Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1229230232234235694

Comments

  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    I think this would be a terribly difficult problem for even a skilled negotiator. The EU has no real reason to work with the UK; that would just encourage other states to leave the union. By not working with the UK, it demonstrates its stronger bargaining position and shows what happens to countries who try to leave the union while still preserving the benefits of remaining: embarrassment for the folks in charge and no good options for an exit deal.

    You can always leave the union unilaterally; the EU can't stop you from doing that. They don't really control you in that sense. But you need their cooperation if you want to keep any perks, and they don't have to give it to you. The UK is perfectly free to leave, but it doesn't have the bargaining power to avoid suffering the costs of leaving.

    In retrospect, it was unrealistic to expect a smooth and pain-free exit from the union.
    ThacoBellWarChiefZekeGrond0FinneousPJ
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Trump's was larger but without California he would have won the popular, he lost the national popular by less votes than what he lost California alone by. That state would have decided the election in spite of the vast majority of states being Pro-Trump and that's the sort of thing I specifically find objectionable in a large republic like ours.

    Consider that California is the US state with the most Americans. If you have to discount the place where most Americans live to get the result you want, that's probably not the best argument. I tend to agree with the rest of your post.

    As I think I mentioned before Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is, at age 29, the youngest member of Congress. She's lived through exactly one presidential election where Republicans won the nationwide popular vote.

    She shares this distinction with every American under the age of 30. In 2022, assuming that Trump does not become the second Republican in AOC’s lifetime to win the popular vote, there will be young voters who’ve never lived through an election in which a Republican president won the popular vote.

    This is why people are talking about changing it now.
    ThacoBell
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    @smeagolheart: We've mentioned that last part very recently. Again, let's let our existing points stand as they are; we don't need to repeat our points.
    WarChiefZeke
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,651
    And again, i'm content with all that i've said and have nothing really left to add. We can agree to disagree at this point.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited March 2019
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
    TakisMegassemiticgoddessBalrog99
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited March 2019
    I don't know how many times I warned this would be the INEVITABLE result of this crackdown, but here it is. Nearly 100 US citizens being unlawfully detained by ICE after their jail sentences ended because they were believed to be undocumented:

    https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-ne-ice-detainers-aclu-report-20190320-story.html
    semiticgoddessThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    edited March 2019
    semiticgod wrote: »
    I think this would be a terribly difficult problem for even a skilled negotiator. The EU has no real reason to work with the UK; that would just encourage other states to leave the union. By not working with the UK, it demonstrates its stronger bargaining position and shows what happens to countries who try to leave the union while still preserving the benefits of remaining: embarrassment for the folks in charge and no good options for an exit deal.

    Yeah but the EU is going to be hurt by Brexit - especially a no-deal Brexit. So they very much do have a reason to work with the UK - to work toward making it not happen... The idea that they would rather make an example of the UK, and eat the consequences, is frankly insane.

    Like I said: Europeans should be looking for ways to become more like the US, not more like 19th-century Europe.

    They wanted to leave the Union. It's not on the rest of us to bend over backwards to accommodate them. Would you let California secede without any consequences?
    Grond0
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    FinneousPJ wrote: »

    They wanted to leave the Union. It's not on the rest of us to bend over backwards to accommodate them. Would you let California secede without any consequences?

    I thiiiiiink we fought a war the last time that happened, although I'd really hate for that to be the result with Brexit.

    I take your point and totally agree, though. It's a weird dichotomy that your first position needs to be to keep the union together, and your second position needs to be to make sure the wounds from leaving are significant enough to dissuade anyone else from trying.

    I don't envy the British or the EU in this situation. I really do think May was placed in an unwinnable position. It's entirely fair to judge her over this process, but maybe not so much by the result. Shades of the Kobayashi Maru.
    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    FinneousPJ wrote: »

    They wanted to leave the Union. It's not on the rest of us to bend over backwards to accommodate them. Would you let California secede without any consequences?

