revolution if government misbehaved, because there's so much more of us than the headcount of the standing army. It is really that simple.

We can always (and quite properly!!!) debate the detailed numbers, but I see no problem looking at the triple combination (all-at-once !!!) of firing rate, stopping power, and available magazine size, for what to ban and what not to ban. That's not what most of the Democrats espouse today, and certainly not any of what passes for a Republican proposal today, but it makes perfect common sense to me.

As I have often said, I despise both parties.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2019-09-28 19:31:22)

SpaceNut · 2019-09-28 19:44:15

I have posted these last few posts within there respective topics....

kbd512 · 2019-09-28 22:58:32

GW,

Play semantics games as much as you like, but I'm not having any of it. When the government takes over an entire industry that the private sector was running much better than the government ever did or ever will, I call that socialism. I do not need our government deciding which doctors I can see, when I can see them, or whether or not they decide to treat me based upon my political beliefs. Before they've even implemented it, our beloved Democrats have already proposed doing that. As far as I'm concerned, they can go pound sand.

If you / SpaceNut / nearly everyone else here who lives in America think our government does such a bad job of running our military, running NASA, and running everything else that it runs, then why in the hell would you even consider allowing them to run our health care system?

GW / SpaceNut / everybody else here: NASA's so incompetently run, they can't even do blah blah blah right.

Me: Yeah, so if those were the absolute smartest people we have, then let's give them control over who lives and dies by dictating our medical care to us. What an ingenious idea. Why didn't I think of that? Oh, right, I forgot. I'm not suicidal.

GW / SpaceNut: Oh, well, well, it'll be different with health care because because uh "magic" and uh, I really really want it to work.

Me: Well... It would be nice if they did do something like that for us that worked out well, but thus far they've never even managed to only spend the amount of tax money that we give them to spend every year, which is more than the GDP of many nations, and not 50% to 100% more. That hasn't changed no matter who was running things, either. Maybe we can try this socialized medicine idea right after they figure out what the word "budget" means, as it pertains to the rest of the government.

Give me a government that spends within its means first, then let's discuss all these "absurdly expensive, but not socialism by dictionary definition" ideas that cost even more money that we don't have. Everyone wants "free stuff", but the problem is always that someone, somewhere has to pay for it. I'm tired of people using my government to take more money from me like the mafia does to people they're "protecting". At some point, the magical thinkers of this world need to learn how to use what they have and what they know to get what they want without resorting to using the power of government to rob other people to get it.

With respect to "gun control", there's no such thing, never was, and never will be. Inanimate objects have no behaviors of their own, never have, and never will. They require no "control", because they can never do anything on their own. Human behavior is an entirely different matter. Why don't people just say "people control" since that's what they really mean?

I think anyone who thinks they can wave their magic "legislation wand" and make people do what they want them to do is living in an absolute fantasy land more fantastic than any Disney movie I've ever seen. Criminals don't give a crap about what you wrote on your paper. If they did, then why don't we just post "no rape, robbery, or murder" signs everywhere. Problem solved, right? Who cares about those over-engineered projectile launching systems when we have problems like those? Geniuses who think they can "control" what other people do by "controlling" what they have, that's who. There's a reason why I said that people who think that way should never actually be in charge of anything. They still apply little kid thinking to problems that require adult analysis and decision making. If the solution was simple, it would've been solved by now. It's obviously not that simple.

Terraformer · 2019-09-29 06:02:18

GW Johnson wrote:

In America, we essentially decided that government existed to supply those things that private entities either could not, or would not, supply. And NOTHING ELSE!!! The answer to that question changes as time passes, but the basic question does not.
The constraint upon all of that is rule-of-law, not rule-by-a-king. THAT is inviolable! That's what we were founded upon! Not a whole lot different from the UK and its Magna Carta, in many ways! After all, the UK is the original "mother country" for what is now the USA.
Maybe that question of what government-exists-to-do is the right question-and-answer, and maybe it is not. The American experiment continues, 232 years after we adopted our original Constitution, which has been amended many times to correct flaws recognized later.
The outcome of that experiment is still in doubt. Yet, my own personal hope is that our Founders got it pretty close to right! At least they gave us a means to adapt, adopt, and improve.
GW

I said who and whatis a country for, NOT what is the government for.

