Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

You probably need a Republican President to get that "tea party" of the left. (Netroots anyone?)

Party loyalty is incredibly strong right now and has been for the last, well almost two decades now. In comparison to the rest of the 20th century.

The "left" got burned with Nader and the "right" with Perot. (Although in neither case is there strong supporting evidence for this narrative.) And it's part of why all that Unity08, Americans Elect, etc. bullshit went nowhere.

George Wallace ran in 1968 explicitly on the purpose of gaining just enough EV's to deny a majority to both parties in hopes that one would give him concessions. It's why Nixon hammered so hard on law and order themes because that's where Wallace's non-overtly-racist strength lied. Thurmond and Henry Wallace tried the same thing in 1948.

Nobody today would be able to pull off that stunt and be re-accepted back into the party as all three were. (Well, Wallace bailed for the GOP and Eisenhower.) So you do a primary attempt where everyone's more concerned about how can win in the general (hence Kerry, McCain and Romney) and then vote for Dem/GOP.

Also-rans that try to launch that kind of independent bid don't get anywhere so you'd need someone with star power within one of the two parties currently to launch a serious third party bid with no concern/worry for their future party prospects ala Teddy Roosevelt. Sarah Palin is more or less it unless Elizabeth Warren doesn't really have interest in being a Senator. Outside of those two I don't really see anyone else who could make a serious dent in the Big Two.

I guess Hillary could do it too.

Because Obama/Dems accept climate change doesn't mean the Republicans should deny it and then mislead their constituents into thinking it's a hoax causing massive problems.....For instance, because someone is a liberal doesn't mean they have to be against the death penalty. But in today's climate, you're almost feel pressured into it simply because if you don't, you're on "their side." That's how you end up with a political dichotomy where little actually happens and progress is stifled.

And if we want to act like we're observing critically, we can't pretend like there aren't Democrats who are all over climate change because Al Gore or Obama or other cultural indicators signaled them to be. You can pretty much guess at what comments you're going to read on almost any brand new news topic at DU/FR before you actually do.

 

[Black Mamba]

And if we want to act like we're observing critically, we can't pretend like there aren't Democrats who are all over climate change because Al Gore or Obama or other cultural indicators signaled them to be. You can pretty much guess at what comments you're going to read on almost any brand new news topic at DU/FR before you actually do.

My post made it clear that Dems are guilty of this too.

The party you choose isn't supposed to be a team. It's something that is supposed to represent your general viewpoints better than the others.

 

[benjipwns]

The party you choose isn't supposed to be a team. It's something that is supposed to represent your general viewpoints better than the others.

BUT WE HAVE TO WIN, IF WE DON'T THEY DO.

 

[speculawyer]

Only in Obamas america is getting POWs back a bad thing.


I'm really really really pissed of at mccain being a party to this btw. I know he's sorta senile, but damn.

Mike Huckabee
December 31, 2012 ·
The Navy SEALS leave no man behind. But America did. After the raid on Osama bin Laden, America left behind Shakeel Afridi, the heroic doctor who helped us find him.

https://www.facebook.com/mikehuckabee/posts/10151204184387869

A SEAL has never been left behind on a mission.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/navy-seal1.htm

Leave No Man Behind
Six years ago this month, Petty Officer Neil Roberts, a U.S. Navy SEAL, fell out of a stricken helicopter during Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. According to a Pentagon report, Roberts survived the fall, then held off Al Qaida and Taliban fighters for over 30 minutes, firing a belt-fed machine-gun. The terrorists finally overran Roberts’ position and killed him at close range, after his gun jammed.

Believing that Roberts might still be alive, U.S. special forces mounted two rescue attempts. Six other Americans—including two airmen—died in the fighting that followed. The battle finally ended with the recovery of Roberts’ body, the evacuation of other casualties, and Air Force gunships raking the area with cannon fire.

The effort to rescue Petty Officer Roberts typifies the military credo of “leave no man behind.” It’s the same spirit that motivates the search for those listed as missing in action, a process that continues years (even decades) after they disappear.

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/03/leave-no-man-behind.html


I find it funny to watch the GOP completely ignore this deep military code. Of course I'm not surprised considering how many of them are chickenhawks. But it is kinda funny to see them just piss all over an military creed like this.

 

[Mario]

Leave no man behind, and no chance for a cheap political shot untaken.

 

[benjipwns]

You look at the 1960-70s for example you had Mark Hatfield, Charles Mathias, Harry F. Byrd, James Buckley (Bill's brother) in the Senate who were constantly voting against their party (or left it) but still caucused and got party support and seniority within the party and weren't dinged by the party for coming back into it as Buckley did. Wallace wasn't the only one who drifted in and out of his party at various levels.