    I thiiiiiink we fought a war the last time that happened, although I'd really hate for that to be the result with Brexit.

    I take your point and totally agree, though. It's a weird dichotomy that your first position needs to be to keep the union together, and your second position needs to be to make sure the wounds from leaving are significant enough to dissuade anyone else from trying.

    I don't envy the British or the EU in this situation. I really do think May was placed in an unwinnable position. It's entirely fair to judge her over this process, but maybe not so much by the result. Shades of the Kobayashi Maru.

    I don't know whether you meant me personally, but I am not advocating punitive measures (wounds). I'm just saying if you want to leave the union you had better be ready to start at square 1, there are no free lunches.
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    I agree she's been in a very difficult position, but I think it's fair to say she's not performed that well and is largely responsible for the current mess. From very early on she set down 'red lines' about the future relationship she wanted with the EU. That was not necessary for the negotiation and was done in an attempt to placate the hard-line Brexiteers in her party - though that has failed to work. Since then she's spent over 2 years following a policy that is popular with no-one, hoping that eventually people would accept it purely on the grounds the alternative was worse.

    It's been clear for a long time now that there was not a majority either in the country or in Parliament for a hard-line Brexit. Up until pretty recently it would have been possible for her to change tack and, instead of treating this as a party political issue, seek a cross-party consensus (as many other countries have done). That would have been likely to split the Conservative party, but it's arguably an important enough issue to justify treating it as apolitical. And of course, despite her attempts to hold it together, the Conservatives are still likely to split anyway over this issue (given there will be years to come now of arguing about the future relationship with the EU, irrespective of whether an exit deal is done or not).

    To provide a bit of balance I'll mention that Corbyn has taken an equally narrow line - he's concentrated his efforts on promoting disagreements in an attempt to get a general election (rather than trying to solve the problem). However, it's May who has been controlling the process, so she's the only one who's had the real opportunity to steer it differently.
    Mantis37
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    edited March 2019
    FinneousPJ wrote: »
    I'm just saying if you want to leave the union you had better be ready to start at square 1, there are no free lunches.

    I agree with this. Part of the logic of forming the EU in the first place was that it would make relationships between countries not just more amicable (preventing future wars for instance), but also more efficient. Although there's lots of complaints about EU bureaucracy, I think the reality is that has happened. There is a bit more awareness in the UK than there was a few years ago about some of the work that would need to be done in the absence of the EU (things like customs processes, medicine control, transport links, security co-operation, migration control, reciprocal social security, chemical regulation, financial licensing, energy inter-connectors, competition rules, EU research programs, international agreements etc etc). The costs of setting up independent processes for all these will eliminate any gains from no longer paying in to the EU budget even before you consider the likely losses from reductions in trade.

    The EU doesn't need to punish the UK - simply make clear that it can't get the same benefits outside the Union than it could inside. That really should be obvious to everyone, even though there certainly are plenty of politicians who've promised you can have your cake and eat it.
    Skatan
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    And again, i'm content with all that i've said and have nothing really left to add. We can agree to disagree at this point.

    I don't want to go over this either and think it's a fine place to drop it but your last comments seem to have brought up a new issue in that it seems like you think Americans in the state with the most people should not have a say in who gets elected.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    And again, i'm content with all that i've said and have nothing really left to add. We can agree to disagree at this point.

    I don't want to go over this either and think it's a fine place to drop it but your last comments seem to have brought up a new issue in that it seems like you think Americans in the state with the most people should not have a say in who gets elected.
    No; the argument is just that Americans in the state with the most people shouldn't have quite as much power as their population alone would otherwise grant them.
    WarChiefZeke
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    Grond0 wrote: »
    The Brexit debate continues to hot up. The big news yesterday was that Theresa May did a special interview making a point of blaming Parliament for the delays to date and appealing over the heads of MPs to the general public to support her proposed deal.