SpaceNut · 2019-09-29 09:42:11

Sounds like we can do away with the federal government and laws which unite the us as thats considered socialist by the way some seem to be thinking....that does away with all of the costs...

A government for the people and by the people are the words which mean a unity of concepts which is not soclialism.

The magical wand is to teach ethics at a much younger age so as to let all know that padlocks are not just for the honest person but for all.

Calliban · 2019-09-29 09:58:40

"I said who and whatis a country for, NOT what is the government for."

A country is a tribe of people, with common ethnicity, embellished by ties of language, religion and culture. But first and foremost, when I talk about being Scottish, English or British; I am talking about a common ancestry that I share with other people living on this island. Without that sort of shared bond, nationhood is meaningless. It is why I am quite pessimistic about the future of the western world, which has gone out of its way over the past sixty to import people into our lands that share none of that. The US, whilst it has always been a fusion of European peoples and cultures, was and is (for the moment at least) essentially a European country. That is what being white in America is really all about. And it is unavoidably something that cannot be shared with all people.

Oldfart1939 · 2019-09-29 10:28:07

Back again for the second round: EVERYONE here should obtain and read the now out-of-print book by Thomas W. Chittum: Civil War Two.
Mr. Chittum is a military veteran and former intelligence officer, who is also a sociologist by profession. In his book, he goes into a careful analysis of a Nation versus an Empire; determines what constitutes a Nation. He has some very interesting statistics about ethnic minority groups invading a host country, and the terminal effects. I will say no more other than it's very analytical and predictive.

Oldfart1939 · 2019-09-29 10:37:08

As a few points on entirely different subject: Health care and the VA Hospitals. My last Academic job, just before becoming a business entrepreneur, I had a position as Research Associate at Stanford Medical School, and was doing research IN the VA Hospital in Palo Alto. I was there for a year, and the level of care I observed was just OK, but the care was principally provided by Interns and Residents; there was adequate supervision by University Faculty, but even in 1976, the work overload was hideously apparrant. It has only gotten worse as time passed. Thankfully I saw enough, and will never subject myself to that sort of care; there are other options.
So much for government provided health care. There were waiting lists even then, but the primary recipients were still W.W. II veterans. They deserved better. All of our vets deserve better, because they (we!) have paid a price for it.

Calliban · 2019-09-29 10:42:17

Civil War 2: https://b-ok.cc/book/892161/745bf6

SpaceNut · 2019-09-29 13:43:06

Have created the Entitlement topic

Terraformer · 2019-09-29 15:00:13

Calliban wrote:

Civil War 2: https://b-ok.cc/book/892161/745bf6

I'll have a read, but I've probably just made my file at GCHQ bigger by doing so. Oh well.

I can't see how a country can survive a deep split on the question of why it exists. Labour, here, have decided that the UK exists for everyone in the world. If they ever get back in power and implement their policy of open borders and votes for immigrants, then it's the end of the UK and its constituent countries. A million new voters every year for five years? Their policy of dissolving the people and electing another is pretty blatant.

SpaceNut · 2019-09-29 15:22:59

The UK only ends when the language that must be used to communicate stops being force to be used rather than allowing others that come not to be made to do so. Assimulation is the melting pot that America was so much a means to its big growth as those that came did leave behind there old problems for the better future.

Calliban · 2019-09-29 17:17:23

Terraformer, you understand the situation well enough. Over the past sixty years, Britain has gradually come under the control of a well coordinated, ruthless, clever and yet thoroughly disgusting group of people; who are bent upon destroying us. We will call them 'Globalists' for the time being.

