|
Post by Merge on Jun 20, 2017 15:15:25 GMT
Oh yeah, I knew Obama and Biden campaigned for her for President, but I should have clarified...did any other campaign for local and state positions? He most certainly did. And while there's plenty of disgust for the gerrymandering by the Republicans, the Democrats had been pretty busy with that shit here in Illinois. Here's some good examples: District MapAnd this districting makes a lot of sense: District MapBoth sides play frickin' dirty. Analysis of data shows that it's not even close to an equal amount of dirty. I'll let you guess which side has taken gerrymandering to an extreme. Gerrymandering data article
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 15:22:16 GMT
He most certainly did. And while there's plenty of disgust for the gerrymandering by the Republicans, the Democrats had been pretty busy with that shit here in Illinois. Here's some good examples: District MapAnd this districting makes a lot of sense: District MapBoth sides play frickin' dirty. Analysis of data shows that it's not even close to an equal amount of dirty. I'll let you guess which side has taken gerrymandering to an extreme. Gerrymandering data articleOne side does it more, so it's A-okay for the other side; gotcha! I stand by my statement.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 20, 2017 15:28:28 GMT
Analysis of data shows that it's not even close to an equal amount of dirty. I'll let you guess which side has taken gerrymandering to an extreme. Gerrymandering data articleOne side does it more, so it's A-okay for the other side; gotcha! I stand by my statement. That's not what I said at all. But it is true that only one side has radically affected the makeup of the US Congress with their gerrymandering, and I stand by that, too. Just think about that for a moment: millions of people all over the country have been systematically disenfranchised by one major political party.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 15:42:40 GMT
Analysis of data shows that it's not even close to an equal amount of dirty. I'll let you guess which side has taken gerrymandering to an extreme. Gerrymandering data articleOne side does it more, so it's A-okay for the other side; gotcha! I stand by my statement. Neither side should do it. However until there is a legal way to stop the Republicans from doing it then I have no problem with the Democrats doing it. Just like big money in politics, I don't think it should be there but until there is a legal way to stop it I don't have any problems with the Democrats getting as much as they can. To do otherwise puts them at a huge disadvantage. It's not going to do the Democrats any good to take the moral high ground when it comes to gerrymandering and big money if the Republicans use both to shut out the Democrats. This country works better when both sides work together and when one side uses tricks like voter suppression, gerrymandering, and big money to "win" we all pay a heavy price.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 15:45:34 GMT
One side does it more, so it's A-okay for the other side; gotcha! I stand by my statement. That's not what I said at all. But it is true that only one side has radically affected the makeup of the US Congress with their gerrymandering, and I stand by that, too. Just think about that for a moment: millions of people all over the country have been systematically disenfranchised by one major political party. I apologize for misunderstanding then. I must have assumed since you called out the misdeeds of the Republicans, and didn't call out the misdeeds of the Democrats, it didn't bother you that Democrats are guilty also. I agree with the gerrymandering crap, which is why I said both sides play dirty. And while the country as a whole being impacted by this is truly disheartening, close to home is the shit going on here in Illinois. (And for anyone from Illinois reading this...I didn't vote for asshat Rauner (R), but Madigan (D) needs to go also.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 15:52:39 GMT
We've come to this. From Senator Chris Murphy
"Me @corybooker and @brianschatz are getting a cab right now to CBO on outside chance they will share secret GOP health bill w 3 nice guys."
