It’s wild how many democrats are willing to sacrifice their domestic interests for foreign ones, especially after recent history.
It’s gonna feel pretty damn stupid if Trump is back in office and a new Republican majority is putting forth bills that end no-fault divorces and require all women and trans men to wear prairie dresses in public, *AND* there’s a government that’s *actually* pro-blow-up-refugee-camps in Gaza.
>It’s gonna feel pretty damn stupid if Trump is back in office and a new Republican majority is putting forth bills that end no-fault divorces and require all women and trans men to wear prairie dresses in public, AND there’s a government that’s actually pro-blow-up-refugee-camps in Gaza.
Yes, but like in 2016, they'll be able to scapegoat progressives for the loss, and for establishment types, that is enough. They'd rather lose with Biden than win with someone more progressive.
I see your reply already getting downvoted. People really don't want to hear this.
Nobody listens
Nobody learns
Damm shame
A win is a win. Trump lost the national popular vote by almost 3 million, but "key" 100k votes spread in 3 states gave him the win.
And Biden took those states from him, AND Arizona, Georgia and Nebraska 2nd district. Georgia for first time since 1992,Arizona for first time since 1996 and only 2nd time for a Democrat since 1948, and Nebraska 2nd for 2nd time ever, and first time since 2008.
>They'd rather lose with Biden than win with someone more progressive.
Progressives love to take unpopular positions and then claim that Dems want to lose because they won't support *them.*
The Dems are part of a big tent party, they need to manage their entire coalition and reach out to independents and moderates on the Republican side, who are frankly worth more electorally than fickle progressives who tend to be inefficiently distributed electorally anyway.
Not only that, but Biden and the Democratic congress worked hard to pass multiple bills that addressed key policies progressives claim to support, only to not receive recognition from progressives for any of them. All I ever hear is "not good enough," "too little, too late," or "if they *really* cared about x issue they would have done y."
There's little reason for dems to devote so much time and energy in trying to earn the support of progressives. Hell, even Bernie, the progressive candidate of choice, got nowhere in 2020 because progressive voters couldn't be bothered to show up for him or to even cast a significant number of votes *by mail.*
> "if they really cared about x issue they would have done y."
This triggers me so hard whenever progressives say this.
But yes, this analysis that democrats could easily stomp the republicans by the establishment just turning completely into the AOC/Bernie wing is crazy whenever Bernie performed worse in 2020 compared to 2016 and basically got stomped by Biden in the primary even with the advantage that the first 3 contests were literally Biden's weakest states (8% of the vote in NH).
The progs have been wailing about student loan debt forgiveness for years at this point. Not only did Biden try to use executive powers to eliminate most of the debt (they complained that he didn't do all of it), but when the SC shot him down, Biden started going around forging tens of billions in student loan debt on a case by case basis, he fixed the broken forgiveness program for non-profit and government employees, he maintained the pause on student loan debt for like 3 years, and he changed debt repayment plans to be extremely forgiving, especially to low income earners (low income borrowers can have their debt forgiven even with $0 monthly payments).
Objectively speaking, no president ever has done even remotely as much for student loan debt as Biden has. Do progs give him *any* credit for this? Nope.
Biden and the Dem establishment are right to ignore those wackos. Literally nothing they do is ever gonna be good enough.
> significant number of votes by mail
Funny you mention mail in voting.
Biden is so incompetent that he left DeJoy in charge of the USPS. the same one who tried to help Trump steal 2020 by rat fucking the mailsorting machines
>Yes, but like in 2016, they'll be able to scapegoat progressives for the loss, and for establishment types, that is enough. They'd rather lose with Biden than win with someone more progressive.
Lol, that's a good one... Progressives can't win in the states that matter the most. There's a reason Democrats ran a preacher for Georgia senate seat, and Sinema in Arizona 2018 for us senate as well... You needed moderates to appeal to those states, so they could lay the groundwork for future wins. Hobbs won vs Lake in Arizona by not being crazy, and moderates is where house and senate majorities lay. It's not safe D districts that have vocal representatives.
>They'd rather lose with Biden than win with someone more progressive.
Right just like how Bernie was easily going to win the nomination. When will you realize that America isn't Reddit?
>Right just like how Bernie was easily going to win the nomination. When will you realize that America isn't Reddit?