    Given many MPs already thought the blame for the delays has far more to do with May's negotiating tactics and continued attempts to avoid Parliament expressing a view, that didn't do much to heal the existing rift in relationships. That was exacerbated by May stating she would only ask the EU for an extension from the current 29th March date for leaving until 30th June. I suspect the EU will agree that extension, but make it conditional on Parliament supporting the negotiated deal - meaning it would not be possible for Parliament to take control of the process after the 29th March and impose their own solution.

    I think the options now are (in what I think is the order of the most probable, though the situation remains chaotic and hence very difficult to predict):
    1. Parliament refuses to agree May's deal and the UK leaves without a deal. I had been thinking there was a decent chance she could get her deal through next week with a fair number of previously solid opponents having recently agreed to support it as the cliff edge approached. However, I think the prospects have taken a hit as a result of her little speech yesterday.
    2. Parliament agrees May's deal and the UK leaves with a deal. Despite the heat and light just now, this is the only realistic alternative to no deal and many MPs are likely to feel they have to back it whatever their personal feelings.
    3. A rank outsider is that either May is replaced as PM or the government as a whole collapses. Even if this happened, it's unlikely to change the options, but it is just conceivable that the EU might be willing to change the terms of an extension (allowing the possibility of other alternatives to emerge) if there were a change of government in the next few days.
    4. As even more of a rank outsider, I'll mention the possibility of revoking article 50, i.e. withdrawing the notice to quit the EU. Up until today I would have said it was totally inconceivable that could happen without a second referendum - and such a referendum is not now possible unless there is a change of government. However, a petition on the Parliament's petitions website has been calling for that to happen for a while now. Now that it's obvious that other options are running out, a number of MPs and others have started promoting that and the numbers that have signed it have shot up past a million today, even though the surge has resulted in the website crashing for much of the day. For the petition to have a real effect it would need far more signatures than that though - to allow it to be used as an expression of democracy to set against the existing Brexit referendum result. I would guess it wouldn't be taken very seriously unless it got more like 10 million signatures - and that seems very unlikely to happen. The maximum number previously that have signed a petition is the 4m or so that asked for a second referendum on Brexit back in 2016. This petition will be drawing on effectively the same constituency, but will have to get a far greater proportion of them to sign in order to have an impact.

    I'm not entirely well versed in UK politics, but it looks to me like a no deal is becoming increasingly likely and that May is a terrible, terrible negotiator.

    We could lend Trump to the UK. He's a 'master' negotiator!
    Grond0smeagolheartSkatan
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Grond0 wrote: »
    The Brexit debate continues to hot up. The big news yesterday was that Theresa May did a special interview making a point of blaming Parliament for the delays to date and appealing over the heads of MPs to the general public to support her proposed deal.

    Given many MPs already thought the blame for the delays has far more to do with May's negotiating tactics and continued attempts to avoid Parliament expressing a view, that didn't do much to heal the existing rift in relationships. That was exacerbated by May stating she would only ask the EU for an extension from the current 29th March date for leaving until 30th June. I suspect the EU will agree that extension, but make it conditional on Parliament supporting the negotiated deal - meaning it would not be possible for Parliament to take control of the process after the 29th March and impose their own solution.

