this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
127 points (99.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7249 readers
278 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How can Republicans be on the wrong side of EVERY issue?
They act like poorly-written villains.
I don't think this has anything to do with being Republican, it's just a natural consequence of having a single party control pretty much everything.
Get the fuck out of here with your both sides bullshit.
Blagojevich would still be in prison if Trump hadn't commuted his sentence. The Democrats punish their corrupt members, the GOP protects them.
Shit take: Pardoning the Blago was a good thing if it gets him back on more TV game shows.
Have you lived in areas with both extremes?
The recent GOP under Trump is a total mess, so I'll absolutely give you that. But you have to recognize that this is largely a new thing with the GOP, and the GOP doesn't actually really represent the average conservative these days. I'm in a very conservative area, and most of my neighbors (who are conservative) don't like Trump or the modern GOP and wish we could go back to the old GOP that was more moderate (e.g. people like Romney and McCain). But the media has riled up the extreme base and they're pushing the party to be more extreme. This nonsense started under Obama imo, but really gained traction with Trump.
So I'm not saying both sides are the same. The GOP under Trump is decidedly terrible. But most states don't follow national politics, so we can largely look at them separately from what goes on in Washington DC. I can find examples of gerrymandering on both sides of the aisle, so single party control is the issue there, and it allows far more nonsense to get swept under the rug than if control of the legislature was actually competitive.
Yes, and I live in one of the reddest counties in FL. These assholes love it.
One party wants to govern & one party wants to rule.
One party is making FptP voting illegal
One party is banning books.
One party is supporting child murder via inaction.
One party is trying to make kids go hungry while they are forced to be at school.
One party supports forced birth.
One party separated & caged children seeking asylum.
Get the fuck out of here with your "both sides" bullshit.
Which party is banning FPTP? And do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing? The rest seem to be digs at the GOP, but I'm not sure what that first point is referring to.
Fortunately, most of that is limited to a handful of red states, and also largely misrepresented on the news (esp. the articles linked on lemmy). Some is fair criticism though.
Also, your rhetoric here is just off the charts, so I don't think you're interested in a good faith discussion. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know and we can discuss the issues. But if you just want to rant, feel free to let it all out.
Sorry, the #GOP is banning Ranked Choice Voting. I had FptP stuck in my head for some reason.
And that's absolutely fine if you don't want to discuss anything, I'm more interested in the other people seeing thru your well-spoken bullshit.
This comment seems a lot more calm than the last, so I'll give it a shot. But if you lean into rhetoric, I'm out.
I haven't seen much evidence for this.
The Florida law that I think you're referring to merely requires schools to formalize the process for what books they put on shelves. Books were removed until that process was finished, and AFAIK there's no restriction on what citizens can purchase or what libraries can carry, the only restriction is that books in schools need to be age appropriate (and I'm sure you and I both disagree with conservatives on what that means) and relevant.
What I have seen is a lot of FUD from both sides about it, and it's alarming to me that people don't seem to see past the BS.
I think these are related, but again, it's hard to see through the rhetoric.
You can't murder through inaction, nor starve someone through inaction unless they're actually incarcerated. I'm not really sure what the first is referring to, so I'll focus on the second.
What you seem to be getting at here is the concept of positive rights. I personally reject positive rights in general, but I do think school lunches should be provided to all, but that's because we legally require attendance for enough hours that a meal break is needed. I think employers should also provide meals if they require shifts longer than 4 hours, or schedule shifts back to back with less than four hours in between. I think employees and students should be free to refuse the provided meals and receive monetary compensation instead.
However, I reject the notion of positive rights in general, and I think there's an interesting discussion to be had here.
This comes down to when you believe people get rights. The conservative position is that fetuses have human rights, and liberals seem to ignore fetal rights and focus on the rights of the mother.
My personal view is more nuanced:
I believe that balances the rights of the woman and the fetus. It doesn't make either side happy, but I do believe it is better than the status quo.
Both sides have a bad track record on immigration. The solution would be resolved if we just made legal immigration easier.
But I do agree, I think Trump's actions here were terrible, and every GOP candidate's position this year has been terrible.
I recall reading someone's proposal, but I forget who (I think it was someone from the GOP), but here it is:
On paper that sounds fair, though I'd need to see the details first.
