Support NeoGAF

[AntraxSuicide]

Right, exactly. And its not even people who are denying that things like racism, sexism, etc are important because, again, I think most of them do. But if you believe the infrastructure is composed only of economic relations than it becomes much easier to believe a class is composed of members who share some interests and don't share others, whereas I see class as composed of members who share some interests and have other interests that are opposed to each other

For me at least, I'm also uncomfortable in my political circles with people that seem heavy on the economics and light on the social justice because, in most of these circles, the group is typically economically-underprivileged white people, usually men. So it's not that I don't believe them when they say they support social justice, it's just that they (and myself as a poor white guy) are only going to benefit from economic leftism. There's literally no downside for me to vote on that basis. But the social justice stuff means, in real terms, that we'll be fighting to give up privileges that we have enjoyed for our entire lives, sometimes even privileges we didn't realize we had. So it's much more likely to me that someone in an intersectional group will continue to fight for economic justice, even after they might obtain social justice, than it is for someone in an economics-focused group to continue to fight for social justice after they might obtain economic justice.

Note that I just said more likely, not that it is likely. But still, it's always a thought I have at these events.

 

[Autodidact]

For me at least, I'm also uncomfortable in my political circles with people that seem heavy on the economics and light on the social justice because, in most of these circles, the group is typically economically-underprivileged white people, usually men. So it's not that I don't believe them when they say they support social justice, it's just that they (and myself as a poor white guy) are only going to benefit from economic leftism. There's literally no downside for me to vote on that basis. But the social justice stuff means, in real terms, that we'll be fighting to give up privileges that we have enjoyed for our entire lives, sometimes even privileges we didn't realize we had. So it's much more likely to me that someone in an intersectional group will continue to fight for economic justice, even after they might obtain social justice, than it is for someone in an economics-focused group to continue to fight for social justice after they might obtain economic justice.

Note that I just said more likely, not that it is likely. But still, it's always a thought I have at these events.

Agreed.

My hot take: last year, starting with Bernie, a group of young white heterosexual malcontents decided that a party focused on women and minorities should change itself to accommodate them. (Whom do you think "economic issues" benefit most?) They've been taught from birth that they should control everything and everything should be about them, so why not the Democratic Party?

.

I wish they could be as thoughtful as you.

 

[jtb]

My main (and really only major) issue with the far left wing of the party is they wrap themselves in the sanctimony of the collective good, even though they're driven by political self-interest just like everybody else. The whole free college tuition debate distilled conflicted thoughts on this for me quite well last year.

 

[PBY]

For me at least, I'm also uncomfortable in my political circles with people that seem heavy on the economics and light on the social justice because, in most of these circles, the group is typically economically-underprivileged white people, usually men. So it's not that I don't believe them when they say they support social justice, it's just that they (and myself as a poor white guy) are only going to benefit from economic leftism. There's literally no downside for me to vote on that basis. But the social justice stuff means, in real terms, that we'll be fighting to give up privileges that we have enjoyed for our entire lives, sometimes even privileges we didn't realize we had. So it's much more likely to me that someone in an intersectional group will continue to fight for economic justice, even after they might obtain social justice, than it is for someone in an economics-focused group to continue to fight for social justice after they might obtain economic justice.

Note that I just said more likely, not that it is likely. But still, it's always a thought I have at these events.

I agree - but weren't you advocating that the party abandon a hard line abortion?

I feel like abortion gets lost in the shuffle in this discussion.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

My #1 wish since Mueller was hired was for Trump to get taken away in handcuffs, i think my new #1 would be for Fox News to get taken down for spreading Russia's fake news to help Trump win.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I agree - but weren't you advocating that the party abandon a hard line abortion?

I feel like abortion gets lost in the shuffle in this discussion.

I was holding the position that you said still counted as pro-choice, but I disagreed. I think it's fine to have people, especially in red states, say that they don't like abortion, they don't agree with it, etc... as long as they don't actually pass or support legislation. My only issue with Mello back then was that he had actually voted for restrictive bills.

