Stop saying identity politics caused Trump
21 Jan 2017, 3:31 pm
Jacoby wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Author doesn't seem to understand the concept of backlash.
Or could it be that you weren't intelligent enough to grasp what she was saying?
Well I was right about the election and Trump so perhaps you're overestimating your own intelligence and the author's who couldn't of been more wrong. In other words, scoreboard.
The author made a good point. There is no such thing as one sided identity politics. To too many on the political right that includes embracing racism/xenophobia/anti disabled/anti gay and trans rhetoric and embracing uncivilised behaviour.
Having said that Democrats have to give Trump as much chance as the Republicans gave Obama to govern. To expect anything more would be rank hypocrisy on the part of Republicans.
Newton's third law, I am not saying that isn't any white identity politics at play but I see it as a natural result of the Democrats full embrace of identity politics as their central ideology. Now I don't see this awakening as a totally bad thing since it has woken GOP base voters up to the fact that their own party does not represent their self interests very well when it comes to certain issues, globalism has destroyed the way of life for these people and they want it back. You can't create a coalition against the dominant demographic grouping and expect to win, you need a 50 state strategy and an idea that appeals to all Americans. Illegal immigration and bad trade deals don't just effect white people, it actually disproportionately hurts the poor and particularly minorities so I see it as opportunity to speak to their interests as well. If the GOP could just capture 20% of tthe black vote and 40% of the Hispanic vote, they'd never lose another election and I don't think those are unreachable or unrealistic figures.
Transgendered bathrooms, fearmongering about Roe v Wade, gun control, and amnesty are not going to win you many votes on their own off college campuses and corporate boardrooms.
The transgender bathrooms issue got Democrats the governorship in red North Carolina, the only governor's race where they were a major issue, so you're really just BS-ing here.
In fact, I've already discussed this issue further up the thread:
Quote:
The one governor's race where transgender issues were prominent, in North Carolina, resulted in a Democratic victory. HB2, also known as the bathroom bill, likely cost former GOP Governor Pat McCrory reelection.
EDIT: According to Wiki, this is significant because no incumbent NC governor had ever lost reelection. McCrory was the first:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Fa ... curity_Act
EDIT: According to Wiki, this is significant because no incumbent NC governor had ever lost reelection. McCrory was the first:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Fa ... curity_Act
If anything, I think Democrats need to make clear we really do believe what we're saying, and we need to make the issue a clear crusade, a fight of good versus evil.
Few things, governors in North Carolina were limited to a single 4 year term before 1976 and was that way since 1868 and before that it was only a single 2 year term so saying "he's the first incumbent NC governor to ever lose reelection" doesn't mean as much since it was not until recently that they were even allowed to run for reelection. Apparently the governor of North Carolina did not even have veto power until 1996 so the office was weak by design. Also the election was decide by only a few thousand votes and McCory was in for a tough reelection according to polls even before that law was passed. That may of had relevance as a state issue too but the transgendered bathroom stuff was national news and something that most people were tired of hearing about. I know it's something near and dear to your heart but it was hardly the most pressing or uniting issue for Democrats to rally behind.
Good luck with the crusade tho, I think you're going to alienate people. It's one thing to demand tolerance but now the goal posts have been moved to you have to believe what I believe or else, the reality seems to be both sides want to force their worldview on the other and neither will be happy until that's achieved. One thing is certain, Americans do not like being dictated to in what to believe or not believe.
Dude. Do you even read or follow the sources I provide?
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
21 Jan 2017, 3:38 pm
You just posted a wikipedia article about the bathroom law, I gave my interpretation of the NC governor race and corrected some misleading statements. What is it specifically that you want me to know?
Saying he's the first first incumbent governor to lose reelection in 140 years in North Carolina is misleading since it has only been the last 40 that they've even been allowed to run for reelection.