I sure hope you're taking the piss because Republican governors have been banning all sorts of books that range from ones that teach about trans rights and climate change for some time.
I'm at work right now but if you want sources I can provide them it's just going to take a couple hours.
Moreover they've made it illegal to teach theories that the parents have an issue with obviously slanted towards stopping the education on evolution.
I understand that you may have your own values and that's fine but it doesn't change that the Republican party has been staunchly anti science and anti worker for the majority of recent history
Yeah, I would like to discuss examples of alleged book bans. There has been a lot of FUD from both sides about it, and I'm interested in having a discussion based on the facts of each case, not the clickbait titles and rhetoric.
Are you talking about CRT? My understanding is that teachers never actually taught CRT, at least at an elementary level, so this is just virtue signaling from Republicans and a chance for Democrats to "dunk" on them. AFAIK, very little, if anything, actually changed in how teachers teach throughout most of the country.
Likewise, the much contested changes to curriculum in Florida is again largely virtue signaling from both sides. I read through the curriculum, and it looks much like what I was taught in my very progressive school system. Granted, that was a long time ago, but it also doesn't seem to go against what we've discussed in my company's recent DEI meetings either (which I enjoyed).
Every time I actually like at the facts, both sides just seem ridiculous. The Florida curriculum doesn't "stop woke" (whatever that means), nor does it promote slavery apologism. And I'm pretty sure I'll find something similar in most cases.
Sure, but I don't mix my religious/moral values and my politics. I support policies that expand individual freedom, not policies that promote my personal worldview.
For example, I don't think anyone should use drugs, but I'll fight for drug legalization because I don't think that's the government's business. I don't understand trans people, nor do I think gender is actually distinct from sex (gender as described by progressives is largely a cultural thing imo), but I'll fight for trans people to be treated fairly. I think abortion is disgusting, but I'll fight for a woman to never be prosecuted for seeking an abortion, and I think there should be a safe medical path forward for a woman who does not want to keep the baby.
My values don't match either major party, nor do my policy preferences. So I pick whatever candidate I think is more liberty-minded and rational. Lately, that has been Democrats, but sometimes it's Republicans. It really depends on the election.
This is an interesting article that discusses that. Basically, it says both Democrats and Republicans reject scientific consensus, Republicans are just more systematic about it because they prioritize unity over scientific accuracy.
Democrats are better than Republicans here, at least lately, but that doesn't mean they're perfect. So don't just accept what a Democrat claims as true just because they claim scientific consensus. Likewise, don't reject what a Republican claims WRT science until you actually check the sources. There's a lot of interesting data that goes against the Democratic narrative especially WRT climate change, particularly in the urgency of their claims (politicians love to pile on the rhetoric and urgency).
I think it's more correct to say they're pro business. I live in a red state with very few worker protections, but that doesn't mean the legislature is "anti worker," they're just limiting the government's intrusion into the private sector. People are still free to form unions and whatnot, there just isn't state support for it.
As a worker, I wish we had a few more protections, but I think it's disingenuous to say my state is anti worker (and no, inaction isn't evidence of hostility).
No, I was talking specifically about teaching the theory of evolution in Florida and the law they passed which prevents theories from being taught if a parent complains about them and what's the only theory that parents are going to complain about why the theory of evolution. In several republican-leaning states so many books have been banned with so much educational value that librarians have had death threats for for refusing to comply from right-wing voters.
And the party routinely proposes and passes laws that give tax breaks to corporations bailouts you name it. All while repeatedly curtailing efforts to have any sort of safety nets for workers like better minimum wages, better access to food, better access to housing and better access to health care.
And you can say it's all in the name of fiscal responsibility but it's not it's been proven in front of them with their own numbers that socializing or health care system would not only increase quality but decrease cost. You know why it doesn't get done because their donors come from the medical insurance industry and it would stop lining their pockets.
Here's an article that goes through how evolution is taught in schools across the US. In essence, no state bans evolution, and most states explicitly require teaching it.
For Florida specifically (quote is from the above article, and here's an article about the mentioned standards):
I don't know if the recent (this year?) curriculum changes touch on evolution, but the federal court system has consistently held that states and public school districts cannot require intelligent design to be taught (see others in the "see also" section).