Tim Kaine types (or even people who speak more harshly) are fine with me as long as they don't actually do anything. At least in red states. I don't know where you live, but if it's a blue state, then for sure, you should push for more liberal candidates in primaries. But I'm not going to stop any Dem from trying to win here in MS, even if that means they'll be bad-mouthing the DNC platform at times.

edit: Which, to this point, pigeon pointed out that people can't be expected to trust that those candidates are just talk, which is fair. I just have experience with Dems here who, at private events hanging out after canvassing and whatnot, will cop to faking a lot of shit. I even know a guy who probably wouldn't call himself a Christian if this weren't Mississippi and it wouldn't ruin his career (they're not a politician, just a person who works around that sphere). I think it's fair to doubt these people, but again, I'm a beggar here, not a chooser.

 

[PBY]

I was holding the position that you said still counted as pro-choice, but I disagreed. I think it's fine to have people, especially in red states, say that they don't like abortion, they don't agree with it, etc... as long as they don't actually pass or support legislation. My only issue with Mello back then was that he had actually voted for restrictive bills.

Tim Kaine types (or even people who speak more harshly) are fine with me as long as they don't actually do anything. At least in red states. I don't know where you live, but if it's a blue state, then for sure, you should push for more liberal candidates in primaries. But I'm not going to stop any Dem from trying to win here in MS, even if that means they'll be bad-mouthing the DNC platform at times.

Oh, my mistake then - mischaracterized your position. We're totally in agreement.

 

[Host Samurai]

My #1 wish since Mueller was hired was for Trump to get taken away in handcuffs, i think my new #1 would be for Fox News to get taken down for spreading Russia's fake news to help Trump win.

I believe that they should be held accountable for all this shit, but its tricky here since that goes right into the 1st Amendment and that should be protected at all cost no matter what.

 

[The Technomancer]

I wish I remembered who on Twitter said this, but the issue with allowing pro-life people into the party as reps is that as soon as there's more than one of them then they have political power. If there's four of them four votes can often be decisive, and they can start asking for concessions.

 

[jtb]

I wish I remembered who on Twitter said this, but the issue with allowing pro-life people into the party as reps is that as soon as there's more than one of them then they have political power. If there's four of them four votes can often be decisive, and they can start asking for concessions.

I share this concern.

If we don't need them to form a majority on abortion issues, we don't need them to form a majority, period.

And if we do, then we're in dangerous waters.

 

[Dr. Worm]

nvm

 

[Prof. Bathtub]

All that talk around the O'Reilly/Ailes departures about the Murdoch children moderating was the most foolhardy wishful thinking. I just hope for more solidarity against the network, but that's not what other companies are doing when they hire Fox castoffs, as if people tune for specific personalities. There's a reason why many of them are blonde clones grown in vats.

 

[Teggy]

Eric Bolling next on the chopping block?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5984d2bbe4b0cb15b1be6d65/amp

He "doesn't believe" he sent lewd texts. Not "did not". "Doesn't believe". LOL

 

[ratcliffja]

I believe that they should be held accountable for all this shit, but its tricky here since that goes right into the 1st Amendment and that should be protected at all cost no matter what.

Yeah propaganda is a tough thing to nail down. Even if there was evidence that Russia was paying them to blatantly lie to the American public, it's still a potentially dangerous precedent to prosecute fake news. The best we could hope for is for top Fox executives to be prosecuted for something other than the actual news reporting. Ideally, the channel would become too much of a liability for Murdoch to maintain.

 

[Barzul]

Is O'Malley really running again in 2020?

 

[chadskin]

Flynn is so fucked

Investigators working for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, recently asked the White House for documents related to former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, and have questioned witnesses about whether he was secretly paid by the Turkish government during the final months of the presidential campaign, according to people close to the investigation.

Though not a formal subpoena, the document request is the first known instance of Mr. Mueller’s team asking the White House to hand over records.

In interviews with potential witnesses in recent weeks, prosecutors and F.B.I. agents have spent hours pouring over the details of Mr. Flynn’s business dealings with a Turkish-American businessman who worked last year with Mr. Flynn and his consulting business, the Flynn Intel Group.

The company was paid $530,000 to run a campaign to discredit an opponent of the Turkish government who has been accused of orchestrating last year’s failed coup in the country.

Investigators want to know if the Turkish government was behind those payments — and if the Flynn Intel Group made kickbacks to the businessman, Ekim Alptekin, for helping conceal the source of the money.

