First Debate Thoughts

  • What did we do to deserve this?
  • Judged as as pure debate, Clinton “won” as far as that goes. You can tell because the conservative blogs are calling it a draw. She didn’t get rattled. She appeared almost human. Her answers were coherent if alarming. Trump held his own for thirty minutes. But, as I suspected, having a one-on-one debate meant his catch phrases began to wear thin after a while. His ignorance of policy and his tendency to shaft other people kept coming back up. Trump avoiding rising to Clinton’s bait a few times, but he did bite more than once and was on the defensive a lot. This is was clearly intentional from Clinton because the one thing we know about Trump is that he can. not. let. anything. go.
  • That said, I don’t know how much of a difference it will make. Trump has been exposed as a lair, a fraud and a policy ignoramus for months now. His core supporters simply do not care. They either despise Clinton more or cling to the strange belief that he will trash the system without also trashing the country. He could literally have spent the entire 90 minutes masturbating and they wouldn’t have cared.
  • I thought Holt did an OK job. He mainly let the candidates go at each other, which is a format I prefer. There’s been some criticism of him for not going after Clinton (bringing up Benghazi, etc.). There’s legitimacy in that. It seemed odd to press Trump on his support for the Iraq while ignoring the woman who voted for it. But … most of the things that put Trump on the defensive were brought up by Clinton. Trump punched back a few times, making Clinton talk about the e-mail scandal. But he spent so much time trying to weasel about his tax returns, his bankruptcies, his birtherism that he wasn’t able to push her on other issues.
  • I suspect Trump will do better in the next debate because Conway will make sure he stays on the offensive.
  • What was with the sniffing? Based on the internet speculation about Clinton, I’m going to assume that Trump has Ebola.
  • Trump has already surrendered much of the conservative agenda. Among other things, he called for massive investments in “infrastructure”, mandated paid parental leave, restricted trade and more gun control.
  • In fact, I challenge anyone to go through that debate transcript and find anything either candidate said about basic freedoms. The subjects of mass surveillance, the War on Drugs and mass incarceration weren’t touched on. Foreign wars were barely mentioned and the only in the past tense. Obamacare wasn’t really addressed. Regulation wasn’t really addressed. What this came down to was which candidate is most qualified to tighten the screws on our liberty.

Comments are closed.

  1. FPrefect89

    One, I didn’t watch it as I had to work.  And based off your last point I am glad I didn’t as my vote would not have changed from not voting for either of them and voting for Johnson.

    //

    Thumb up 2

  2. West Virginia Rebel

    Trump held his own but didn’t land any knockout blows and was on defense especially when it came to his business…Hillary was programmed and totally rehearsed.  Trump’s best moments came when he talked about how Democrats have ruined the cities & smacked down Lester Holt over the birther BS. Seriously, that’s still an issue?

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    I can say I wasn’t surprised by the usual. It was 2 against one, and it still was even. Sad that these are our choices, but that’s what we are stuck with.

    Thumb up 0

  4. Hal_10000 *

     Trump’s best moments came when he talked about how Democrats have ruined the cities & smacked down Lester Holt over the birther BS. 

    You mean by lying his ass off about both issues?

    Thumb up 3

  5. CM

    Not much of what Trump said made any sense. As I said elsewhere it was like watching a lady going to visit her father in a dementia home. She tried to have serious discussions about the future but all he was able to manage was incoherent ramblings. He could complete a sentence. Some was just bizarre – she’s been fighting ISIS her entire adult life? Is she in her 20’s? But this is where you guys (America) are now – the hate for Hillary is so great that many of you are willing to stoop THIS low. A sane person wouldn’t put that guy in charge of a single thing.

    So I guess nobody has to ever pay to stay in a Trump hotel ever again, all they need to say is that they weren’t satisfied.

    Thumb up 2

  6. Iconoclast

    But this is where you guys (America) are now – the hate for Hillary is so great that many of you are willing to stoop THIS low. A sane person wouldn’t put that guy in charge of a single thing.

    A sane person wouldn’t put either one of these idiots in charge of anything.  But this is the choice we have.  In many cases, it ain’t a question of “stooping” — that you insist on framing it that way is very telling.  It’s obvious that Hillary is your bitch.  She will continue to destroy this country from within, which seems to be just fine by you.