21 Jan 2017, 4:09 pm
Jacoby wrote:
You just posted a wikipedia article about the bathroom law, I gave my interpretation of the NC governor race and corrected some misleading statements. What is it specifically that you want me to know?
Saying he's the first first incumbent governor to lose reelection in 140 years in North Carolina is misleading since it has only been the last 40 that they've even been allowed to run for reelection.
Saying he's the first first incumbent governor to lose reelection in 140 years in North Carolina is misleading since it has only been the last 40 that they've even been allowed to run for reelection.
We're not going to throw the disadvantaged under the bus for our convenience. That will win us in the long run.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
21 Jan 2017, 4:20 pm
beneficii wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You just posted a wikipedia article about the bathroom law, I gave my interpretation of the NC governor race and corrected some misleading statements. What is it specifically that you want me to know?
Saying he's the first first incumbent governor to lose reelection in 140 years in North Carolina is misleading since it has only been the last 40 that they've even been allowed to run for reelection.
Saying he's the first first incumbent governor to lose reelection in 140 years in North Carolina is misleading since it has only been the last 40 that they've even been allowed to run for reelection.
We're not going to throw the disadvantaged under the bus for our convenience. That will win us in the long run.
It's a very privileged way of thinking don't you think? The issues that personally matter to you are the only ones that count? Believe what you wish and see it in moral black and white terms if you must but I personally think you win more voters by talking about relatable things like jobs and healthcare than making stands on divisive social issues. I think this goes both ways, if you want to look at it another way most Republican voters don't want their elected officials focusing on who can and can't use a bathroom either.
Where's James Carville when you need him?
21 Jan 2017, 4:47 pm
Jacoby wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You just posted a wikipedia article about the bathroom law, I gave my interpretation of the NC governor race and corrected some misleading statements. What is it specifically that you want me to know?
Saying he's the first first incumbent governor to lose reelection in 140 years in North Carolina is misleading since it has only been the last 40 that they've even been allowed to run for reelection.
Saying he's the first first incumbent governor to lose reelection in 140 years in North Carolina is misleading since it has only been the last 40 that they've even been allowed to run for reelection.
We're not going to throw the disadvantaged under the bus for our convenience. That will win us in the long run.
It's a very privileged way of thinking don't you think? The issues that personally matter to you are the only ones that count? Believe what you wish and see it in moral black and white terms if you must but I personally think you win more voters by talking about relatable things like jobs and healthcare than making stands on divisive social issues. I think this goes both ways, if you want to look at it another way most Republican voters don't want their elected officials focusing on who can and can't use a bathroom either.
Where's James Carville when you need him?
You say it as though you can only do one or the other.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
21 Jan 2017, 5:26 pm
beneficii wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
beneficii wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Identity politics caused Trump.
So did people telling other people what they shouldn't say.
So did people telling other people what they shouldn't say.
Like people who say other people shouldn't call them racists or misogynists, and people who say minorities should just keep their mouth shut when someone's being inconsiderate because of their race or whatever. I imagine those people really turned out for Trump.
That's your problem, beneficii. Instead of exercising your imagination, you should use your eyes and ears.
Oh, trust me, I have been.
I've seen Trumpers rave on and on and on, and somebody comes and makes a good argument for why they're wrong, and what do the Trumpers do? They whine about how their freedom of speech is supposedly being violated, when they really just lost the argument!
I've seen Trump and his supporters say all sorts of messed-up crap and people rightly call them out for being racist, misogynist, or whatever, and like above they whine about how supposedly their freedom of speech is being violated, even as their views are being blared and blasted all over the place, ad nauseum.
So, trust me, I've been keeping my eyes and ears peeled, and I don't like what I'm seeing.
Do you judge all loose collectives by the standards set by the worst examples of such, or only those loose collectives you disagree with or disapprove of?
You're still playing the same tired game of in-group good, out-group bad, anti-group Hitler that helped Trump become POTUS. Unless you wish to see 8 years of The Donald, I suggest you and those who think as you do get your respective houses in order.