Investigators are examining the flow of money into and out of the Flynn Intel Group — a consulting firm Mr. Flynn founded after being forced out as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency — according to several potential witnesses who have been interviewed by prosecutors and F.B.I. agents.

Taking money from Turkey or any foreign government is not illegal. But failing to register as a foreign agent is a felony, and trying to hide the source of the money by routing it through a private company or some other entity, and then paying kickbacks to the middleman, could lead to numerous criminal charges, including fraud.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/us/politics/robert-mueller-michael-flynn-turkey.html

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I share this concern.

If we don't need them to form a majority on abortion issues, we don't need them to form a majority, period.

And if we do, then we're in dangerous waters.

?

Assume there are 53 Dem Senators.

47 liberals
3 pro life, anti-fossil fuels
3 pro choice, pro fossil fuels.

 

[Autodidact]

Is O'Malley really running again in 2020?

He should announce his candidacy with a shirtless spread in Men's Fitness.

Mid-fifties never looked so fine.

 

[PBY]

?

Assume there are 53 Dem Senators.

47 liberals
3 pro life, anti-fossil fuels
3 pro choice, pro fossil fuels.

Do you believe it's a fundamental right or not.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I wish I remembered who on Twitter said this, but the issue with allowing pro-life people into the party as reps is that as soon as there's more than one of them then they have political power. If there's four of them four votes can often be decisive, and they can start asking for concessions.

Honest question, what abortion-related votes are we anticipating on the federal level? I know there are a lot of fights going on in the states, but do we really lose much practically by having a pro-life North Dakota senator that will still vote to confirm our supreme court nominee?

 

[jtb]

?

Assume there are 53 Dem Senators.

47 liberals
3 pro life, anti-fossil fuels
3 pro choice, pro fossil fuels.

I was thinking the House.

I totally acknowledge the political calculus and need to widen the playing field as much as possible. I just think the way that people handwave the abortion issue away by saying 'oh, well Pelosi will just whip the votes' is premature.

 

[Suikoguy]

I wish I remembered who on Twitter said this, but the issue with allowing pro-life people into the party as reps is that as soon as there's more than one of them then they have political power. If there's four of them four votes can often be decisive, and they can start asking for concessions.

Certainly that's the flip side of the coin.

Fuck, I wish we just had rank-order voting and no primaries.

The disconnect between Primary and GE voters seems to be the core of the problem.

I was thinking the House.

I totally acknowledge the political calculus and need to widen the playing field as much as possible. I just think the way that people handwave the abortion issue away by saying 'oh, well Pelosi will just whip the votes' is premature.

Ironically, the House was never a problem for Democrats, it was the Senate.

 

[Teggy]

Is O'Malley really running again in 2020?

Everyone is running in 2020. If ever there was a year to throw up a Hail Mary, 2020 is it.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

But the social justice stuff means, in real terms, that we'll be fighting to give up privileges that we have enjoyed for our entire lives, sometimes even privileges we didn't realize we had.

Such as? Can you be concrete? I don't know which of these privileges you're talking about that people will hold onto if they're even hypothetically leftist. Who is the person out there saying "I want to vote for Bernie Sanders, but if we start holding police officers more accountable, I will be losing something, so we now have a point of conflict." Who are these people and why do you know them?

Do you believe it's a fundamental right or not.

It's like you're not even listening to him. Also, nice goalpost move.

 

[Suikoguy]

Everyone is running in 2020. If ever there was a year to throw up a Hail Mary, 2020 is it.

Next thing you know, Jake Paul will announce.
Obviously, if he can get all the the kids out to vote, it will be an easy primary.

 

[jtb]

Ironically, the House was never a problem for Democrats, it was the Senate.

Do you think that will be the same with the heavily gerrymandered 2018 House map?

Being in the opposition helps (particularly in the Senate). Don't bother trying to run from the party, you'll just lose your seat.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Next thing you know, Jake Paul will announce.
Obviously, if he can get all the the kids out to vote, it will be an easy primary.

"England is my city"

His foreign policy credentials are almost as bad as Trump's.

 

[Autodidact]

I truly can see both sides of this argument. We had a fair number of pro-life Blue Dogs as recently as 2010. As far as I can tell, they exercised little influence on the party's position vis-a-vis abortion. What reason do we have to think that they would this time?