I'm sure other governments of third world countries are watching this debacle unfold laughing their collective asses off.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 15:55:10 GMT
One side does it more, so it's A-okay for the other side; gotcha! I stand by my statement. Neither side should do it. However until there is a legal way to stop the Republicans from doing it then I have no problem with the Democrats doing it.Just like big money in politics, I don't think it should be there but until there is a legal way to stop it I don't have any problems with the Democrats getting as much as they can. To do otherwise puts them at a huge disadvantage. It's not going to do the Democrats any good to take the moral high ground when it comes to gerrymandering and big money if the Republicans use both to shut out the Democrats. This country works better when both sides work together and when one side uses tricks like voter suppression, gerrymandering, and big money to "win" we all pay a heavy price. Maybe the Democrats should pay closer attention to how it's done in Illinois. Speaking of big money to win: Ossoff in Georgia has received quite the donations from outside of Georgia, the largest amount coming from California, lol. I saw an interview this morning and someone in Georgia was saying a lot of residents are quite insulted that the people in California think they know more about the issues/concerns for residents, than Georgia residents do. Ossoff Donations
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 16:28:30 GMT
Neither side should do it. However until there is a legal way to stop the Republicans from doing it then I have no problem with the Democrats doing it.Just like big money in politics, I don't think it should be there but until there is a legal way to stop it I don't have any problems with the Democrats getting as much as they can. To do otherwise puts them at a huge disadvantage. It's not going to do the Democrats any good to take the moral high ground when it comes to gerrymandering and big money if the Republicans use both to shut out the Democrats. This country works better when both sides work together and when one side uses tricks like voter suppression, gerrymandering, and big money to "win" we all pay a heavy price. Maybe the Democrats should pay closer attention to how it's done in Illinois. Speaking of big money to win: Ossoff in Georgia has received quite the donations from outside of Georgia, the largest amount coming from California, lol. I saw an interview this morning and someone in Georgia was saying a lot of residents are quite insulted that the people in California think they know more about the issues/concerns for residents, than Georgia residents do. Ossoff DonationsI was one of the ones from California that donated to Ossoff. I plan on donating to Ryan's opponent as well. And while I'm happy with my Congressional representative I will be donating to the opponents of Darrell Issa, McCarthy and that Nunes guy from the Fresno area. Unfortunately how they vote for their Congressional representative in Georgia affects me all the way out here in California. Right now I'm against kicking millions of people off their health care insurance. I'm against the country being trashed to save a few jobs that are going to disappear no matter what all the while ignoring industries that have the real potential to provide thousands of jobs across the country. I'm against regulations that were put in place to protect the American People being disassembled. I'm against cutting safety net programs and programs that actually help people to make way for large tax cuts for corporations and the rich that only help them. I'm tried about the lies the Republicans tell when it comes to job creation. If the residents of Georgia had any sense they would be against this as well. Because left unchecked these policies will bite then in the ass. Then they sit around and whine "they" aren't listening to them. But my guess is that Ossoff will lose because the voters in Georgia aren't hurting enough yet from the policies trump and the Republicans are/will enact.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Jun 20, 2017 16:46:35 GMT
Yikes, sorry for asking..I didn't mean to start an argument...
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 20, 2017 17:55:41 GMT
Neither side should do it. However until there is a legal way to stop the Republicans from doing it then I have no problem with the Democrats doing it.Just like big money in politics, I don't think it should be there but until there is a legal way to stop it I don't have any problems with the Democrats getting as much as they can. To do otherwise puts them at a huge disadvantage. It's not going to do the Democrats any good to take the moral high ground when it comes to gerrymandering and big money if the Republicans use both to shut out the Democrats. This country works better when both sides work together and when one side uses tricks like voter suppression, gerrymandering, and big money to "win" we all pay a heavy price. Maybe the Democrats should pay closer attention to how it's done in Illinois. Speaking of big money to win: Ossoff in Georgia has received quite the donations from outside of Georgia, the largest amount coming from California, lol. I saw an interview this morning and someone in Georgia was saying a lot of residents are quite insulted that the people in California think they know more about the issues/concerns for residents, than Georgia residents do. Ossoff Donations*shrug* And other Georgians are thrilled that the Democratic candidate is so well funded. People in Georgia are welcome to donate in California races if they like. The people of that district are still the only ones who get to vote.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 18:07:08 GMT
From Paul Waldman - Washington Post - "Paul Ryan's passionate call for the wealthy and corporations".
What is in this article should concern the voters in Georgia and South Carolina today when they vote...
"While Republicans in the Senate work out how to take health insurance away from millions of Americans, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) turns his attention to the other great crusade that animates his career: tax cuts. This afternoon, Ryan is giving a speech to a friendly audience of lobbyists at the National Association of Manufacturers, in which he will lay out his vision for the next phase of the great Republican project, once health care is (one way or another) out of the way.
Ryan may not be the hard-nosed, number-crunching policy wonk he’s often portrayed as in the press, but he is certainly a man of substantive beliefs. Unlike his Senate counterpart Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who plainly has no sincerely felt goal other than acquiring and holding power, Ryan has policy changes he desperately wants to see. Among them, only destroying the safety net can rival his deep and abiding wish that America might ease the burden of taxation under which our country’s rich, super-rich and corporations suffer so unjustly.