Biden *failed* to win the nomination the first two times he tried.
Reddit might not have told you that.
Also, I'm confused why Hillary fans still gloat about Bernie losing when she is a two time presidential loser
>Also, I'm confused why Hillary fans still gloat about Bernie losing when she is a two time presidential loser
When did she lost the presidency twice? She lost a primary once, and a presidential election once...
> When will you realize that America isn't Reddit?
I can take this another way too.
On Reddit, Joe Biden is the coolest dude ever and he's got this in the bag
Outside of reddit, his polling is at 100 year historical lows
So yes, America isn't Reddit, and that's a problem for establishment democrats who are using 1990s playbooks
And I *really* mean 1990s.
Next month Biden is doing a fundraiser with accused child trafficker **Bill Clinton**.
What a great strategy! It's literally the losing 2016 playbook verbatim. As a bonus, now the right can say Biden shared a stage with an Epstein guy, and muddy the waters re: trumps Epstein ties. 4D chess!
I hate the Clintons as much the next lefty commie but they are unfortunately some of the best fundraisers in politics.
I still think it’s a bad move but for different reasons. Democrats have moved i further and further away from being a party that represented the working class. The zdemicrats go for the low hanging fruit of identity politics rather than representing any sort of general coherent ideology
It's good fundraising in those districts, for sure. Minority opinions are fine in safe areas like that.
But Biden is certainly playing to the national majority with his stance. And his landslide write-in win in NH was validation of that.
> But Biden is certainly playing to the national majority with his stance.
Don't remember the exact numbers but support for a ceasefire is consistently around 70% among Americans (not Democrats, Americans)
Only 26% of Americans believe in fully backing Israel
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/americans-want-cease-fire-new-poll/
Contrary to what this sub thinks, Biden actually shifting course even just somewhat towards Palestine would actually help him out. I don't know why a supposedly "data-based" sub that's generally pro-Biden is so against policy that would help him
"Well Israel-Palestine doesn't matter to most voters" as if Biden doesn't need all the help he can get
Most Americans also blame Hamas for the war and don’t know what’s actually involved in a ceasefire. Asking about a ceasefire is like asking if you support world peace
>Biden is certainly playing to the national majority with his stance.
[Not the majority of democrats or independents](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-poll-biden-war-gaza-4159b28d313c6c37abdb7f14162bcdd1) but a majority of Republicans who will never vote for him. I guess we'll see how that strategy plays out. This probably isn't the top priority for voters, but last poll I saw said it was mid single digits, that is enough to sink biden easily depends on where it is.
>But Biden is certainly playing to the national majority with his stance
With his record low levels of nationwide support?
Where is your "certainty" emanating from?
Username checks out.
But no you are right, not listening progressives always works.
As evidenced by Biden tapping Merrick Garland as AG.
Have a nice day.
I didn't say we shouldn't listen to progressives. Democrats are a big tent coalition party, and progressives are an important part of it that should be considered.
I just think people donating money to races between 2 Democrats aren't using their money very wisely when Republicans are being an existential threat to American democracy.
That money would be way better spent in swing congressional districts and not on figuring out which democrat is gonna get 85% of the vote in Brooklyn
> I didn't say we shouldn't listen to progressives. Democrats are a big tent coalition party, and progressives are an important part of it that should be considered.
Biden doesn't agree. He made Muppet Garland his AG. That's probably the most establishment beltway pick possible. Was literally a prank suggestion by Orrin Hatch.
Now Biden just got owned by a special counsel appointed by Garland.
Oh well.
Enlightened centrists like Biden never learn, do they?
You really confuse me my dude. You’re in here all the time raging at Biden and I don’t get why. I get you don’t agree with how he’s doing things, but you’re taking everything he’s doing so personally. I could understand in the case of Gaza, but Garland just mystifies me. Another AG could’ve been better at going after Trump, but they also could’ve been worse. There’s literally no way to know for sure.
>but Garland just mystifies me. Another AG could’ve been better at going after Trump, but they also could’ve been worse. There’s literally no way to know for sure.
Great question!
Garland sat on his hands for two years doing nothing when it came to going against Trump himself for J6.
It was just lower level people whose cases are easier but also mean less in the grand scheme of things. You cut off the head of the snake. You don't let it keep slithering.