But for once, I also agree with PBY. Abortion rights should be fundamental in a liberal democracy. You may not agree with abortion personally (Kaine, Biden), but you cannot limit women's ability to dictate their reproductive - and, by extension, their personal and economic - lives. We should be sending that message consistently and vociferously. Accepting pro-life candidates, even if they have little hope of gaining power, can be construed as a dismissal or marginalization of women's rights, a subject on which we should never compromise. Appearances matter, especially in a party comprising so many vulnerable people who depend on Democrats to defend their rights.

Let me phrase it more concisely: were I a Democratic strategist, I wouldn't court these candidates.

 

[Suikoguy]

Do you think that will be the same with the heavily gerrymandered 2018 House map?

The part about gerrymandering is, with a big enough wave it will breach the wall they created. Making the situation worse than if they did not gerrymander. Gerrymandering also is the primary culprit for the GOP being as effective as a pile of sand.

After the 2010 Census, the Republican Party put in motion its plan to redraw congressional districts more favorable to conservative candidates. Whereas bipartisan gerrymandering creates safe districts for both parties, the GOP undertook partisan gerrymandering, which packs the other party’s voters into as few districts as possible and spreads out the gerrymandering party’s voters across many districts, each of which that party can win but often by uncomfortably narrow margins.

Pennsylvania illustrates this strategy. In the 2012 election, Democratic congressional candidates won about 75,000 more votes than did Republican candidates, but the GOP captured 13 of 18 seats. Four of the five Democratic districts had been packed with Democratic voters. The safest of these districts scored D+38 on the Cook Report’s Partisan Voter Index (PVI), which means that voters in this district backed President Obama in 2008-2012 by 38 percentage points more than the national electorate.

That gigantic wave is in the making. I mentioned it awhile back, but I don't think all the Dem infighting will matter much, as long as it's primarily resolved by 2024. That's when things will get more interesting.

 

[habithipster]

Guys, seriously though :

Spoiler

Fox news feeling that heat.

"And even if you did care, why should you..."

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

It was just locker room treason, something something,Obama, Hillary, unmasking

 

[jtb]

The part about gerrymandering is, with a big enough wave it will breach the wall they created. Making the situation worse than if they did not gerrymander. Gerrymandering also is the primary culprit for the GOP being as effective as a pile of sand.



That gigantic wave is in the making. I mentioned it awhile back, but I don't think all the Dem infighting will matter much, as long as it's primarily resolved by 2024. That's when things will get more interesting.

Let me flip this slightly: how much do you think we can run up the score on the generic ballot before we would hit a completely impenetrable abortion ceiling?

I want to believe in the wave washing over all, but it's such a high bar to clear. We need, what, a +7 or +8 ballot to flip the House?

 

[Autodidact]

Let me flip this slightly: how much do you think we can run up the score on the generic ballot before we would hit a completely impenetrable abortion ceiling?

I want to believe in the wave washing over all, but it's such a high bar to clear. We need, what, a +7 or +8 ballot to flip the House?

+7 minimum to have a decent (like, 1/3) chance, I think I've read. Anything higher just makes it more likely.

 

[Suikoguy]

It was just locker room treason, something something,Obama, Hillary, unmasking

Locker Room Treason, the new Light Treason.

Let me flip this slightly: how much do you think we can run up the score on the generic ballot before we would hit a completely impenetrable abortion ceiling?

I want to believe in the wave washing over all, but it's such a high bar to clear. We need, what, a +7 or +8 ballot to flip the House?

That's a good question and probably impossible to answer as it's going to depend on enthusiasm too.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Can someone explain to me the affection for Chelsea Manning outside of her advocacy for trans rights?

Like, I'm not saying "throw her in jail" or anything like that, her period in captivity was clearly horrible beyond the scope of any actual "justice" and as compensation her freedom is deserved.

But, from my understanding, she had no actual imperative to release the information that she did to WikiLeaks. Unlike, say, Snowden where shit was clearly infringing on the solvency of the Constitution. Like, Snowden;s leaks were driven from constitutional concerns, but she basically just released embarrassing diplomatic cables and as a side effect revealed the names and locations of intelligence assets, correct?

 

[Wilsongt]

Flynn is so fucked.

 

[Suikoguy]

Can someone explain to me the affection for Chelsea Manning outside of her advocacy for trans rights?