The most I've seen is that states can require mentioning alternatives to established theories, as in they need to demonstrate that there's rarely complete consensus in science and that new evidence can change even very established theories. To me that sounds very reasonable, provided the alternatives also have actual, scientific evidence for them.
Oh yeah, it's never been about that, that's just the excuse they give to sugarcoat it.
What they're actually interested in is stimulating the economy, meaning increasing stock valuations and reducing unemployment. Those look good and help them get reelected. If they focused on workers, that would reduce profits (and thus stock prices) and slow economic expansion (and this increase unemployment).
Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective. If you're a small business owner, investor, or specialized employee, it's great! If you're a blue collar worker that can easily be replaced, it's horrendous.
The fiscal responsibility bit is just an excuse to get people on board.
Democrats come at it from a different angle. They bill themselves as being socially responsible and protecting workers, but what this actually means is reducing corporate profits and consolidating workers into unions, because unions generally means votes. This means smaller businesses tend to suffer because the barrier to start a business gets higher (need to provide more benefits to workers), and they tend to cater to the interests of larger companies that want to entrench themselves. They do this by regulating industries, which again raises the barrier to entry for a new business. They also want the unemployed vote, hence all of the social programs for the poor. Unions don't need universal healthcare, UBI, etc, so they're not that motivated to reduce unemployment if they can cater to those displaced.
At least that's my perspective, but maybe I'm just jaded from years of disappointment from both sides of the aisle.
Then you're purposefully ignorant of what is going on in the country, especially the south, and not worth another moment of my time.
Bro could see nazis marching down the street and say he doesn’t see any evidence for rising antisemitism.
Lol I stopped reading after you said you haven't seen much evidence for book banning. That's next level head in the sand, spend literally 10 seconds in Google.
My point was that a lot of the media on both sides present a stronger view of what's going on than reality. Conservatives was to appear tough on culture war nonsense, and liberals want to dunk on conservatives for being anti-freedom.
A lot of what actually happens is much more mundane than either side wants you to believe.
And that's why I want to have a discussion about actual cases, to point out how mundane the changes usually are.
This whole "both sides" argument is weak. Conservatives being tough on culture war means passing crazy laws, banning books, and banning the education of certain topics. And the liberals what, are against that and start actual education without the government controlling what you can and can't learn/read.
What's actually happening isn't mundane. Laws are being passed that effect me and mine. They impact me, they're not just mundane laws.
If you think banning topics that can be taught in class, like learning about your period and what homosexuality even is, or that there was slavery in America is just mundane then you're part of them problem. Down playing actual damage being done is supporting the people who are doing the damage.
Are those actually banned? From what I can tell, those topics are merely delayed. For example:
It looks very similar to what I was taught in a very liberal part of the country (Seattle area). Sex ed was in 6th grade, and I don't recall specifically talking about sexual orientation or gender identity until high school.
The main issues I personally see are:
But any topic should be allowed, provided there's parental consent below some age (our sex ed was opt out in 6th grade). Maybe there should be a flyer around grade 4 that informs parents that it'll be covered by the school nurse if it comes up, unless parents opt out. I don't like state governments telling schools what they can't teach, that's what school choice is for, and I've heard Florida has a strong school choice culture.
So while I'm against the bills (which isn't relevant since I'm not a Florida resident), I don't think they're as disastrous as people claim.
Yes, look into what they are calling critical race theory. Some districts are putting topics such as slavery in the CRT bucket. And look at the things they are saying. The new curriculum included instruction for middle school students that "slaves developed skills which, in some instances, can be applied for their personal benefit." Are you kidding me?
But yes, they are delaying others, which is its own issue. A girl gets her period between the ages 10-15 on average. 6th grade is about 12 years old. I don't understand why they need to push this off at all? It's education about their body... Yes parents should teach their kids, but there should be general education around this BEFORE it happens, so kids know what to expect, especially if they have apathetic parents.
On sexual orientation I %100 agree, they are starting this at grade 9, which is 14-15, well into when people will already be in puberty and exploring sexuality. Including being confused about being gay. So again, why are we delaying education until people are already experiencing these things?
I disagree with this. I don't think a parent should be allowed to rob a child of a proper education. Things needed to be well-prepared adults ready to face the world should not be taken away based on a parent's (often time) radical beliefs that may not even align with the child's own world view.