And, frankly, anyone not willing to give the man a chance to prove he's up to the job should seriously consider whether they're doing their own thinking.
What would it actually take for you to accept Trump as an effective and worthy President?
21 Jan 2017, 5:40 pm
beneficii wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
You just posted a wikipedia article about the bathroom law, I gave my interpretation of the NC governor race and corrected some misleading statements. What is it specifically that you want me to know?
Saying he's the first first incumbent governor to lose reelection in 140 years in North Carolina is misleading since it has only been the last 40 that they've even been allowed to run for reelection.
Saying he's the first first incumbent governor to lose reelection in 140 years in North Carolina is misleading since it has only been the last 40 that they've even been allowed to run for reelection.
We're not going to throw the disadvantaged under the bus for our convenience. That will win us in the long run.
It's a very privileged way of thinking don't you think? The issues that personally matter to you are the only ones that count? Believe what you wish and see it in moral black and white terms if you must but I personally think you win more voters by talking about relatable things like jobs and healthcare than making stands on divisive social issues. I think this goes both ways, if you want to look at it another way most Republican voters don't want their elected officials focusing on who can and can't use a bathroom either.
Where's James Carville when you need him?
You say it as though you can only do one or the other.
I'm not saying Democrats should turn their back on the people that brought them to the dance but I don't think it is possible for identity to be central to your ideology and not be divisive.
I have my own beliefs but I've followed and been interested in politics much longer, it's always been a spectator sport to me and some of the stuff I post comes from that detached and cynical perspective. I think I love Trump as a new character in this drama more than I 100% agree with everything he says, now he overlaps with me on certain areas that are of interest to me but watching him to me is sort of like watching Lebron James or Tom Brady play their respective sports. Ideology is something that exists too much in vacuum, in real world situations one has to think more strategically if they are to get what they want. Trump was the outsider candidate that beat them at their own game, I can't help but be a fan. The point of saying all this is just simply strategy matters, you have to craft your message to your target audience. Democrats had this idea that identity could flip red states blue, coalition of the ascendant and all that but they didn't anticipate the erosion of the traditional democratic base in the midwest so now they need to adjust. I suppose you can wait and hope Texas/Arizona/Georgia flip while changing nothing but I think Democrats have been outflanked.
21 Jan 2017, 5:41 pm
adifferentname wrote:
beneficii wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
beneficii wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Identity politics caused Trump.
So did people telling other people what they shouldn't say.
So did people telling other people what they shouldn't say.
Like people who say other people shouldn't call them racists or misogynists, and people who say minorities should just keep their mouth shut when someone's being inconsiderate because of their race or whatever. I imagine those people really turned out for Trump.
That's your problem, beneficii. Instead of exercising your imagination, you should use your eyes and ears.
Oh, trust me, I have been.
I've seen Trumpers rave on and on and on, and somebody comes and makes a good argument for why they're wrong, and what do the Trumpers do? They whine about how their freedom of speech is supposedly being violated, when they really just lost the argument!
I've seen Trump and his supporters say all sorts of messed-up crap and people rightly call them out for being racist, misogynist, or whatever, and like above they whine about how supposedly their freedom of speech is being violated, even as their views are being blared and blasted all over the place, ad nauseum.
So, trust me, I've been keeping my eyes and ears peeled, and I don't like what I'm seeing.
Do you judge all loose collectives by the standards set by the worst examples of such, or only those loose collectives you disagree with or disapprove of?
You're still playing the same tired game of in-group good, out-group bad, anti-group Hitler that helped Trump become POTUS. Unless you wish to see 8 years of The Donald, I suggest you and those who think as you do get your respective houses in order.
And, frankly, anyone not willing to give the man a chance to prove he's up to the job should seriously consider whether they're doing their own thinking.
What would it actually take for you to accept Trump as an effective and worthy President?