    For what it’s worth, I have resigned myself to the fact that she is our next POTUS, and that our decline into the dustbin of History will continue to accelerate under her watch.  It’s a shame, really, but what are ya gonna do?  Domestic Islamic terrorism will continue to be the new normal, and will increase, while our government continues to pretend it doesn’t exist.  At 57 years of age, I might be gone before the shit really starts hitting the fan.  Or so I hope.

     

    Thumb up 0

  7. Iconoclast

    Y’all really need to consider changing the name of this site.  The only likes in this thread are 1) someone saying he’s voting Libertarian, 2) someone accusing Trump of lying, and 3) CM telling us that Trump is demented.

    I mean, seriously?   The Trump-hate is so strong here that it overshadows just how utterly despicable Hillary is.  But there I go again, “stooping”.  Or some such.

    Thumb up 2

  8. Santino

    A sane person wouldn’t put that guy in charge of a single thing.

    I think it’s more of a reflection on Hilary than it is on the mindset of the voter.  You’re letting her off the hook too easily.  She’s a shitty candidate, this should be a cake-walk for her.

    Thumb up 0

  9. richtaylor365

    Y’all really need to consider changing the name of this site.  The only likes in this thread are 1) someone saying he’s voting Libertarian, 2) someone accusing Trump of lying, and 3) CM telling us that Trump is demented.

    Exactly right and spot on, the main reason I find myself visiting here less and less. Notice all the “Trump is a yada yada yada” above, Hal always lets his liberal slip show in posts like this, that whole leopard/spots thing. I always like Trump a bit more after reading stuff from our resident leftists (still not moving the needle very much).

    Thumb up 1

  10. Iconoclast

    What did we do to deserve this?

    Well, we have spent an enormous amount of energy marginalizing God, doing our utmost to convince people He doesn’t exist, is just a fairy tale, etc. etc.   We’ve spent decades slaughtering our unborn by the untold millions, in the name of “choice”.  We have relentlessly advanced a LBGTABCDEFGXYZ agenda, to the point of allowing men who “identify” as women full access to women’s bathrooms, showers, etc.  We’ve mercilessly harangued anyone who protested, calling them “homophobe”, “racist”, “Islamophobe”, “sexist”, and any other -ist or -phobe we could conjure up.

    And so on.

     

    Thumb up 0

  11. richtaylor365

    And so on.

    How about electing leaders that are not only clueless about American Exceptionalism but forget the great deeds and influence we have had thru out the world for the last 200 years and go to the “blame America first” well out of sheer laziness? These same leaders that think leading from behind is a real strategy, that abandons America’s role as champion of freedom and guarantor of the global order, and that forgets that bad things happen when a benevolent superpower stands idly by.

    How about creating a generation of whinny crybabies ill equipped to deal with real life adversities, that cling to their safe spaces because true diversity (diversity of thoughts and ideas) is repugnant to them?

    How about forgetting one of Reagan’s basic tenants, that a nation without borders is NOT a nation at all?

    How about creating a welfare state so massive and onerous to those ever dwindling producers (workers that actually pay taxes) that the very idea of a work ethic and value in hard work, these are laughed at by many and considered antiquated?

    This once great nation is a shell of it’s former self, riddled with debt, financially unsound, graduating dumber kids that can’t compete globally, allowing it’s very character to be strangled by political correctness. It is barely recognizable now and will be totally unrecognizable after Hillary.

     

     

    Thumb up 1

  12. Hal_10000 *

    Hal always lets his liberal slip show in posts like this, that whole leopard/spots thing.

    So opposing a big-government shyster who makes the Clintons look honest is being liberal now.  Interesting. Everything you list above Trump will make far far worse. But pointing that out is liberal. Gotchya.

    Thumb up 4

  13. CM

    So opposing a big-government shyster who makes the Clintons look honest is being liberal now.  Interesting

    Yeah there is very little sense here now. Because: Hillary. And because moochers and heathens and foreign policy realists. You really should have just stolen all the oil Hal.