They also do things like ban books, which again is just more delaying/removing of information, which is not what the education system should be doing. But I'm also against school choice, I don't think if you believe contraceptives are evil that you get to rob your child from educating them on what condoms and birth control are. The same way if they are a flat earther or religion they shouldn't be able to opt out of earth science or basic biology/evolution.
Is it the end of the world, no. But it very much looks like the start of a slippery slope.
Do you have an example? I can absolutely believe that some districts (particularly in N. Florida) would do that, but that seems to go against the actual curriculum standards that I've seen (linked below).
That really depends on how it's being taught. The outcry I've seen has been saying, "they're saying slavery was a good thing!", which doesn't fit with the rest of the curriculum. This statement comes from Page 6 of the curriculum, which looks at the types of duties that slaves performed. There are 32 other pages related to slavery, and this is merely a clarification. That slaves were able to use skills they gained in slavery to start a new life is absolutely true, and that process is a lot more complicated than that (the social network among black communities was arguably much more important). I think this also gives context to the hate crimes committed after emancipation.
I went through a very similar discussion in the past, complete with examples outlining why I think the media response here is overblown, using citations and whatnot.
The issue, I think, is that students aren't mature enough for a robust discussion about it, whereas they likely are at 6th grade. Boys usually don't hit puberty until 6th grade or later, so discussing it with them isn't appropriate when reproduction is pretty much the furthest thing from their mind.
That's why my issue is that it should be totally acceptable to discuss on a 1:1 basis with the school nurse, who is likely to handle any incidents that happen at school. Parents should be informed about that, and have the opportunity to handle it themselves.
And yeah, I think it's odd that sexual orientation/gender identity is delayed until 9th grade. That's quite easy to handle with a regular sex ed class, such as:
I'm sure there's a better way of putting that (I'm not trans or gay), but it seems like a natural segue to mention in a broader discussion about puberty. That should help students realize that maybe what they're feeling is different from what others feel, and that they should feel comfortable exploring that.
So yeah, a brief discussion on it seems appropriate around 6th or 7th grade, and perhaps go into more depth with the related social issues in higher grades.
As long as the parent is the legal guardian of the child, they should have a central role in what gets taught at school. If the parent consistently blocks important instruction, that could rise to the level of abuse, and at that point the authorities should get involved to change legal guardianship.
I also believe that, as kids get older, they should have more and more say in their own education. So I could see parental control over their kids' education completely ending at age 16, which is the point where kids can be tried as adults in many jurisdictions, and in some jurisdictions kids may choose to drop out of school.
However, I don't want to ever get into a situation where governments get complete control over what gets taught in schools. A parent screwing over their child sucks, but a government screwing over many kids is much worse.
Sure. Parents should be required to educate their children at home on any subjects they choose to take their child out of, and the child will need to pass an exam showing they have at least the minimum understanding of the material. Parents should then be given the material, and it's on them to teach their child sufficiently.
Are you against school choice generally, or just the way it has been implemented so far? One thing I don't like about current implementations is that it's on parents to transport their children to/from alternative schools, which means poorer households have less access because parents may not have the time or means to drop off and pick up their child.
How would you feel about this:
This allows schools to specialize to attract students, much like universities specialize.
Have my upvote. This post is getting hammered for the supreme sin of introducing nuance to a thread where everyone just wants to be righteously indignant. Most or us have parents who qualify as conservative, but not as evil. It's like that.
Yeah, and I think it's unfortunate. I feel I've been constructive and thorough, and my goal was simply to provide a different point of view to hopefully convince others to consider other perspectives and have a good discussion about it.
If there's something I did that isn't appropriate, I'd love to know about it.
It's not you. I don't want to say, "both sides", because one side is clearly worse than the other, but these people are becoming what they despise. If you look at the worst kinda quasi-religious hive-mind discourse they used to have on /r/TheDonald, and shift it left, it would look like this.
I'm kinda disappointed.
Exactly.
But my point here is that the GOP being "worse" (depending on policy, of course) doesn't make the Democratic Party "good," it just makes them "better" (again, depending on the policy).
And that's why I'm not registered with either major party, I vote differently based on the election. If I think we need to shift left or I have a really good option for a Dem, I'll vote Democrat. If I think we need a shift right and I have a really good option for a Rep, I'll vote Republican. Recently, I've been voting more Dem than Rep because I want to send a message that the current signaling just isn't acceptable. But I'll go back as soon as the MAGA nonsense goes away and we start getting good GOP candidates again.