For a start, he could, as the GOP platform promised, move us to residence-based taxation and repeal FATCA. This is something I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of (they're the ones who made this whole issue much worse in the last 8 years). As it stands, our current tax policies regarding expats make it very difficult for ordinary American people to compete with other countries' expats in the foreign country they live in.
Next, he could do as he hinted he would do earlier this month (when he was still President-elect) and make health care truly universal.
After that, either respect the science of climate change or at least don't try to preempt state laws like those of California designed to combat it, while refraining from doing stuff that would make things harder for minorities. Continue to try to work across the board with minorities, listen to our concerns, give us the opportunity to get ahead in life, even if it's in a more conservative flavor.
I actually wouldn't have that much of a problem with him if he does the above.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
21 Jan 2017, 11:02 pm
Identity politics definitely played a part in electing Trump, I think I've met more people who voted for him to spite the social justice brigade who are making "white dude" into a slur than I have people who are enthusiastic about his economic platform or his immigration policy.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Jan 2017, 1:52 am
beneficii wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Identity politics caused Trump.
So did people telling other people what they shouldn't say.
So did people telling other people what they shouldn't say.
Like people who say other people shouldn't call them racists or misogynists, and people who say minorities should just keep their mouth shut when someone's being inconsiderate because of their race or whatever. I imagine those people really turned out for Trump.
When minorities voice their specific concerns involving their group, it's identity politics according to certain persons. But those same persons ignore the circumstances that had led to the need to stress "identity politics."
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Jan 2017, 2:01 am
adifferentname wrote:
beneficii wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
beneficii wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Identity politics caused Trump.
So did people telling other people what they shouldn't say.
So did people telling other people what they shouldn't say.
Like people who say other people shouldn't call them racists or misogynists, and people who say minorities should just keep their mouth shut when someone's being inconsiderate because of their race or whatever. I imagine those people really turned out for Trump.
That's your problem, beneficii. Instead of exercising your imagination, you should use your eyes and ears.
Oh, trust me, I have been.
I've seen Trumpers rave on and on and on, and somebody comes and makes a good argument for why they're wrong, and what do the Trumpers do? They whine about how their freedom of speech is supposedly being violated, when they really just lost the argument!
I've seen Trump and his supporters say all sorts of messed-up crap and people rightly call them out for being racist, misogynist, or whatever, and like above they whine about how supposedly their freedom of speech is being violated, even as their views are being blared and blasted all over the place, ad nauseum.
So, trust me, I've been keeping my eyes and ears peeled, and I don't like what I'm seeing.
Do you judge all loose collectives by the standards set by the worst examples of such, or only those loose collectives you disagree with or disapprove of?
You're still playing the same tired game of in-group good, out-group bad, anti-group Hitler that helped Trump become POTUS. Unless you wish to see 8 years of The Donald, I suggest you and those who think as you do get your respective houses in order.
And, frankly, anyone not willing to give the man a chance to prove he's up to the job should seriously consider whether they're doing their own thinking.
What would it actually take for you to accept Trump as an effective and worthy President?
As I recall, there was little effort by Republicans to give Obama a chance. In fact, congressional Republicans had plotted to make him a one term President by obstructionism, while the tea party movement had been born out of hatred for Obama, for both his skin color, and his desire to help the least among us.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
22 Jan 2017, 6:45 am
beneficii wrote:
For a start, he could, as the GOP platform promised, move us to residence-based taxation and repeal FATCA. This is something I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of (they're the ones who made this whole issue much worse in the last 8 years). As it stands, our current tax policies regarding expats make it very difficult for ordinary American people to compete with other countries' expats in the foreign country they live in.
Next, he could do as he hinted he would do earlier this month (when he was still President-elect) and make health care truly universal.
After that, either respect the science of climate change or at least don't try to preempt state laws like those of California designed to combat it, while refraining from doing stuff that would make things harder for minorities. Continue to try to work across the board with minorities, listen to our concerns, give us the opportunity to get ahead in life, even if it's in a more conservative flavor.