    Hillary is sane, knowledgeable, intelligent, curious, articulate, and coherent – as evidenced in the debate. She also showed no signs of ill-health. She shares SOME negatives with Trump for sure but there is only one of them that is even close to being a viable contender for the position of US President.

    http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/yee-haw-my-vote-cancels-out-yalls-11030

    Thumb up 0

  14. Hal_10000 *

    Hillary is sane, knowledgeable, intelligent, curious, articulate, and coherent – as evidenced in the debate.

    I wouldn’t go that far.  As I said in my anti-Clinton post, she’s advocating a very big government agenda and has shown no ability to learn from past mistakes.  Trump is the only thing that makes her even remotely palatable and she’s not palatable to me.  A normal GOP candidate would be crushing her.

    Thumb up 1

  15. CM

    I wouldn’t go that far.  As I said in my anti-Clinton post, she’s advocating a very big government agenda

    Which one wasn’t in evidence? I was deliberately leaving policy out of it for just a second. And it’s really policy desire – she’d get hardly any of it actioned in reality (just as Obama didn’t in his first 2 years). Would likely be the same for Trump. So on that basis you’re left with those attributes being more important. If you can’t even be bothered being prepared for a 90 minute debate how on earth are you going to do anything to be prepared for 2,102,400 minutes as President? Not that it matters to anyone who is in the Trump camp at this point. If you’re in that camp now, you clearly just don’t give a flying fuck about any of those attributes.

    http://25logicalreasonstovotefordonaldtrump.com/

    Thumb up 0

  16. richtaylor365

    So opposing a big-government shyster who makes the Clintons look honest is being liberal now.

    No, what makes you liberal (reducto ad absurdum Hal never disappoints) is calling the Clintons honest, describing Trump as a big government shyster (in comparison to another big government shyster) and misidentifying your blatant one sided critique of the first debate as me criticizing your “opposition”, ridiculous.

    Gotchya

    If history is any indication, no, you don’t.

     

    Thumb up 0

  17. Hal_10000 *

    No, what makes you liberal (reducto ad absurdum Hal never disappoints) is calling the Clintons honest,

    I have never ever called the Clintons honest.  I said Trump makes them look honest.  You see, this is called irony.  You take someone who is fundamentally dishonest and compare an even more dishonest person to them to demonstrate how dishonest the second party is.  See how it works now?

    describing Trump as a big government shyster (in comparison to another big government shyster)

    Trump is a big government shyster.  He has conceded every point — mandated family leave, gun control, entitlement reform, minimum wage — everything.  In the past, he’s supporter tax hikes and single payer. And he’s going beyond that with all manner of liberty-crushing proposals, like torture. If there is any fixed star in Donald Trump’s politics, it’s that he thinks government needs to be more powerful.

    one sided critique

    Only in your reflexive Democrat-hating mind.  Note my last point where I said both were terrible on policy.  I criticized Trump more because he had a terrible debate and Clinton didn’t.  I have been laying out my criticisms of the Clintons for Nine. Fucking. Years. Your problem is that I’m not blinded enough by Clinton rage to not see that Trump just as bad if not worse.

    Thumb up 5

  18. RonK

    interesting thread,

    take Trump’s name and replace it with Clinton(either or), and you can run it a second time, both Trump, and The Clinton’s are the same candidate, no difference between them.

    Thumb up 1

  19. richtaylor365

    this is called irony

    Which you really suck at, BTW. Now if you did what CM did, calling her competent in comparison, that I could understand. But you take Hillary’s number one liability, honesty, then say that she is in fact honest by comparison to Trump. Wow, utter fail.

     He has conceded every point — mandated family leave, gun control, entitlement reform, minimum wage — everything

    So by using the word “concede”, you are in fact admitting that Hillary went there first, yet Trump is the big government shyster, pot, meet kettle.

    Only in your reflexive Democrat-hating mind

    No reflects involved, I see what they do and listen to what they say, then evaluate from there, something you should try.

     Your problem is that I’m not blinded enough by Clinton rage to not see that Trump just as bad if not worse

    Your problem is that I am not blinded enough by Trump rage, that solved a lot. As for Trump being  bad, I think my half dozen posts lambasting Trump puts that nonsense to bed. Where we differ is the “if not worse” debate. And if not worse for who? Many of your complaints like his views on torture and his aversion to certain civil liberties, he has no real power to change or would be impotent to change in the face of judicial review or public outcry. But Hillary’s dismissal of civil liberties, like the 1st and 2nd Amendment already has precedent within the current administration, so she poses the bigger danger.