When Democrats have control we get worker protections, affordable healthcare, civil rights protections, infrastructure investments, etc.
When Republicans are in charge we get nothing but corruption.
I loved the part where they couldn't actually refute most of your points & strawmanned some crap about marijuana instead. Also shows how they misunderstand how most civil infrastructure is actually paid for, i.e. federal grants.
Also, comparing a single city to an entire state is a completely fair assessment 🙄
Not necessarily.
I grew up in WA where we mostly wasted money on unfinished projects in downtown Seattle. There wasn't really any push for worker protections, affordable healthcare, etc at the local level, and just some lip service about "improving infrastructure" and whatnot. But we got recreational marijuana, so I guess that's nice.
I'm now in Utah, and we have way better rail infrastructure despite having far fewer people. A lot of that was from the Olympics, but the commuter rail (Frontrunner) came years later and was way safer Seattle's Sounder line and has way higher ridership (like 2-3x). We have plenty of other issues (e.g. notably regressions on trans issues), but in general, things work okay. I think Utah's UTA has done a better job than WA's Sound Transit in rolling out rail (e.g. light rail and commuter rail work together in Utah, in WA, they're completely separate systems).
There's a lot I miss from WA, and a lot I like about Utah, but the main common factor between them is the things I dislike are generally rammed through on party lines in both states, they're just different things each state rams through.
How's the fucking lake doing
If you're talking about the GSL, a lot better this year since we had good snowfall. If not, you need to clarify.
I live in Utah too and the thing you conveniently didn't mention of how the Mormon church literally runs this state. How numerous things the church doesn't like are outlawed or crazy restricted. Look at the alcohol laws, gambling laws, look at how a worship center is built next to ever school and they get free time every day to go worship during school hours, look at how the church has paid to overturn propositions that get a majority vote through lobbying. Look at the massive homeless problem that exists in a city that is quite literally built around a multi billion dollar religions main place of worship.
You complained about unfinished projects and stuff, I'll take that in a heartbeat.
Literally is a strong word. But they do have a lot of influence, and that's certainly a bad thing.
However, similar things happen elsewhere, but not to the same extent because usually power is split across multiple large organizations. The closest I can think of is Disney in Florida, which has gotten a lot of autonomy and sway that other organizations just don't have just because they're a huge employer and tourist destination.
But I do agree, I dislike how much power the church has, and I think a lot of our stupid policies get killed because of that interference, such as:
Are you talking about seminary buildings? I had one where I grew up outside of Utah (and no, I didn't grow up in AZ or ID where there's a huge LDS population). It's a practical matter so students can take their optional religious instruction during the day instead of before or after school. If it's not near schools, parents would need to take them to/from the seminary building, which means they'd basically be stuck with early morning religious classes.
My high school growing up was directly across from a Lutheran Church, which held a morning prayer circle and I think youth activities after school (or maybe during, I didn't ask). One of my friends and many of the students attended that church, and I remember getting mini New Testaments from someone from that church once/year.
I don't see any problem with students optionally taking religious instruction classes during the day, provided they're still able to meet the requirements for secular education. I didn't get any slack on graduation requirements (and my religious instruction didn't count for credits), so I had to take zero hour classes at the high school to make up for it (other students also took those to graduate early). That's how it should work. Imo, we should encourage this, and encourage more options for breaks in the day for other types of instruction, like apprenticeships, volunteer work, or anything else that's not appropriate for classroom instruction.
Utah generally has pretty reasonable laws, and we don't get most of the nonsense other red states have. However, we certainly have some glaring exceptions:
Yes, but Disney is just a company. Like the examples you gave, the church can just use it's money and people to kill anything.
Yes I am. I grew up on the east coast and never saw these. They are a huge problem, because they promote Mormonism by leveraging schools. I never see a seminary building for any other religion, just LDS. Which shows its not a public service to allow kids to worship, it's a tool to push that specific religion and normalize it as THE religion.
I agree on allowing breaks for many activities, but when you have worship centers for a specific religion slapped next to every school, that's a problem.