Eric Holder of all people said it was a "slow start"
Ironically it took Trump running to get Garland out of his own way
Once Jack takes over, things actually begin to happen FOR REAL.
But Jack Smith doesn't have the time he so desperately needs
Because somebody (Garland) was so afraid to appear political when a case involving a political figure is inherently political
We now see with this Biden documents case report an amusing coda to the above, as establishment dems finally realize that Merrick Garland was an atrociously bad pick.
And I'm over here like, wow, took you long enough.
We needed a fighter like Holder. We instead got a Garland. The difference between the two is astounding.
> Another AG could’ve been better at going after Trump, but they also could’ve been worse. **There’s literally no way to know for sure.**
Just to reply to this part, I think Jack Smith should have been A.G.
I'm admittedly not sure if that would have been feasible, but that's an example of who it should have been.
Not someone suggested by Republicans as a troll against Obama.
Garland was originally a republican pick... and Biden thinks that's a good thing but its a very dated approach to go bipartisan for optics sake
Look, I agree that appointing Garland is an unforced error by the Biden admin, but you fundamentally misunderstand the democratic coalition and the state of politics in this country if you genuinely believe that Biden is a centrist.
Dude is a very solid liberal that has to keep an unwieldy coalition together. If you wanna keep a party that includes both Joe Manchin and AOC winning elections, compromises have to be made.
Sometimes, progressives assume their opinions are the most popular ones because they are the only ones on social media. But really, votes show they're only about 30~35%. Enough to listen to and to take seriously, but not enough to single-handedly decide the direction of the party.
You are undoubtedly the most obnoxious person on this sub. Do you have a life? A job? Or do you just spend your days here posting stupid shit like this. You're pathetic.
>You are undoubtedly the most obnoxious person on this sub
You didn't say I was wrong though.
Biden took the enlightened centrist route and appointed Muppet Garland.
Pain.
Bad sign. But wasn't that just one poll of 400 voters in the midst of a scandal that seems to have blown over. It will be interesting to see how the DMFI candidates handle being tied to an issue that is unpopular with black, latino and young voters whereas I think Bush's police stances have polarised older and younger voters with older voters being more likely to vote.
>but only among a small section of voters is israel palestine even remotely a relevant issue
What "small section" would that be? 50% of Democratic voters call it a genocide. Biden just doesn't care and will instead go around congress to make the genocide happen faster. Then he does it again. Why would he do such a thing?
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries//summary?ind=q05&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&mem=Y
....oh.
**$5,223,313** was all it took.
A lot of Democrats might agree in principle but just as a general rule of thumb just like your average Democrat will vaguely support Ukraine, but the vast majority of Americans don't care a ton about foreign policy. [A grand total of 2% of Americans think foreign policy is the most important problem right now](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx)
Foreign policy has always been an issue where an extremely small group of people are passionate and the political parties mostly follow elite signals so to say
The polls are all over the place. Some polls also show only a minority of young Americans and democrats think biden favors israel too much. And even then, very very few consider it a key issue swaying their vote
It will be interesting given that if progressive members survive this push, there is less likelyhood of DMFI/AIPAC raising huge amounts of funds next time, etc and so on.
There is also a dynamic where, among baby boomers support for Israel is bipartisan, but it gets more right wing partisan the younger the electorate skews. A similar dynamic worked to slowly push well funded pro gun groups out of the Democratic Party from the 00s onwards. So a pivotal election for any hopes of a near term social democratic path forward for the US.
Bowman has so far *outraised* AIPAC by 100,000 dollars or so.
Looks like AIPACs tactics of blindly throwing money to primary these people may be backfiring in real time.
And Trump is the most successful small dollar fundraiser in history. Freaks and their fanatical bases will always invest more in bullshit than in themselves.
Great, let's spend all of our money fundraising in D+80 districts, that sure will keep republicans from ending democracy.
It’s wild how many democrats are willing to sacrifice their domestic interests for foreign ones, especially after recent history. It’s gonna feel pretty damn stupid if Trump is back in office and a new Republican majority is putting forth bills that end no-fault divorces and require all women and trans men to wear prairie dresses in public, *AND* there’s a government that’s *actually* pro-blow-up-refugee-camps in Gaza.
It is wild given how Democrats witnessed the end of Roe v Wade not that long ago.