    I think the options now are (in what I think is the order of the most probable, though the situation remains chaotic and hence very difficult to predict):
    1. Parliament refuses to agree May's deal and the UK leaves without a deal. I had been thinking there was a decent chance she could get her deal through next week with a fair number of previously solid opponents having recently agreed to support it as the cliff edge approached. However, I think the prospects have taken a hit as a result of her little speech yesterday.
    2. Parliament agrees May's deal and the UK leaves with a deal. Despite the heat and light just now, this is the only realistic alternative to no deal and many MPs are likely to feel they have to back it whatever their personal feelings.
    3. A rank outsider is that either May is replaced as PM or the government as a whole collapses. Even if this happened, it's unlikely to change the options, but it is just conceivable that the EU might be willing to change the terms of an extension (allowing the possibility of other alternatives to emerge) if there were a change of government in the next few days.
    4. As even more of a rank outsider, I'll mention the possibility of revoking article 50, i.e. withdrawing the notice to quit the EU. Up until today I would have said it was totally inconceivable that could happen without a second referendum - and such a referendum is not now possible unless there is a change of government. However, a petition on the Parliament's petitions website has been calling for that to happen for a while now. Now that it's obvious that other options are running out, a number of MPs and others have started promoting that and the numbers that have signed it have shot up past a million today, even though the surge has resulted in the website crashing for much of the day. For the petition to have a real effect it would need far more signatures than that though - to allow it to be used as an expression of democracy to set against the existing Brexit referendum result. I would guess it wouldn't be taken very seriously unless it got more like 10 million signatures - and that seems very unlikely to happen. The maximum number previously that have signed a petition is the 4m or so that asked for a second referendum on Brexit back in 2016. This petition will be drawing on effectively the same constituency, but will have to get a far greater proportion of them to sign in order to have an impact.

    I'm not entirely well versed in UK politics, but it looks to me like a no deal is becoming increasingly likely and that May is a terrible, terrible negotiator.

    We could lend Trump to the UK. He's a 'master' negotiator!

    Well he has in fact offered May his advice - he told her to sue the EU rather than negotiate. I suspect he may not realize that such a case would end up in the European Court of Justice ...
    BallpointMan
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    May should have bowed out and resigned as soon as Brexit was made official. Her attempting to grasp onto power while this plays out is her own fault.

    She didn’t agree with Brexit, she should have handed the reins to a person that did (instead of letting them scuttle back to the rocks they’ve crawled out of) and let them be the face of this mess.
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    edited March 2019
    FinneousPJ wrote: »

    I don't know whether you meant me personally, but I am not advocating punitive measures (wounds). I'm just saying if you want to leave the union you had better be ready to start at square 1, there are no free lunches.

    Sorry. Yeah - that's what I meant. I was just using an off-color metaphor. I dont think the EU should seek to hurt the UK, but it shouldnt soften the end result necessarily, either.
    deltago wrote: »
    May should have bowed out and resigned as soon as Brexit was made official. Her attempting to grasp onto power while this plays out is her own fault.

    She didn’t agree with Brexit, she should have handed the reins to a person that did (instead of letting them scuttle back to the rocks they’ve crawled out of) and let them be the face of this mess.

    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that's basically what happened with the last PM. David Cameron resigned as soon as the vote came back leave. I recall that it was a real hassle to find ANYONE to take over the job, since everyone could see how bad the situation was. I think Theresa May was a bit of an unknown (or, maybe rather - not the person you'd naturally expect to become PM in the current situation). May only became the PM after the vote, I think.
    FinneousPJ
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Sorta, a bit, forgot about Cameron (has it been that long). Once it failed, or she was up for a confidence vote, she should have bowed out still.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited March 2019
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    semiticgod wrote: »
    And again, i'm content with all that i've said and have nothing really left to add. We can agree to disagree at this point.

    I don't want to go over this either and think it's a fine place to drop it but your last comments seem to have brought up a new issue in that it seems like you think Americans in the state with the most people should not have a say in who gets elected.
    No; the argument is just that Americans in the state with the most people shouldn't have quite as much power as their population alone would otherwise grant them.

    That's not what he said he said Trump would have won if you do that count California, the state that has the most Americans in it. It's fourth most populous city has more people than other states. I'd be interested in hearing how Californians should only get 3/5ths of a vote or whatever argument there is that their votes shouldn't count. I really don't understand how you can argue that some people should be more equal than others.
    AstroBryGuyThacoBell
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 3,437
    semiticgod wrote: »
    And again, i'm content with all that i've said and have nothing really left to add. We can agree to disagree at this point.

    I don't want to go over this either and think it's a fine place to drop it but your last comments seem to have brought up a new issue in that it seems like you think Americans in the state with the most people should not have a say in who gets elected.
    No; the argument is just that Americans in the state with the most people shouldn't have quite as much power as their population alone would otherwise grant them.