Lieberman sucks but look at how all of that went. Or Robert Smith from NH, who swapped to Independent for a little while and then the GOP was more than happy to see him lose his primary when he swapped back.

Actually you can pull together a multipart one with Lowell Weicker, a liberal Republican Senator who conservatives backed Lieberman over so Weicker than ran as an independent for Governor and started backing Democrats while Lieberman later had the revolt against him and he backed McCain.

The "moderates" being farthest from their party mean. Which is basically derived from:

 

[TacticalFox88]

Political cartoon from Canada.

*sigh* Goddammit shit made me sad.

 

[Wilsongt]

Today is the Republican primary in SC. As much as I hate Lindsey Graham, I really hope he wins as his opponents are fucking nuts.

 

[speculawyer]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd....963_792727184095034_5767837549835580538_n.jpg

Political cartoon from Canada.

*sigh* Goddammit shit made me sad.

Did you see Maddow last night? She went off on the fact that the NRA supported and helped pass a law in Indiana saying that it was OK for people to shoot cops if they felt the cops were doing something illegal (a law which is redundant IMHO and gives people bad ideas). And how we learned that the shooters in Vegas gave this law a thumbs up of approval.

I think Cliff Schecter has good framing on this . . . keep pounding on the fact that NRA is not around to benefit gun owners . . . it is around merely to help gun makers sell guns to ANYONE. Those two policemen (who carry guns) sure don't benefit from the NRA's attempts to ensure those nuts could buy guns.

 

[Sirpopopop]

https://www.facebook.com/mikehuckabee/posts/10151204184387869


http://science.howstuffworks.com/navy-seal1.htm


http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/03/leave-no-man-behind.html


I find it funny to watch the GOP completely ignore this deep military code. Of course I'm not surprised considering how many of them are chickenhawks. But it is kinda funny to see them just piss all over an military creed like this.

That former spook blog is Exhibit A. in hypocrisy. Read what he says about the Bergdahl exchange. The code only exists when a Republican is in office. When it's a Democrat, fuck the code.

 

[speculawyer]

Today is the Republican primary in SC. As much as I hate Lindsey Graham, I really hope he wins as his opponents are fucking nuts.

Again, I point out that maybe the nuts are better. Even if they get into office, they'll eventually self-implode and further drag down the image of the GOP as theocratic anti-science nuts.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Report: Defense Officials Doubt White House Justification For Bergdahl Swap
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bergdahl-white-house-defense-department-doubts

Why lie? If your argument is we don't leave US troops behind, hold firm to that while arguing his life was in danger simply due to being a fucking prisoner of a terrorist group.

 

[Wilsongt]

Again, I point out that maybe the nuts are better. Even if they get into office, they'll eventually self-implode and further drag down the image of the GOP as theocratic anti-science nuts.

Doesn't matter in SC. We'll always have 2 Republican senators who are batshit insane. It's sort of expected. It's just Lindsey is less batshit.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Report: Defense Officials Doubt White House Justification For Bergdahl Swap
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bergdahl-white-house-defense-department-doubts

Why lie? If your argument is we don't leave US troops behind, hold firm to that while arguing his life was in danger simply due to being a fucking prisoner of a terrorist group.

I love nameless defense officials. What have they said publically?

 

[Wilsongt]

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was asked Tuesday if he considers the Las Vegas shootings on Sunday to be "an act of domestic terrorism."

"I -- I'm not sure how I'd describe it," he responded to reporters in the Capitol. "But clearly we had a couple of sick individuals who engaged in a horrific crime. And our hearts go out to those families, especially the families of those two officers who went down."

Yes. This is domestic terrorism. Stop trying to avoid saying it.

 

[RustyNails]

Anyone watch Jon Stewart's coverage of hysteria surrounding Bergdahl on Fox News? I.N.S.A.N.I.T.Y.

They showed a bit where this batshit lady on fox says bismillah ir rahman ar raheem is muslim code language to say when you have conquered a country or white house in this case.

It makes me very upset because the foxnews crowd will eat it up as fact because the lady was ex-musulmaic or something. This is Ground Zero Victory Mosque all over again.

 

[speculawyer]

Yes. This is domestic terrorism. Stop trying to avoid saying it.

Yeah, that is pretty funny coming from a party that has been trying to make a scandal out of Obama not calling something terrorism! That Vegas shooting was text-book terrorism ... people with a political cause, killing people, and leaving political propaganda.