In the UK, their power was indirect and relied largely upon their ownership of the media until 1994, when Tony Blair, unable to secure enough funding from trade unions due to his free market, neoliberal economic policies; was approached by Lord Levy, who made him a tempting offer. The offer went something like this: 'We give you whatever money you need to fund your party and election expenses and make sure you get a soft ride through the media. In return, we get final say over government policy'. Peter Mandelson was put in place, to watch Blair; to handle any party coordination with the press and to ensure that Blair held up his end of the deal. The results are well documented. The continuing sell-off of UK assets to wealthy 'globalist' investors. Entrenchment of the UK within an increasingly Marxist EU. Devolution was implemented in a deliberate attempt to weaken British nationhood. The rise of mass-immigration and the deliberate weakening of border controls. The demonisation of national ethnic identity and the criminalization of anyone that opposes Marxists concepts of racial diversity too loudly. Nationalist groups that resisted what was happening faced the risk of becoming banned organizations under new anti-terrorist legislation, with their members hunted down and thrown into prison.

You are correct in your assertion that mass-immigration is something that is being done deliberately to breed out the white population. Hate Speech laws are also a deliberate measure to suppress any British nationalist sentiment that might grow to oppose the 'Globalist Blairite' agenda. Jeremy Corbyn had until recently attempted to distance himself and contain this group of people, presumably with the intent of halting their vandalism of Britain. But they remain powerful, with numerous patrons within the media and business community. Corbyn found himself weakened by a propaganda campaign that accused him of antisemitism, which gives some clue as to who and what these people are.

Whether it will be possible for the British people to take back their country from the 'Globalists' is doubtful. Britain has one of the most effective surveillance and state security apparatus ever constructed. And its powers have grown enormously over the past 20 years. Whilst many British people naively believed that anti-terror and surveillance legislation was being extended to protect them from Islamic terrorism; the reality is that these powers are routinely used to oppress domestic nationalists. It is quite certain that this was the intent of the measures in the first place. Any freedom movement, would be discovered and crushed very quickly.

The American people are blessed with a constitution that protects freedom of speech, in theory at least. They also have the right to bear arms. The same people that enslaved Britain are attempting to weaken and abolish these rights. And the same campaign of population replacement is being inflicted upon the Americans. But at least they can (for the time being at least) discuss this problem without being dragged out of their home in the middle of the night by the 'terror police'. In the US, content controls on social media are used to capture whatever manages to get past mass-media indoctrination. But in theory at least, they do have freedom of speech as a democratic right. Not so in the UK. It is difficult to imagine a situation more bleak. Our Globalist masters have created a prison for our people that is far more extensive than anything George Orwell could have imagined. And the longer we remain under its grip, the more the long-term existence of our people is eroded

Last edited by Calliban (2019-09-29 17:32:30)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1476 2019-09-27 09:15:09

Re: Politics

#1477 2019-09-27 12:17:40

Re: Politics

#1478 2019-09-27 21:56:08

Re: Politics

#1479 2019-09-28 04:04:17

Re: Politics

#1480 2019-09-28 09:02:16

Re: Politics

#1481 2019-09-28 10:01:28

Re: Politics

#1482 2019-09-28 11:26:55

Re: Politics

#1483 2019-09-28 14:24:47

Re: Politics

#1484 2019-09-28 14:33:25

Re: Politics

#1485 2019-09-28 14:48:49

Re: Politics

#1486 2019-09-28 17:46:51

Re: Politics

#1487 2019-09-28 19:12:56

Re: Politics

#1488 2019-09-28 19:30:06

Re: Politics

#1489 2019-09-28 19:44:15

Re: Politics

#1490 2019-09-28 22:58:32

Re: Politics

#1491 2019-09-29 06:02:18

Re: Politics

#1492 2019-09-29 09:42:11

Re: Politics

#1493 2019-09-29 09:58:40

Re: Politics

#1494 2019-09-29 10:28:07

Re: Politics

#1495 2019-09-29 10:37:08

Re: Politics

#1496 2019-09-29 10:42:17

Re: Politics

#1497 2019-09-29 13:43:06

Re: Politics

#1498 2019-09-29 15:00:13

Re: Politics

#1499 2019-09-29 15:22:59

Re: Politics

#1500 2019-09-29 17:17:23

Re: Politics

Board footer