    So, the votes of people who live in rural, whiter regions should have more weight than those who live in urbanized, more diverse regions?
    ThacoBellsmeagolheart
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Sounds like animal farm right.

    All voters are equal, but some voters are more equal than others
    semiticgoddessThacoBell
  • Mantis37Mantis37 Member Posts: 1,173
    Well the EU have agreed to kick the can a little further. If May can get her deal through then the UK will leave prior to the elections for the EU parliament. However, May yesterday made a massive blunder by making a populist speech that positioned MPs as being the obstacle to further progress, at a time when many MPs are already receiving death threats (one MP was already killed by a terrorist pre-referendum). Her deal will almost certainly fail at the third asking.

    That leads to scenario B. The UK must decide by April 12th if it will participate in the elections over the coming months, and stay in the EU for long enough to prepare for no-deal, alter some aspects of the agreement (single market, customs union etc.), have a referendum, revoke article 50, or whatever. The elections will then become yet another charged political event, and will probably see higher participation than usual. It is likely that parliament will start to dictate events more than Theresa May, if she survives (if she goes she'll be replaced by a more hardline figure most likely though...).

    Things were looking rather tight for awhile though, the EU is concerned that the UK could start making more and more trouble -e.g. using its veto as a negotiating tool- and some countries are more worried than others about how catastrophic No Deal might be. As time passes, fatigue will set in, and the desire to simply be done with the issue will dominate ever more. It would be ironically British if article 50 was revoked, the UK said sorry to its neighbours, and no-one ever mentioned the issue again. "It's the British, don't mention Brexit!"
    ThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    semiticgod wrote: »
    And again, i'm content with all that i've said and have nothing really left to add. We can agree to disagree at this point.

    I don't want to go over this either and think it's a fine place to drop it but your last comments seem to have brought up a new issue in that it seems like you think Americans in the state with the most people should not have a say in who gets elected.
    No; the argument is just that Americans in the state with the most people shouldn't have quite as much power as their population alone would otherwise grant them.

    So, the votes of people who live in rural, whiter regions should have more weight than those who live in urbanized, more diverse regions?

    I already explained a reasoning for regional voting instead of popular voting using the Canadian cities Toronto, Quebec, Halifax and Vancouver as an example.

    I’ll put it in another context: We’ll hold a vote here, majority wins. Everyone’s whose name starts with the letter A has to pay everyone else $1 each. Popular vote (not many people who post here starts with A) will say “hey I am getting something for free, I’ll vote for that!” while all the minority “A” will be shelling out money because the majority said they should. Sound fair to you?
    Balrog99
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited March 2019
    deltago wrote: »
    semiticgod wrote: »
    And again, i'm content with all that i've said and have nothing really left to add. We can agree to disagree at this point.

    I don't want to go over this either and think it's a fine place to drop it but your last comments seem to have brought up a new issue in that it seems like you think Americans in the state with the most people should not have a say in who gets elected.
    No; the argument is just that Americans in the state with the most people shouldn't have quite as much power as their population alone would otherwise grant them.

    So, the votes of people who live in rural, whiter regions should have more weight than those who live in urbanized, more diverse regions?

    I already explained a reasoning for regional voting instead of popular voting using the Canadian cities Toronto, Quebec, Halifax and Vancouver as an example.

    I’ll put it in another context: We’ll hold a vote here, majority wins. Everyone’s whose name starts with the letter A has to pay everyone else $1 each. Popular vote (not many people who post here starts with A) will say “hey I am getting something for free, I’ll vote for that!” while all the minority “A” will be shelling out money because the majority said they should. Sound fair to you?