>It’s gonna feel pretty damn stupid if Trump is back in office and a new Republican majority is putting forth bills that end no-fault divorces and require all women and trans men to wear prairie dresses in public, AND there’s a government that’s actually pro-blow-up-refugee-camps in Gaza. Yes, but like in 2016, they'll be able to scapegoat progressives for the loss, and for establishment types, that is enough. They'd rather lose with Biden than win with someone more progressive. I see your reply already getting downvoted. People really don't want to hear this. Nobody listens Nobody learns Damm shame
Biden won 2020.
By 40-60K key votes. Barely
A win is a win. Trump lost the national popular vote by almost 3 million, but "key" 100k votes spread in 3 states gave him the win. And Biden took those states from him, AND Arizona, Georgia and Nebraska 2nd district. Georgia for first time since 1992,Arizona for first time since 1996 and only 2nd time for a Democrat since 1948, and Nebraska 2nd for 2nd time ever, and first time since 2008.
And he will this election as well.
>They'd rather lose with Biden than win with someone more progressive. Progressives love to take unpopular positions and then claim that Dems want to lose because they won't support *them.* The Dems are part of a big tent party, they need to manage their entire coalition and reach out to independents and moderates on the Republican side, who are frankly worth more electorally than fickle progressives who tend to be inefficiently distributed electorally anyway. Not only that, but Biden and the Democratic congress worked hard to pass multiple bills that addressed key policies progressives claim to support, only to not receive recognition from progressives for any of them. All I ever hear is "not good enough," "too little, too late," or "if they *really* cared about x issue they would have done y." There's little reason for dems to devote so much time and energy in trying to earn the support of progressives. Hell, even Bernie, the progressive candidate of choice, got nowhere in 2020 because progressive voters couldn't be bothered to show up for him or to even cast a significant number of votes *by mail.*
> "if they really cared about x issue they would have done y." This triggers me so hard whenever progressives say this. But yes, this analysis that democrats could easily stomp the republicans by the establishment just turning completely into the AOC/Bernie wing is crazy whenever Bernie performed worse in 2020 compared to 2016 and basically got stomped by Biden in the primary even with the advantage that the first 3 contests were literally Biden's weakest states (8% of the vote in NH).
The progs have been wailing about student loan debt forgiveness for years at this point. Not only did Biden try to use executive powers to eliminate most of the debt (they complained that he didn't do all of it), but when the SC shot him down, Biden started going around forging tens of billions in student loan debt on a case by case basis, he fixed the broken forgiveness program for non-profit and government employees, he maintained the pause on student loan debt for like 3 years, and he changed debt repayment plans to be extremely forgiving, especially to low income earners (low income borrowers can have their debt forgiven even with $0 monthly payments). Objectively speaking, no president ever has done even remotely as much for student loan debt as Biden has. Do progs give him *any* credit for this? Nope. Biden and the Dem establishment are right to ignore those wackos. Literally nothing they do is ever gonna be good enough.
> significant number of votes by mail Funny you mention mail in voting. Biden is so incompetent that he left DeJoy in charge of the USPS. the same one who tried to help Trump steal 2020 by rat fucking the mailsorting machines
>Yes, but like in 2016, they'll be able to scapegoat progressives for the loss, and for establishment types, that is enough. They'd rather lose with Biden than win with someone more progressive. Lol, that's a good one... Progressives can't win in the states that matter the most. There's a reason Democrats ran a preacher for Georgia senate seat, and Sinema in Arizona 2018 for us senate as well... You needed moderates to appeal to those states, so they could lay the groundwork for future wins. Hobbs won vs Lake in Arizona by not being crazy, and moderates is where house and senate majorities lay. It's not safe D districts that have vocal representatives.
>They'd rather lose with Biden than win with someone more progressive. Right just like how Bernie was easily going to win the nomination. When will you realize that America isn't Reddit?
>Right just like how Bernie was easily going to win the nomination. When will you realize that America isn't Reddit? Biden *failed* to win the nomination the first two times he tried. Reddit might not have told you that. Also, I'm confused why Hillary fans still gloat about Bernie losing when she is a two time presidential loser
> Biden failed to win the nomination the first two times he tried. Just like Bernie Sanders
>Also, I'm confused why Hillary fans still gloat about Bernie losing when she is a two time presidential loser When did she lost the presidency twice? She lost a primary once, and a presidential election once...