I actually wouldn't have that much of a problem with him if he does the above.
Next, he could do as he hinted he would do earlier this month (when he was still President-elect) and make health care truly universal.
After that, either respect the science of climate change or at least don't try to preempt state laws like those of California designed to combat it, while refraining from doing stuff that would make things harder for minorities. Continue to try to work across the board with minorities, listen to our concerns, give us the opportunity to get ahead in life, even if it's in a more conservative flavor.
I actually wouldn't have that much of a problem with him if he does the above.
Hopefully you're in for a pleasant surprise then. Though I wouldn't hold my breath regarding climate change until there's consensus on exactly what effect humans have and whether it's something which requires correction. The best you can hope for on that front is continued funding into research and studies.
I believe that Trump's legacy will be more positive than negative, though I'll also be judging him by how he chooses to deal with the UK. He's making the right noises, but he's not delivered anything yet.
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I recall, there was little effort by Republicans to give Obama a chance. In fact, congressional Republicans had plotted to make him a one term President by obstructionism, while the tea party movement had been born out of hatred for Obama, for both his skin color, and his desire to help the least among us.
So tit-for-tat because partisanship?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Jan 2017, 11:10 am
adifferentname wrote:
beneficii wrote:
For a start, he could, as the GOP platform promised, move us to residence-based taxation and repeal FATCA. This is something I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of (they're the ones who made this whole issue much worse in the last 8 years). As it stands, our current tax policies regarding expats make it very difficult for ordinary American people to compete with other countries' expats in the foreign country they live in.
Next, he could do as he hinted he would do earlier this month (when he was still President-elect) and make health care truly universal.
After that, either respect the science of climate change or at least don't try to preempt state laws like those of California designed to combat it, while refraining from doing stuff that would make things harder for minorities. Continue to try to work across the board with minorities, listen to our concerns, give us the opportunity to get ahead in life, even if it's in a more conservative flavor.
I actually wouldn't have that much of a problem with him if he does the above.
Next, he could do as he hinted he would do earlier this month (when he was still President-elect) and make health care truly universal.
After that, either respect the science of climate change or at least don't try to preempt state laws like those of California designed to combat it, while refraining from doing stuff that would make things harder for minorities. Continue to try to work across the board with minorities, listen to our concerns, give us the opportunity to get ahead in life, even if it's in a more conservative flavor.
I actually wouldn't have that much of a problem with him if he does the above.
Hopefully you're in for a pleasant surprise then. Though I wouldn't hold my breath regarding climate change until there's consensus on exactly what effect humans have and whether it's something which requires correction. The best you can hope for on that front is continued funding into research and studies.
I believe that Trump's legacy will be more positive than negative, though I'll also be judging him by how he chooses to deal with the UK. He's making the right noises, but he's not delivered anything yet.
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I recall, there was little effort by Republicans to give Obama a chance. In fact, congressional Republicans had plotted to make him a one term President by obstructionism, while the tea party movement had been born out of hatred for Obama, for both his skin color, and his desire to help the least among us.
So tit-for-tat because partisanship?
What I'm saying is, actions have consequences.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
22 Jan 2017, 12:21 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
beneficii wrote:
For a start, he could, as the GOP platform promised, move us to residence-based taxation and repeal FATCA. This is something I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of (they're the ones who made this whole issue much worse in the last 8 years). As it stands, our current tax policies regarding expats make it very difficult for ordinary American people to compete with other countries' expats in the foreign country they live in.
Next, he could do as he hinted he would do earlier this month (when he was still President-elect) and make health care truly universal.
After that, either respect the science of climate change or at least don't try to preempt state laws like those of California designed to combat it, while refraining from doing stuff that would make things harder for minorities. Continue to try to work across the board with minorities, listen to our concerns, give us the opportunity to get ahead in life, even if it's in a more conservative flavor.