Like, I'm not saying "throw her in jail" or anything like that, her period in captivity was clearly horrible beyond the scope of any actual "justice" and as compensation her freedom is deserved.

But, from my understanding, she had no actual imperative to release the information that she did to WikiLeaks. Unlike, say, Snowden where shit was clearly infringing on the solvency of the Constitution. Like, Snowden;s leaks were driven from constitutional concerns, but she basically just released embarrassing diplomatic cables and as a side effect revealed the names and locations of intelligence assets, correct?

There was not much there that would qualify as "whistleblowing" if that's what you mean.
It's why I never liked Wikileaks to begin with, their message was to release all information, regardless of the public interest.

(I gotta get some work done, i'll be back later)

 

[sc0la]

It was just locker room treason, something something,Obama, Hillary, unmasking

*spittle hitting keyboard* SUSAN RICE ,
...
LEAKERS,
CRIMES *face turns red*

 

[kirblar]

Can someone explain to me the affection for Chelsea Manning outside of her advocacy for trans rights?

Like, I'm not saying "throw her in jail" or anything like that, her period in captivity was clearly horrible beyond the scope of any actual "justice" and as compensation her freedom is deserved.

But, from my understanding, she had no actual imperative to release the information that she did to WikiLeaks. Unlike, say, Snowden where shit was clearly infringing on the solvency of the Constitution. Like, Snowden;s leaks were driven from constitutional concerns, but she basically just released embarrassing diplomatic cables and as a side effect revealed the names and locations of intelligence assets, correct?

"America is bad and she hurt America and therefore is good" is what it boils down to.

 

[habithipster]

It was just locker room treason, something something,Obama, Hillary, unmasking

HOLY SHIT

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

There was not much there that would qualify as "whistleblowing" if that's what you mean.
It's why I never liked Wikileaks to begin with, their message was to release all information, regardless of the public interest.

(I gotta get some work done, i'll be back later)

"America is bad and she hurt America and therefore is good" is what it boils down to.

Ok, well, that's pretty much what I thought.

So therefore I can respect her struggle as a trans woman in an incredibly hostile environment while also thinking she was ultimately just an edge lord traitor in committing her initial infraction.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Such as? Can you be concrete? I don't know which of these privileges you're talking about that people will hold onto if they're even hypothetically leftist. Who is the person out there saying "I want to vote for Bernie Sanders, but if we start holding police officers more accountable, I will be losing something, so we now have a point of conflict." Who are these people and why do you know them?

Police action won't affect white dudes, sure. But how about affirmative action? I strongly support that, and in fact, I think it doesn't go far enough (white women disproportionately benefit from it while people of color don't get enough benefit). But I, as a white guy, may end up not getting a job over someone who is equally qualified but is a person of color. That's a good thing on average!

And this is also a benefit that most white people don't know they get; nobody hires somebody and says, "I'm hiring you because you're not one of those people." They just don't notice their own biases (or don't publicly state them). I've probably gotten jobs before because of racism (and hell, this is rural Mississippi. I'd bet my bank account on it).

Racism, sexism, discrimination in general; all of that benefits me as a cis-gendered, (mostly) straight, white man. And of the few things I'm not socially privileged on (my religion), I can hide that easily. My fight for social justice will cause me to lose things, for sure. But I gain in cultural diversity and I gain from belonging to a more equal society. My overall point in that post is that not everyone values that as highly as I do, and so if the time came to, say, reject an economic program because it excluded a minority group, I'm not as sure that people with heavy economic interests will reject such a program.

I truly can see both sides of this argument. We had a fair number of pro-life Blue Dogs as recently as 2010. As far as I can tell, they exercised little influence on the party's position vis-a-vis abortion. What reason do we have to think that they would this time?

But for once, I also agree with PBY. Abortion rights should be fundamental in a liberal democracy. You may not agree with abortion personally (Kaine, Biden), but you cannot limit women's ability to dictate their reproductive - and, by extension, their personal and economic - lives. We should be sending that message consistently and vociferously. Accepting pro-life candidates, even if they have little hope of gaining power, can be construed as a dismissal or marginalization of women's rights, a subject on which we should never compromise. Appearances matter, especially in a party comprising so many vulnerable people who depend on Democrats to defend their rights.