On the laws I agree. You mention a lot of really good ones. You forgot to mention a few that I think are silly as well. Such as the "This is a restaurant not a bar" nonsense and all the laws around that. The fact that the state decides what alcohol comes into the state. If they don't have something you want, too bad, you can't order it. The fact that Utah is joining the book banning wave but somehow thinks the Bible is appropriate for children. It's not.
Anyways, my point is, it's clear that Mormon values strongly steer, if not control, policies and the abilty for people to be heard when they vote. Again, I'll take failed civic/social projects over that any day.
At the start you said literally run is a strong term. Based on the things both you and I have shown, I stand behind my statement. If a group can overturn the will of the people, they run that state.
And that's essentially how religions work as well. The difference is that companies tend to be more involved in politics than religions. If you'll notice, the church in Utah doesn't get involved all that often in local politics, only when something it really cares about is contentious.
I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that Utah isn't as special as many detractors like to claim. Look at any state dominated by one industry and you'll find a lot of the same issues.
Then perhaps that should be more common.
The LDS seminary is much like a Bible study that many of my classmates would go to after school. It's much more than a worship session, there are tests, homework, and other aspects of a formal education, but the subject matter is religious texts, not secular texts. But the same goals apply: teaching students how to learn for themselves.
In college, I took a class on The Divine Comedy where we went in depth into a single volume. That's the secular equivalent of what we did in seminary, just with different subject matter.
I would love it if there were Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist centers near secular schools where kids could choose to take a class as a break from secular education (without compromising their secular education). I think it's really valuable to thoroughly understand the religion you profess to follow, and most people don't seem to get that far.
Yeah, that's part of the stupid alcohol laws. Add the Zion curtain to that list, which was fortunately repealed IIRC.
But I thought you could order whatever you wanted? Maybe it's just a request, and they'll only order it if enough people request it, but I've heard the state liquor stores here have a pretty good selection, aside from the glaring fact that you don't have any options outside of them (and they're not open on Sundays or holidays).
I don't drink, but if I could snap my fingers and change some laws, the alcohol laws would be near the top of that list. For a state with a large tourism industry, we do a bad job of actually catering to tourists.
Yeah, it's pretty dumb. However, I have heard that some of the LGBT books have gotten a pass where a heterosexual book wouldn't have been allowed for being too graphic, so maybe there's an argument here. However, they've likely gone too far (I haven't been keeping track of what the rules actually are).
I agree that religious texts probably shouldn't be in elementary school libraries. Kids just aren't mature enough to really understand that many of them are not historical stories, but allegories, and many stories are incredibly graphic. My 9yo is pretty bright (reads at a 6th grade level or so) and still has some issues distinguishing fiction and real life (even in obviously fictional stories like Harry Potter), and adding religion and history into the mix is a recipe for failure.
So either we should just let school libraries make the call, or we heavily curate what is available based on objective standards. I lean toward the former, but as long as there's consistency, I don't mind too much, provided the restrictions only apply to school libraries (i.e. my local city library is free to have whatever books patrons want). But upper grade levels should have no such limits.
The same thing happens elsewhere though. As long as there's a simple majority for a given party, minority interests won't get much attention. I think the whole notion of geographical voting systems screws everything up because whatever party that's in power gets to rig the system.
I'm interested in exploring proportional representation, especially in smaller states like Utah where it's really easy to completely lock out minority parties. That would also help even out state legislatures so things like ballot initiatives would be less likely to be corrupted.
But AFAIK, no state has implemented proportional representation, and few have effective controls against gerrymandering.
The thing that bothers me more than most of this though is the stupid legislation that age gates porn and social media, which is a huge privacy violation that's just going to end in breaches. I think it's incredibly short-sighted, and it might be enough to get me to run for office. I'm incredibly lazy though (and I have young kids, so time is limited too), but if that doesn't get overturned in the courts, I'll probably run against my state house rep (who had been unopposed since I moved to this district).
I thought Bernie Sanders was a democratic socialist?
Just in case you aren't trolling, this Article is about Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, the Governess of Arkansas. Bernie Sanders is the senior Senator from Vermont.
Find Bernie Sanders in that photo above, or anywhere in the article that’s linked.
No. You're the once who wants this. You do it.
Lmao
/s
Right?
Insert Natalie Portman Star Wars meme
This is how liberty dies?