     

    Thumb up 0

  20. CM

    If we set aside the negative qualities they both share, you’re left with a single candidate who is ready and able to fulfill the role. One genuinely seems to care about knowledge and preparation (and like Obama is far more of a pragmatist than a socialist), the other couldn’t give a shit and doesn’t even try to hide it and has never done anything other than wing it with whatever comes into his brain at that moment (some of which illustrates contempt for well over half the population he says he wants to represent).

    Going back to the ‘lying’ negative quality they DO share, the debate seem to consistently track the amount of lies they’ve told during campaigning…..Trump at about 70% and Clinton at about 15%. That’s no accounting for the size of the lie and the ramifications of it of course.

    Many of your complaints like his views on torture and his aversion to certain civil liberties, he has no real power to change or would be impotent to change in the face of judicial review or public outcry. But Hillary’s dismissal of civil liberties, like the 1st and 2nd Amendment already has precedent within the current administration, so she poses the bigger danger.

    Can you give some examples of what Hillary might be able to achieve, based on what Obama has managed to do (in terms of curtailing 1st and 2nd Amendment liberties)? Honest question.

    Thumb up 2

  21. richtaylor365

    Honest question.

    Nice try, and if we didn’t know you better (or for someone unaware of your track record) this might seem innocuous. For someone who claims to keep himself informed on American politics you should know exactly how Clinton feels about the 1st Amendment;

    Specifically on  Citizens UnitedMore on this;

    With the possible exceptions of John Adams and Woodrow Wilson, there might never be a president more hostile to freedom of speech than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton has promised, if elected, to introduce a constitutional amendment within her first month in office that would effectively repeal the First Amendment by overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v FEC decision from 2010.

    In addition, the DNC calls upon Democrats to “condemn hate speech that creates a fertile climate for violence.” It is essentially guaranteed that, within a few years’ time, the “condemnation” of “hate speech” will progress to demands for an outright prohibition. Progressives in Europe have already done it; progressives in America are assuredly not far behind.

    Even more proof

     

    http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/07/hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-vs-free

    Hillary Clinton doesn’t like her opponents funding documentaries that criticize her, so she demands Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision that allows it.

    —-

    Hillary Clinton is a lawyer, so you’d think she would have a more sophisticated view of free speech. But she doesn’t.

    As for the 2nd Amendment, specifically Heller 

     

    And on making guns prohibitively expensive and allowing victims to sue gun manufacturers.

    Of course you could google Hillary/free speech or Hillary/gun rights and find a dozen more links on each.

    But again, you knew this all anyway, didn’t you?

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  22. Iconoclast

    In addition, she will load up Federal courts (including the SCOTUS) with liberal, activist judges who will consistently vote against our Constitutional rights.

    But CM also knew that already.  Or he should have, if he wants to continue pretending to be such an “unbiased” “expert” in American politics.

    Thumb up 2

  23. Iconoclast

    Hillary is sane, knowledgeable, intelligent, curious, articulate, and coherent…..

    Just like Obama.  Just like most politicians, and maybe that’s the point.  You and Hal keep banging on about how utterly retarded/stoned/dysfunctional/brain-damaged Trump is, but maybe that’s a feature, and not a bug.  We’ve tried “sane, knowledgeable, intelligent, curious, articulate, and coherent”, and are less than thrilled with the results.

    I don’t expect Hal or CM to get it.  They’re too Marxdamned smart. Only us morons, who “clearly just don’t give a flying fuck about any of those attributes“, get it.

    People originally thought Reagan was a dangerous moron, too. (Cue indignant “Trump Is No Reagan” howls-of-anguish response)

    Thumb up 1

  24. Starving Writer

    A lot of you seem to be missing the fact that Hal_10000 is not planning on voting for Hillary or Trump.  Hillary is a horrible, corrupt candidate who shouldn’t be trusted within a thousand miles of a management position.  Trump is somehow even worse than Hillary.  And yet, barring a miracle, one of them is going to be the President of the USA.

    Thumb up 3

  25. CM

    Yes I’m aware of those positions, thanks. My question was how would she actually achieve anything meaningful (and perhaps you can use some examples from Obama?). All via executive orders?