    Counter-point: in the situation with California here in the US, they are contributing more to the federal coffers than the take in, and many of the red states who have more voting power than they do are taking in more than they contribute. And yet, somehow, it's always the left who are viewed as the "moochers". This somewhat interactive article is......quite enlightening:

    https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/#red-vs-blue

    https://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8#!IpqnG
    ThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    semiticgod wrote: »
    And again, i'm content with all that i've said and have nothing really left to add. We can agree to disagree at this point.

    I don't want to go over this either and think it's a fine place to drop it but your last comments seem to have brought up a new issue in that it seems like you think Americans in the state with the most people should not have a say in who gets elected.
    No; the argument is just that Americans in the state with the most people shouldn't have quite as much power as their population alone would otherwise grant them.

    So, the votes of people who live in rural, whiter regions should have more weight than those who live in urbanized, more diverse regions?

    I already explained a reasoning for regional voting instead of popular voting using the Canadian cities Toronto, Quebec, Halifax and Vancouver as an example.

    I’ll put it in another context: We’ll hold a vote here, majority wins. Everyone’s whose name starts with the letter A has to pay everyone else $1 each. Popular vote (not many people who post here starts with A) will say “hey I am getting something for free, I’ll vote for that!” while all the minority “A” will be shelling out money because the majority said they should. Sound fair to you?

    Counter-point: in the situation with California here in the US, they are contributing more to the federal coffers than the take in, and many of the red states who have more voting power than they do are taking in more than they contribute. And yet, somehow, it's always the left who are viewed as the "moochers".

    So? Would you like to go back to feudalism society? GDP has nothing to do with how votes should be calculated.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited March 2019
    deltago wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    semiticgod wrote: »
    And again, i'm content with all that i've said and have nothing really left to add. We can agree to disagree at this point.

    I don't want to go over this either and think it's a fine place to drop it but your last comments seem to have brought up a new issue in that it seems like you think Americans in the state with the most people should not have a say in who gets elected.
    No; the argument is just that Americans in the state with the most people shouldn't have quite as much power as their population alone would otherwise grant them.

    So, the votes of people who live in rural, whiter regions should have more weight than those who live in urbanized, more diverse regions?

    I already explained a reasoning for regional voting instead of popular voting using the Canadian cities Toronto, Quebec, Halifax and Vancouver as an example.

    I’ll put it in another context: We’ll hold a vote here, majority wins. Everyone’s whose name starts with the letter A has to pay everyone else $1 each. Popular vote (not many people who post here starts with A) will say “hey I am getting something for free, I’ll vote for that!” while all the minority “A” will be shelling out money because the majority said they should. Sound fair to you?

    Counter-point: in the situation with California here in the US, they are contributing more to the federal coffers than the take in, and many of the red states who have more voting power than they do are taking in more than they contribute. And yet, somehow, it's always the left who are viewed as the "moochers".

    So? Would you like to go back to feudalism society? GDP has nothing to do with how votes should be calculated.

    It has to do with a political climate in which liberals, Democrats and those states that vote for them are constantly painted as fiscally irresponsible and as being "takers", while the conservative, red states are viewed as salt of the earth, blue collar "makers". When the numbers show that basically the exact opposite is true. It's a matter of how the narrative persists decade after decade despite (once again) mathematical data. If we are gonna live in the current system, I'd at least like to have an honest discussion about it. I'm not in favor of holding back an ounce of that aid. What I'm sick of listening to a political discourse election cycle after election cycle in relation to my side of aisle that has no actual relation to the reality of the numbers.
    ThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Sure. But it has nothing to do with regional vs popular voting.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited March 2019
    deltago wrote: »
    Sure. But it has nothing to do with regional vs popular voting.

    I'm not saying it does, but in your example about certain majority groups of people demanding everyone else pay them a dollar, the absolute FIRST place most Americans would point to as being the most likely to do so would be California, not because of it being a reality, but because it's what they've been conditioned to believe. I can't even begin to describe to those outside this country how hard the stereotype of "irresponsible welfare Democrats sucking the rest of us dry" has taken hold since Reagan got into office.
    ThacoBell
Sign In or Register to comment.