According to excerpts of his speech released in advance, he’ll tell his audience: “We need to get this done in 2017. We cannot let this once-in-a-generation moment slip.” While cutting taxes might slip into 2018, Ryan is basically right. It may not be quite a once-in-a-generation opportunity, but it only comes along when Republicans have unified control of government — which they might only have until 2018.
While Ryan may not get everything he wants out of tax reform, he stands a very good chance of getting most of it. Republicans will move heaven and earth to pass something not because they feel pressure from their constituents — Americans are not exactly crying out for tax cuts — but because they believe in it. If we can’t cut taxes on the wealthy, they ask each other, then why are we here? What’s the point of having power if you don’t use it for this? So here’s what Ryan is proposing to do, per the speech excerpts:
*Lower income-tax rates *Reduce the number of tax brackets *Raise the standard deduction *Eliminate the inheritance tax (Big congrats to Donny Jr., Eric, Ivanka and Barron for not having to worry about paying taxes! Oh, and Tiffany — she’ll probably get something, too.) *Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is meant to ensure that the wealthy can’t get away without paying anything * Eliminate unspecified loopholes * But keep the mortgage interest deduction and charitable giving deduction * Cut the corporate tax rate * Allow corporations to pay reduced taxes on profits they bring back from overseas * Institute a border adjustment tax to favor exports over imports Among these, only the increase in the standard deduction is aimed at the non-wealthy. As the Tax Policy Center wrote last year about an earlier version of this plan:
Three-quarters of total tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent, who would receive an average cut of nearly $213,000, or 13.4 percent of after-tax income. The top 0.1 percent would receive an average tax cut of about $1.3 million (16.9 percent of after-tax income). In contrast, the average tax cut for the lowest-income households would be just $50.
While the figures for this latest iteration will vary somewhat, the essential idea will be the same. This is part of the Republican tax template going way back: Make sure that even lower-income people get something in your tax cut, even if it’s tiny and the vast majority of the benefits go to the wealthy. Then you can say, “This isn’t about the wealthy — we’re cutting taxes for everybody!” There are differences among Republicans on some points. For instance, many of President Trump’s economic advisers don’t like the border adjustment tax (which is essentially a big tariff on imported goods that would be paid by consumers), which means it will probably be dropped. But the good news for Ryan and Republicans is that even if cutting taxes for the wealthy isn’t popular, it tends not to generate intense, concentrated resistance of the kind that makes members of Congress skittish about voting for it.
That’s because, unlike health-care reform, taxes are not an issue where it’s easy (or even possible) for citizens to see a direct harm Republican policies might do to them. If I take away your coverage or enable insurers to deny you coverage because of your preexisting condition, you’ll know that’s bad for you. But if I give a tax break to the millionaires who live in that gated community on the other side of town? You may think it’s unfair and you may not like it, but since it doesn’t seem like it will have an immediate impact on you, you’re much less likely to march in the streets or call your member of Congress to stop it from happening.
Furthermore, Ryan and the Republicans know that the public has virtually no historical memory, which enables the GOP to make bogus arguments about taxes and convince many people that they’re true. Why is it necessary to make these tax cuts? “Because this will create jobs,” Ryan will say in his speech, according to the excerpts. “That is what this is all about: jobs, jobs, jobs. Good, high-paying jobs.” Just like all those millions of high-paying jobs that were created when George W. Bush passed a similar set of tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001 and 2003, which brought about the economic nirvana of explosive job and wage growth Republicans like Ryan promised the tax cuts would produce. That’s what happened, right?
That’s not what happened, of course — just the opposite. But Paul Ryan is undeterred. He’s a man of substance, but he’s no empiricist. What experience teaches him about the world we live in is far less important than the dream that implanted itself in his heart when he read “Atlas Shrugged” as an impressionable youth. Whatever else does or doesn’t make it through Congress, Ryan will get his tax cuts.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2017 19:45:19 GMT
Nancy Pelosi comment about Ryan's latestbspeech on tax cuts..
"I applaud @speakerryan on his ability to give so many speeches on tax reform without ever sharing details of an actual plan. "
As they say the devil is in the details. No details on health care. No details on tax reform. No details on the infrastructure plan.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Jun 20, 2017 20:21:22 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 1:36:43 GMT
I was watching a MSNBC and it seems nobody really knows what he means...