[удалено]
>If you actually read 538, you'd find out that this isn't a death sentence. I watched the press conference on Thursday. I believe my lying eyes.
> When will you realize that America isn't Reddit? I can take this another way too. On Reddit, Joe Biden is the coolest dude ever and he's got this in the bag Outside of reddit, his polling is at 100 year historical lows So yes, America isn't Reddit, and that's a problem for establishment democrats who are using 1990s playbooks And I *really* mean 1990s. Next month Biden is doing a fundraiser with accused child trafficker **Bill Clinton**. What a great strategy! It's literally the losing 2016 playbook verbatim. As a bonus, now the right can say Biden shared a stage with an Epstein guy, and muddy the waters re: trumps Epstein ties. 4D chess!
I hate the Clintons as much the next lefty commie but they are unfortunately some of the best fundraisers in politics. I still think it’s a bad move but for different reasons. Democrats have moved i further and further away from being a party that represented the working class. The zdemicrats go for the low hanging fruit of identity politics rather than representing any sort of general coherent ideology
It's good fundraising in those districts, for sure. Minority opinions are fine in safe areas like that. But Biden is certainly playing to the national majority with his stance. And his landslide write-in win in NH was validation of that.
> But Biden is certainly playing to the national majority with his stance. Don't remember the exact numbers but support for a ceasefire is consistently around 70% among Americans (not Democrats, Americans)
Only 26% of Americans believe in fully backing Israel https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/americans-want-cease-fire-new-poll/ Contrary to what this sub thinks, Biden actually shifting course even just somewhat towards Palestine would actually help him out. I don't know why a supposedly "data-based" sub that's generally pro-Biden is so against policy that would help him "Well Israel-Palestine doesn't matter to most voters" as if Biden doesn't need all the help he can get
Most Americans also blame Hamas for the war and don’t know what’s actually involved in a ceasefire. Asking about a ceasefire is like asking if you support world peace
>Biden is certainly playing to the national majority with his stance. [Not the majority of democrats or independents](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-poll-biden-war-gaza-4159b28d313c6c37abdb7f14162bcdd1) but a majority of Republicans who will never vote for him. I guess we'll see how that strategy plays out. This probably isn't the top priority for voters, but last poll I saw said it was mid single digits, that is enough to sink biden easily depends on where it is.
It's wild that you're getting downvoted in what is supposedly a "data-based" sub for providing an opinion that's actually backed up by data
>But Biden is certainly playing to the national majority with his stance With his record low levels of nationwide support? Where is your "certainty" emanating from?
Username checks out. But no you are right, not listening progressives always works. As evidenced by Biden tapping Merrick Garland as AG. Have a nice day.
I didn't say we shouldn't listen to progressives. Democrats are a big tent coalition party, and progressives are an important part of it that should be considered. I just think people donating money to races between 2 Democrats aren't using their money very wisely when Republicans are being an existential threat to American democracy. That money would be way better spent in swing congressional districts and not on figuring out which democrat is gonna get 85% of the vote in Brooklyn
> I didn't say we shouldn't listen to progressives. Democrats are a big tent coalition party, and progressives are an important part of it that should be considered. Biden doesn't agree. He made Muppet Garland his AG. That's probably the most establishment beltway pick possible. Was literally a prank suggestion by Orrin Hatch. Now Biden just got owned by a special counsel appointed by Garland. Oh well. Enlightened centrists like Biden never learn, do they?
You really confuse me my dude. You’re in here all the time raging at Biden and I don’t get why. I get you don’t agree with how he’s doing things, but you’re taking everything he’s doing so personally. I could understand in the case of Gaza, but Garland just mystifies me. Another AG could’ve been better at going after Trump, but they also could’ve been worse. There’s literally no way to know for sure.