Sure . . . you may call them crazy . . . but aren't suicide bombers also just as crazy? Or does the 'sick individuals' description only apply to white people?

 

[speculawyer]

Doesn't matter in SC. We'll always have 2 Republican senators who are batshit insane. It's sort of expected. It's just Lindsey is less batshit.

Either way, they'll generally vote against what you would like. But the loose cannons may serve to destroy the GOP's image. Sure, they may remain in office in SC . . . but if people's view of the GOP becomes "they are fringe nuts" .. . they may lose in more moderate places.

But I guess the problem with what I am talking about is that this further polarizes our toxic political system. But then again, I'm not the ones voting for these nuts .. . I'm just trying to make lemonade from lemons.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But I was told by the roberts court and some on this forum that this didn't happen. That people gave money because the member already agreed.

http://www.hannapub.com/ouachitacit...cle_8a017c20-ed41-11e3-b622-0017a43b2370.html

McAllister said he voted "no" on legislation related to the Bureau of Land Management though he did not identify the bill. McAllister said a colleague on the House floor told him that he would receive a $1,200 contribution from Heritage Foundation if he voted against the bill. He would not name his colleague since he “did not want to put their business out on the street.”

“I played dumb and asked him, ‘How would you vote?’” McAllister said. “He told me, ‘Vote no and you will get a $1,200 check from the Heritage Foundation. If you vote yes, you will get a $1,000 check from some environmental impact group.’”
That answer was a surprise, McAllister said.

“I said, ‘Are you serious?’ and he told me, ‘Yeah, wait and see,’” McAllister said.
McAllister said he voted against the bill but did not receive a $1,200 contribution from Heritage Foundation. Federal law prohibits public officials, including members of Congress, from directly or indirectly seeking, accepting or agreeing to receive anything of value in return for the performance of any official act such as voting.

“I voted no, and I didn’t get a Heritage Foundation check but he did,” McAllister said. “I went back and checked with my friend, ‘I didn’t get a check, man. What were you talking about?’ He told me, ‘Well, I got one. Why didn’t you?’”

This is literal quid pro quo corruption

http://youtu.be/w7fBwc803CI?t=1m46s

 

[AnotherNils]

Did anyone see the story tying the Vegas anti-government shooters to the Bundy ranch? Twice as glad the Feds avoided a conflict, those people were chomping at the bit for a reason to open up on them.

 

[Mike M]

Jesus, another school shooting.

 

[B-Dubs]

Jesus, another school shooting.

It feels almost daily...

 

[speculawyer]

Did anyone see the story tying the Vegas anti-government shooters to the Bundy ranch? Twice as glad the Feds avoided a conflict, those people were chomping at the bit for a reason to open up on them.

Maddow did her opening segment on that nutcase last night. It was worth watching.

To the credit of the Bundy supporters, apparently most of them didn't like hearing the lust for violence this Jared guy seemed to have and didn't go along with his views.

Also, apparently he went to a meeting of Anonymous (with a sidearm) and the hacktivists didn't like him and threw him out of their meeting.

 

[TacticalFox88]

It feels almost daily...

It is.

I'm at the point now where it's hard to feel sympathy when we refuse to make systemic changes because we have a ridiculous paranoia about our shiny toys.

 

[KingK]

But I was told by the roberts court and some on this forum that this didn't happen. That people gave money because the member already agreed.

http://www.hannapub.com/ouachitacit...cle_8a017c20-ed41-11e3-b622-0017a43b2370.html



This is literal quid pro quo corruption

http://youtu.be/w7fBwc803CI?t=1m46s

Not corruption. It's just exercising free speech and showing gratitude. Nothing to see here...

 

[Sibylus]

But I was told by the roberts court and some on this forum that this didn't happen. That people gave money because the member already agreed.

http://www.hannapub.com/ouachitacit...cle_8a017c20-ed41-11e3-b622-0017a43b2370.html

This is literal quid pro quo corruption

http://youtu.be/w7fBwc803CI?t=1m46s

Psssh, only attempted quid pro quo. Where's the smoking gun? Coincidences! Coincidences everywhere!

 

[Black Mamba]

It feels almost daily...

4 per month since Sandy, actually.

 

[B-Dubs]

4 per month since Sandy, actually.

Which is weekly. You'd think this would be a bigger deal. I remember Columbine, we spent weeks talking about it. These days unless it's really bad we just sort of brush it off.

 

[_hekk05]

Well shit. I'll be headed to Iowa for an exchange next semester. How likely will I get shot there?

 

[speculawyer]

Well shit. I'll be headed to Iowa for an exchange next semester. How likely will I get shot there?