I actually wouldn't have that much of a problem with him if he does the above.
Next, he could do as he hinted he would do earlier this month (when he was still President-elect) and make health care truly universal.
After that, either respect the science of climate change or at least don't try to preempt state laws like those of California designed to combat it, while refraining from doing stuff that would make things harder for minorities. Continue to try to work across the board with minorities, listen to our concerns, give us the opportunity to get ahead in life, even if it's in a more conservative flavor.
I actually wouldn't have that much of a problem with him if he does the above.
Hopefully you're in for a pleasant surprise then. Though I wouldn't hold my breath regarding climate change until there's consensus on exactly what effect humans have and whether it's something which requires correction. The best you can hope for on that front is continued funding into research and studies.
I believe that Trump's legacy will be more positive than negative, though I'll also be judging him by how he chooses to deal with the UK. He's making the right noises, but he's not delivered anything yet.
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I recall, there was little effort by Republicans to give Obama a chance. In fact, congressional Republicans had plotted to make him a one term President by obstructionism, while the tea party movement had been born out of hatred for Obama, for both his skin color, and his desire to help the least among us.
So tit-for-tat because partisanship?
What I'm saying is, actions have consequences.
And what I'm saying is that "an eye for an eye" just leaves everyone scrambling around in the dark.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Jan 2017, 3:47 pm
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
beneficii wrote:
For a start, he could, as the GOP platform promised, move us to residence-based taxation and repeal FATCA. This is something I think the Democrats are on the wrong side of (they're the ones who made this whole issue much worse in the last 8 years). As it stands, our current tax policies regarding expats make it very difficult for ordinary American people to compete with other countries' expats in the foreign country they live in.
Next, he could do as he hinted he would do earlier this month (when he was still President-elect) and make health care truly universal.
After that, either respect the science of climate change or at least don't try to preempt state laws like those of California designed to combat it, while refraining from doing stuff that would make things harder for minorities. Continue to try to work across the board with minorities, listen to our concerns, give us the opportunity to get ahead in life, even if it's in a more conservative flavor.
I actually wouldn't have that much of a problem with him if he does the above.
Next, he could do as he hinted he would do earlier this month (when he was still President-elect) and make health care truly universal.
After that, either respect the science of climate change or at least don't try to preempt state laws like those of California designed to combat it, while refraining from doing stuff that would make things harder for minorities. Continue to try to work across the board with minorities, listen to our concerns, give us the opportunity to get ahead in life, even if it's in a more conservative flavor.
I actually wouldn't have that much of a problem with him if he does the above.
Hopefully you're in for a pleasant surprise then. Though I wouldn't hold my breath regarding climate change until there's consensus on exactly what effect humans have and whether it's something which requires correction. The best you can hope for on that front is continued funding into research and studies.
I believe that Trump's legacy will be more positive than negative, though I'll also be judging him by how he chooses to deal with the UK. He's making the right noises, but he's not delivered anything yet.
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I recall, there was little effort by Republicans to give Obama a chance. In fact, congressional Republicans had plotted to make him a one term President by obstructionism, while the tea party movement had been born out of hatred for Obama, for both his skin color, and his desire to help the least among us.
So tit-for-tat because partisanship?
What I'm saying is, actions have consequences.
And what I'm saying is that "an eye for an eye" just leaves everyone scrambling around in the dark.
Very true.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
23 Jan 2017, 10:49 am
adifferentname wrote:
Though I wouldn't hold my breath regarding climate change until there's consensus on exactly what effect humans have and whether it's something which requires correction.
No. The earth is warming, and it is "extremely likely" (>95% probability) to be because of human activities. It will cause increasingly extreme weather patterns, along with other deleterious effects. This is a fact:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... _FINAL.pdf
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| How has ABA Caused you damage? |
15 Jul 2026, 5:19 pm |
| Thank you Donald J Trump! |
06 Jul 2026, 5:23 pm |