Let me phrase it more concisely: were I a Democratic strategist, I wouldn't court these candidates.

To be clear, I agree with this position. But I also want it to be known that it is a compromise to me. I do not think abortions are bad. I don't even think it matters whether a fetus is alive or not. To me, the right to bodily autonomy should trump all else in the conversation, in a sense. But I accept some compromise in this, which is why I'm okay with people not carrying that message. My limit still exists, and that limit is advancing actual legislation.

 

[Abinash117]

For me at least, I'm also uncomfortable in my political circles with people that seem heavy on the economics and light on the social justice because, in most of these circles, the group is typically economically-underprivileged white people, usually men. So it's not that I don't believe them when they say they support social justice, it's just that they (and myself as a poor white guy) are only going to benefit from economic leftism. There's literally no downside for me to vote on that basis. But the social justice stuff means, in real terms, that we'll be fighting to give up privileges that we have enjoyed for our entire lives, sometimes even privileges we didn't realize we had. So it's much more likely to me that someone in an intersectional group will continue to fight for economic justice, even after they might obtain social justice, than it is for someone in an economics-focused group to continue to fight for social justice after they might obtain economic justice.

Note that I just said more likely, not that it is likely. But still, it's always a thought I have at these events.

It is not entirely true that you lose privilege when furthering the progress of social justice,it benefits everyone. For example, criminal justice when protect many White Americans especially their children from heavy handed nature of the justice system. The justice system is also against the poor.

Body cameras, better drug treatment, family leave, better quality and access to education, solving police corruption and improving their tactics, lightening drug sentences, etc all will improve the lives of everyone including the poor-working class white Americans; too many people think it is a binary choice which it isn't. Even the Civil Rights Act benefited everyone to a degree.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

It is not entirely true that you lose privilege when furthering the progress of social justice,it benefits everyone. For example, criminal justice when protect many White Americans especially their children from heavy handed nature of the justice system. The justice system is also against the poor.

Body cameras, better drug treatment, family leave, better quality and access to education, solving police corruption and improving their tactics, lightening drug sentences, etc all will improve the lives of everyone including the poor-working class white Americans; too many people think it is a binary choice which it isn't. Even the Civil Rights Act benefited everyone to a degree.

I benefit from social diversity because I value that in itself. For me personally (and the people I'm talking about in these political groups), criminal justice reform isn't that big a deal. No one there would have much interaction with that system, outside of maybe weed charges.

And yes, white women exist and a large number of those things will benefit them. But I'm talking about people like me; I'm socially privileged across almost every demographic slice, as are the people I'm talking about. I don't mean this as a broad brush situation. Just a feeling I've had at some of these groups.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I knew the socialist left loved Tina Turner, but wasn't aware until now they also want to run Chelsea Manning for President.

 

[PBY]

I truly can see both sides of this argument. We had a fair number of pro-life Blue Dogs as recently as 2010. As far as I can tell, they exercised little influence on the party's position vis-a-vis abortion. What reason do we have to think that they would this time?

But for once, I also agree with PBY. Abortion rights should be fundamental in a liberal democracy. You may not agree with abortion personally (Kaine, Biden), but you cannot limit women's ability to dictate their reproductive - and, by extension, their personal and economic - lives. We should be sending that message consistently and vociferously. Accepting pro-life candidates, even if they have little hope of gaining power, can be construed as a dismissal or marginalization of women's rights, a subject on which we should never compromise. Appearances matter, especially in a party comprising so many vulnerable people who depend on Democrats to defend their rights.

Let me phrase it more concisely: were I a Democratic strategist, I wouldn't court these candidates.

This is v reasonable.

 

[sphagnum]

I knew the socialist left loved Tina Turner, but wasn't aware until now they also want to run Chelsea Manning for President.

who doesn't love Tina Turner

 

[Autodidact]

I wish Moderate Darling Emerita Olympia Snowe had run against Paul LePage in 2014.

Spoiler

I always liked her a bit more than Collins. Don't tell Sue.

 

[Barzul]

Trump and Kushner backing McMaster

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/...es.html?referer=https://t.co/pZrt69h6WC?amp=1

 

[Teggy]

Trump and Kushner backing McMaster

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/...es.html?referer=https://t.co/pZrt69h6WC?amp=1

disgonnabgud.gif