"While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!"
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 21, 2017 3:02:38 GMT
I was watching a MSNBC and it seems nobody really knows what he means... "While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!" I think he means Obama did NOT try. He is a disgusting, useless excuse for a human being, let alone a president. Sorry/not sorry if I'm offending anyone.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 13:23:58 GMT
This tweet from tiny hands..
"Democrats would do much better as a party if they got together with Republicans on Healthcare,Tax Cuts,Security. Obstruction doesn't work!"
Prompted this response from Washington Post's Greg Sargent...
"It is obvious @realdonaldtrump has no idea what's in GOP health plan, and zero grasp of the basic argument between the parties over it."
And I will add the Republicans have to, you know, actually be willing to work with the Democrats and get rid of the Hastert rule in the House for starters.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 13:40:00 GMT
linkSo tiny hands is venturing out of the White House and going someplace other than a trump owned property. Per the AP article he is going to Iowa. First I was going to wonder if he would leave the hanger when he got to Iowa. Then I read the article. The folks in Iowa had some pretty interesting and somewhat funny comments to make about the guy they voted for.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 13:44:13 GMT
From the Daily Beast....
"Queen Elizabeth left out any mention of President Trump coming to London for a state visit during her official speech at the opening of Parliament, which would suggest that he is not expected in the next two years. A spokesman for the prime minister said the trip had not been canceled altogether, but admitted that “a firm date has not been fixed.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 19:44:32 GMT
This tweet by KellyAnne Conway..
"True long before last night. Democrats erred in choosing as Speaker San Fran's 1%er Pelosi over Ohio's blue collar background @reptimryan."
Prompted this response from Greg Sargent....
"We GOP one-percenters (Trump, Kellyanne) are really good at scamming working people into thinking we're good for them, ha ha, we win"
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2017 21:50:14 GMT
Tom Price...
"Joined @kellyannepolls @omarosa @seemacms today to hear directly from some of those who are facing lack of choice because of #Obamacare."
From folks who don't understand the uncertainty is caused by the actions of trump and the Republicans. And the fact sick people cost money.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 1:00:33 GMT
From trump...
"Thank you Kirkwood Community College. Heading to the U.S. Cellular Center now for an 8pmE MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN RALLY!"
With these rallies you know he's already running for reelection. Especially since he is having a reelection fund raiser at his DC Hotel.
Maybe they did it and I didn't notice but I don't remember any other president starting his run for reelection this early.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 3:07:50 GMT
So tonight trump proposed a new piece of legislation that already exists.....
From the Hill.
"President Trump in a rally on Wednesday evening said immigrants who enter the United States should not be eligible for welfare benefits for five years, though such a law has already existed for 20 years.
“The time has come for new immigration rules which say that those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years,” Trump told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa at the U.S. Cellular Center.
The president said his administration would be “putting in legislation to that effect very shortly.” But such a law is already in effect and has been in place since 1996.
Known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the legislation was passed during the administration of former President Bill Clinton and said that an immigrant is “not eligible for any Federal means-tested public benefit” for 5 years, which starts on the date the immigrant enters the country.
Trump has long pushed for more aggressive immigration policies, seeking to build a wall on the United States’ border with Mexico. "
I'm curious doesn't his staff check this stuff out before they let him out in public?