    Iconoclast, how would ‘better’ decisions be made by someone without those attributes? Isn’t that similar to not liking how a guy is painting your house and so replacing him with a blind guy who has no arms or paint?

    Thumb up 1

  26. richtaylor365

    . My question was how would she actually achieve anything meaningful 

    Oh FFS

    Did you bother to at least glance at the links provided (they answered your question), or is it just more fun to type ,”please provide this” without all the work of looking it up or actually reading it yourself?

    Thumb up 0

  27. CM

    Ok so it must be that you believe a constitutional amendment (overturning Citizens United) would actually have sufficient support to be successful. And the same for outlawing ‘hate speech’? 

    The Supreme Court appointment also needs to be confirmed. We can see from what has happened this year that a confirmation hearing can just be delayed for no good reason.

    How would she enact a 25 percent sales tax on handguns (something your article said she hasn’t even said she supported)? Same thing with background checks and the idea of making gun makers and sellers liable for guns which end up being used in crimes….in reality how plausible is it that she’d get ANYWHERE?

    None of your links address the issue of whether she’d be able to get anywhere with any of it.

    Thumb up 1

  28. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast, how would ‘better’ decisions be made by someone without those attributes?

    Well, the point is that it’s a false dichotomy.  Trump may not be articulate (to your liking), but that doesn’t mean he isn’t intelligent. And just because you claim Hillary is “sane”, it doesn’t mean she objectively is sane.  My quoting you was sheer mockery, just to be clear — again, it’s a false dichotomy.  You can pretend that all Trump supporters “clearly just don’t give a flying fuck about any of:  ‘sane’, ‘knowledgeable’, ‘intelligent’, ‘curious’, ‘articulate’, and ‘coherent'”, but that’s just your hate-filled, broad-brush opinion.  Like I said earlier, Hillary is your bitch, and you can have her.

    Like I have said before, Trump, a least, acts like he cares about issues I personally consider to be important.  Whether he really does is, admittedly, a crap shoot.  But I know damned well that Hillary is my fucking enemy.  She has said as much herself.  I know damned well that she will do whatever she can to further erode my rights, freedoms and liberties, while continuing to weaken the USA.  With The Donald, there is a teeny tiny glimmer of hope that the erosion and weakening will be less severe;  I don’t have even that with Hillary.

    But I really really really don’t expect you to understand.  You’re too busy judging us and being super-smart in general to bother yourself with such mundane pursuits as giving a flying fuck.  I have already stated that Hillary is our next POTUS; ain’t that enough for you to masturbate over?

    Isn’t that similar to not liking how a guy is painting your house and so replacing him with a blind guy who has no arms or paint?

    On your planet, I am quite sure it’s precisely like that.  That I see things differently is as obvious as it is irrelevant, from your perspective; that you would even use such an analogy pretty much illustrates your judgmental preconceptions, and the utterly irrelevance of my viewpoint.

     

    Thumb up 2

  29. richtaylor365

    Supreme Court decisions can be overturned without  something as radical as a constitutional amendment (although that has been done 24 different times in our history), SCOTUS can (and has) overturned it’s own decisions in the past. Sodomy laws, anti-miscegenation laws, the Citizens United ruling overturned another SCOTUS ruling, even the Exclusionary Rule ( a valuable pillar of the 4th Amendment) was changed with Mapp vs. Ohio, overturning a prior SCOTUS ruling.

    The next president will have at least one SCOTUS vacancy to fill, and probably 3. Even one more liberal judge will skew the court towards what I consider a very dangerous direction. As we have seen throughout our history, pack the courts with like minded (loyal) foot soldiers and you can get pretty much any outcome you want. Look at Obama Care, 70 changes so far, and that is with a sympathetic president and Supreme Court, just what would happen with someone hostile?

    We are currently seeing individual states erode both Citizens and Heller, state constitutions are changed, then challenges to these changes are heard by federal judges (Hillary appointees), then in time these decisions are sent to SCOTUS for review, that is the roadmap.

    So, to answer your question of how plausible is it that she will get anywhere, the answer is very plausible.

    Thumb up 0

  30. Hal_10000 *

    We’ve tried “sane, knowledgeable, intelligent, curious, articulate, and coherent”, and are less than thrilled with the results.