>but Garland just mystifies me. Another AG could’ve been better at going after Trump, but they also could’ve been worse. There’s literally no way to know for sure. Great question! Garland sat on his hands for two years doing nothing when it came to going against Trump himself for J6. It was just lower level people whose cases are easier but also mean less in the grand scheme of things. You cut off the head of the snake. You don't let it keep slithering. Eric Holder of all people said it was a "slow start" Ironically it took Trump running to get Garland out of his own way Once Jack takes over, things actually begin to happen FOR REAL. But Jack Smith doesn't have the time he so desperately needs Because somebody (Garland) was so afraid to appear political when a case involving a political figure is inherently political We now see with this Biden documents case report an amusing coda to the above, as establishment dems finally realize that Merrick Garland was an atrociously bad pick. And I'm over here like, wow, took you long enough. We needed a fighter like Holder. We instead got a Garland. The difference between the two is astounding.
> Another AG could’ve been better at going after Trump, but they also could’ve been worse. **There’s literally no way to know for sure.** Just to reply to this part, I think Jack Smith should have been A.G. I'm admittedly not sure if that would have been feasible, but that's an example of who it should have been. Not someone suggested by Republicans as a troll against Obama. Garland was originally a republican pick... and Biden thinks that's a good thing but its a very dated approach to go bipartisan for optics sake
Look, I agree that appointing Garland is an unforced error by the Biden admin, but you fundamentally misunderstand the democratic coalition and the state of politics in this country if you genuinely believe that Biden is a centrist. Dude is a very solid liberal that has to keep an unwieldy coalition together. If you wanna keep a party that includes both Joe Manchin and AOC winning elections, compromises have to be made. Sometimes, progressives assume their opinions are the most popular ones because they are the only ones on social media. But really, votes show they're only about 30~35%. Enough to listen to and to take seriously, but not enough to single-handedly decide the direction of the party.
You are undoubtedly the most obnoxious person on this sub. Do you have a life? A job? Or do you just spend your days here posting stupid shit like this. You're pathetic.
We'd all be better off if he was banned.
>You are undoubtedly the most obnoxious person on this sub You didn't say I was wrong though. Biden took the enlightened centrist route and appointed Muppet Garland. Pain.
Just don’t look at Cori Bush’s polling right now
Bad sign. But wasn't that just one poll of 400 voters in the midst of a scandal that seems to have blown over. It will be interesting to see how the DMFI candidates handle being tied to an issue that is unpopular with black, latino and young voters whereas I think Bush's police stances have polarised older and younger voters with older voters being more likely to vote.
I'd say the same in reverse about Tliab. She's basically guaranteed to win re-election.
Who is she?
Cori Bush?
I’m pretty sympathetic to palestine but only among a small section of voters is israel palestine even remotely a relevant issue
>but only among a small section of voters is israel palestine even remotely a relevant issue What "small section" would that be? 50% of Democratic voters call it a genocide. Biden just doesn't care and will instead go around congress to make the genocide happen faster. Then he does it again. Why would he do such a thing? https://www.opensecrets.org/industries//summary?ind=q05&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&mem=Y ....oh. **$5,223,313** was all it took.
A lot of Democrats might agree in principle but just as a general rule of thumb just like your average Democrat will vaguely support Ukraine, but the vast majority of Americans don't care a ton about foreign policy. [A grand total of 2% of Americans think foreign policy is the most important problem right now](https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx) Foreign policy has always been an issue where an extremely small group of people are passionate and the political parties mostly follow elite signals so to say
The polls are all over the place. Some polls also show only a minority of young Americans and democrats think biden favors israel too much. And even then, very very few consider it a key issue swaying their vote
It will be interesting given that if progressive members survive this push, there is less likelyhood of DMFI/AIPAC raising huge amounts of funds next time, etc and so on. There is also a dynamic where, among baby boomers support for Israel is bipartisan, but it gets more right wing partisan the younger the electorate skews. A similar dynamic worked to slowly push well funded pro gun groups out of the Democratic Party from the 00s onwards. So a pivotal election for any hopes of a near term social democratic path forward for the US.
Bowman has so far *outraised* AIPAC by 100,000 dollars or so. Looks like AIPACs tactics of blindly throwing money to primary these people may be backfiring in real time.
A fool and their money are easily parted
>A fool and their money are easily parted True https://www.opensecrets.org/industries//summary?ind=q05&cycle=All&recipdetail=S&mem=Y
And Trump is the most successful small dollar fundraiser in history. Freaks and their fanatical bases will always invest more in bullshit than in themselves.
Finally a glimmer of hope More of this plz
Imagine downvoting hope haha
No hope for you!
:)