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 22, 2017 3:16:35 GMT
So tonight trump proposed a new piece of legislation that already exists..... From the Hill. "President Trump in a rally on Wednesday evening said immigrants who enter the United States should not be eligible for welfare benefits for five years, though such a law has already existed for 20 years. “The time has come for new immigration rules which say that those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years,” Trump told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa at the U.S. Cellular Center. The president said his administration would be “putting in legislation to that effect very shortly.” But such a law is already in effect and has been in place since 1996. Known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the legislation was passed during the administration of former President Bill Clinton and said that an immigrant is “not eligible for any Federal means-tested public benefit” for 5 years, which starts on the date the immigrant enters the country. Trump has long pushed for more aggressive immigration policies, seeking to build a wall on the United States’ border with Mexico. " I'm curious doesn't his staff check this stuff out before they let him out in public? nop, they thank him for the opportunity and blessing to serve him
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 22, 2017 3:22:38 GMT
Maybe they did it and I didn't notice but I don't remember any other president starting his run for reelection this early. I do remember people belly-aching about President Obama giving speeches, because it sounded like he was still 'campaigning' (like when he gave speeches talking about his healthcare plan, etc.) and not taking care of Presidential duties. But THIS President? HE IS campaigning, and doing it blatantly!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 12:34:01 GMT
"President Donald Trump promised supporters at a campaign rally in Iowa Wednesday night that he would "very shortly" pass a law that would ban immigrants from receiving welfare benefits for "at least five years." The problem? That's already the law....That law has been on the books for more than 20 years, applying to immigrants who entered the United States after Aug. 22, 1996." mic.com/articles/180580/trump-gets-standing-ovation-for-promising-to-pass-a-law-already-on-the-booksI bet his sycophants were getting aroused thinking how great he and his policies are.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 22, 2017 13:16:11 GMT
"President Donald Trump promised supporters at a campaign rally in Iowa Wednesday night that he would "very shortly" pass a law that would ban immigrants from receiving welfare benefits for "at least five years." The problem? That's already the law....That law has been on the books for more than 20 years, applying to immigrants who entered the United States after Aug. 22, 1996." mic.com/articles/180580/trump-gets-standing-ovation-for-promising-to-pass-a-law-already-on-the-booksI bet his sycophants were getting aroused thinking how great he and his policies are. Nothing surprising--he's stolen credit for most everything he's done. He's a weak man of very little substance. The power he has is in the media assaults, the frenzy he creates at rallies, his bombastic and unintelligent rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 22, 2017 13:16:51 GMT
"President Donald Trump promised supporters at a campaign rally in Iowa Wednesday night that he would "very shortly" pass a law that would ban immigrants from receiving welfare benefits for "at least five years." The problem? That's already the law....That law has been on the books for more than 20 years, applying to immigrants who entered the United States after Aug. 22, 1996." mic.com/articles/180580/trump-gets-standing-ovation-for-promising-to-pass-a-law-already-on-the-booksI bet his sycophants were getting aroused thinking how great he and his policies are. From the same article: It was a defense against a question about the spectacularly wealthy cabinet he's put together. Apparently anyone not worth billions is "poor" and can't be possibly be a great economic mind. And he just insulted millions of his voters, and they don't even realize it. He's basically saying that rich people like him are smarter than "poor" people (anyone not worth billions), and they eat it up, and cry about Hillary's "deplorables" comment. This administration doesn't give a shit if you're morally and ethically bankrupt and possibly as dense as a rock; all that matters is that your financial disclosure shows you're worth billions.
|
|
DEX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,394
Aug 9, 2014 23:13:22 GMT
|
Post by DEX on Jun 22, 2017 13:23:16 GMT
Deplorable!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 14:44:42 GMT
Petty man is at it....
"Former Homeland Security Advisor Jeh Johnson is latest top intelligence official to state there was no grand scheme between Trump & Russia."
"By the way, if Russia was working so hard on the 2016 Election, it all took place during the Obama Admin. Why didn't they stop them?"
"...Why did Democratic National Committee turn down the DHS offer to protect against hacks (long prior to election). It's all a big Dem HOAX!"
"...Why did the DNC REFUSE to turn over its Server to the FBI, and still hasn't? It's all a big Dem scam and excuse for losing the election!"
"I certainly hope the Democrats do not force Nancy P out. That would be very bad for the Republican Party - and please let Cryin' Chuck stay!
Obviously tiny hands didn't watch Rachel Maddow last night. She asked some interesting questions. Like when the Russians meddled in the individual districts did they only do so in known to be heavy Democratic districts in somewhat red states. The example she used was Texas. She laid out a scenario that the Russians attack two heavily Democratic districts around Dallas and Houston but ignored next door districts that were heavily Republican. The question she raised is did the Russian mess with the vote totals in these two districts enough so Hillary lost the state. Because for a while it was suggested she just might win Texas.
Did this happen? Who knows and I suspect we will never know for sure. FiveThirtyEight has maintained Hillary lost because of the Comey letter about nothing. Their daily polling saw a large drop off of support right after the letter was released and while it started to climb it was not enough before Election Day.
However now we know what Russia can do and it's time we protect our elections from their attacks.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 20, 2024 0:13:49 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2017 15:43:21 GMT
From FiveThrityEight on 6/22/2017
"President Donald Trump has a 38.5% approval rating. 53eig.ht/2lYTN9X"
|
|