    When it was Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton we were.  We’ve only had one President remotely like this before and his record was wrecking the economy and murdering half the Cherokee nation.  The case for Trump rests almost entirely on the idea that he will appoint more conservative justices than Clinton.  I am unconvinced of this, given some of the names he’s been floating and the policies he wants them to approve.

    Thumb up 3

  31. AlexInCT

    So opposing a big-government shyster who makes the Clintons look honest is being liberal now.

    Was this an attempt at some kind of joke? Because if you really believe this bullshit you are the one that is in dire need of some psychological help dude. Hillary Clinton is probably one of the few people I would not hesitate to label as not only a megalomaniac, but downright evil.

    If you purposely ignore the fact that she has spent her entire existence fucking over people, whether on her own or with the help of others, and has done it on a global scale, too often just for personal profit or to watch someone else squirm, and ignore the plethora of horrible failures and criminal acts she is involved with, and maybe focus on nothing but a few cherry picked media clips and reports, you might think this woman is anything but a monster.

    Thumb up 1

  32. AlexInCT

    The case for Trump rests almost entirely on the idea that he will appoint more conservative justices than Clinton.

    No, the case for Trump is that despite the fact that he is a buffoon and probably will make a piss-poor president, he is not a member of the worlds most evil and corrupt criminal organization – the DNC, which somehow has managed to surpass even the evil from the UN these days in its anti-Americanism and global disruption efforts – and better yet, not one of its downright US hating and destructive capo families: the Obamas or the Clintons.

    Thumb up 1

  33. Iconoclast

    The case for Trump rests almost entirely on the idea that he will appoint more conservative justices than Clinton.  I am unconvinced of this, given some of the names he’s been floating and the policies he wants them to approve.

    Assuming you’re correct for the sake of argument, there is still the tiniest glimmer of hope that he will choose conservative(ish) justices. That miniscule, tiny, microscopic, almost negligible glimmer of hope Does. Not. Exist. on the Clinton side.

    And that’s what this election cycle has come down to, a teeny, tiny, microscopic, sub-atomic-particle-sized, almost imperceptible glimmer of hope.  That’s all we fucken’ got, and I, for one, am sick to death of being judged by snarky kiwi asswipes and super-duper-smart scientists for clinging to that one, teeny, tiny glimmer of hope, knowing that it’s in fucking vain anyway.  How many times to I have to repeat that Hillary is the next POTUS??????  FFS.

    Thumb up 2

  34. richtaylor365

    How many times to I have to repeat that Hillary is the next POTUS??????  FFS.

    Although I have said the same thing many times on this blog, a path does exist for a Trump upset, and if we’ve learned anything about this election so far it is that anything can happen. Yeah, a well prepared well versed Hillary, with the FBI, Justice, and the MSM running interference for her does seem indomitable, but you would have to ignore certain elements. Her health, her arrogance, her record, her history, and her hacked and leaked emails, any one of these could knock her on her ass before election day.

    Of course a Trump mea culpa along the lines of ,”I’ve been a business man and an entertainer most of  adult life and in those venues a certain flamboyance and bluster is necessary to enhance the brand. Politics is different and I am learning that every day. In the past I have said some hurtful, reactionary and not well thought out comments as a means to promote myself, a businessman and entertainer can do this, a civil servant/leader who works for the people can’t, I understand this now. But make no mistake, my love for this country, the freedoms that it offers, it’s greatness and good, and it’s potential for excellence, that has never wavered. This country is being ruined by political correctness and self serving politicians who care only for ever increased power and remuneration. If elected I will change that dynamic and give the power back to the people. My message has resonated and I am humbled by their support. I know we have a lot of work to do to make America great again, and with your help we can do it. I pledge today to subordinate my pride, my ego, and my interests to that goal. America and it’s values first, Donald Trump second”, this would go a long way in giving him at least a fighting chance, that and maybe convincing the millions of conservatives like myself to pull the lever for him.

    Thumb up 0

  35. AlexInCT

    You think the democrats are worried about the coming election? I think this is all a Kabuki dance, because as one of their folk heroes said a long time ago:

    It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

    Get used to it. We have become a banana republic courtesy of that fundamental change we were promised and so many idiots fell for.

    Thumb up 0