You are more likely to shoot yourself in the head from being bored.

 

[Gotchaye]

No, that's not what politics should be.

Politics should be taking a position you actually believe to be true.

Because Obama/Dems accept climate change doesn't mean the Republicans should deny it and then mislead their constituents into thinking it's a hoax causing massive problems.

I agree in fortifying your position better and yes, the Dems could be less compromising at this point. But I'm not talking about that. What I'm talking about is people taking a position solely because of whom they've aligned with.

For instance, because someone is a liberal doesn't mean they have to be against the death penalty. But in today's climate, you're almost feel pressured into it simply because if you don't, you're on "their side." That's how you end up with a political dichotomy where little actually happens and progress is stifled.

Well, some of this is just how party politics has to work. If I don't care about taxes but care a lot about abortion, it makes a lot of sense for me to find people who care about taxes but don't care about abortion and agree that I'll take their position on taxes if they take my position on abortion. I guess we might want people to be more self-aware about this, but the end result is going to be pretty similar. Surely the enhanced moderation of a large part of the 20th century is mostly due to racism interfering with this process of intra-party value adoption, which is probably not something we want to recapture.

Adopting the values of people in your coalition isn't really a problem. It's the particular values of coalitions and their tactics that cause problems. Like, I don't have a problem with Democrats deciding that climate change is a problem because people they trust tell them it's a problem. That's how most people ought to be coming to opinions on issues like this - very few people are qualified to actually decide whether or not the first-order evidence for climate change is persuasive. That's one of the big ideas behind representative democracy. Politicians deciding that climate change is a problem such that there's political advantage in being on the right side of it and helping to create the popular support for addressing it that they're also hoping to benefit from is how the system is supposed to work.

You get problems when one of your coalition's values is basically to stop the other side from getting what it wants, even if you don't have reasons to care one way or the other. If Democrats just didn't care at all about the death penalty on the merits but opposed it just to deprive Republicans of something they wanted, that'd be a big problem. This is mutually reinforcing with the modern political tactic of preventing the government from doing things that will be seen as accomplishments by your opponents.

 

[_hekk05]

You are more likely to shoot yourself in the head from being bored.

Safe-

 

[Black Mamba]

Well, some of this is just how party politics has to work. If I don't care about taxes but care a lot about abortion, it makes a lot of sense for me to find people who care about taxes but don't care about abortion and agree that I'll take their position on taxes if they take my position on abortion. I guess we might want people to be more self-aware about this, but the end result is going to be pretty similar. Surely the enhanced moderation of a large part of the 20th century is mostly due to racism interfering with this process of intra-party value adoption, which is probably not something we want to recapture.

Adopting the values of people in your coalition isn't really a problem. It's the particular values of coalitions and their tactics that cause problems. Like, I don't have a problem with Democrats deciding that climate change is a problem because people they trust tell them it's a problem. That's how most people ought to be coming to opinions on issues like this - very few people are qualified to actually decide whether or not the first-order evidence for climate change is persuasive. That's one of the big ideas behind representative democracy. Politicians deciding that climate change is a problem such that there's political advantage in being on the right side of it and helping to create the popular support for addressing it that they're also hoping to benefit from is how the system is supposed to work.

You get problems when one of your coalition's values is basically to stop the other side from getting what it wants, even if you don't have reasons to care one way or the other. If Democrats just didn't care at all about the death penalty on the merits but opposed it just to deprive Republicans of something they wanted, that'd be a big problem. This is mutually reinforcing with the modern political tactic of preventing the government from doing things that will be seen as accomplishments by your opponents.

Most of what you said is exactly what I'm arguing.

There's nothing wrong with politics if you truly believe something or you allign yourself with people who share your most important beliefs. The problems lies when you only believe the opposite of the "other side" just because it's the "other side."

Politics is supposed to be about having and sharing different ideas and approaches to problems (speaking generally) and coming to resolutions. It is not about trying to keep a scorecard.

 

[Ecotic]

I'm really hoping Hillary Clinton is serious about still deciding whether to run, and that she chooses not to run. This book rollout is reminding me that a Hillary Presidential run is going to be all about her; her grievances, her past. She has like this entire industry built around the sustaining of her as a public figure, but not really to advocate for any set of policies.

Put another way, if Elizabeth Warren were to run for President you know the campaign's mission is going to be about getting her policies enacted. She's a policy candidate, an advocate. A Hillary Presidential campaign is going to be about getting Hillary elected as the end in itself.

 

[Maledict]

I'm really hoping Hillary Clinton is serious about still deciding whether to run, and that she chooses not to run. This book rollout is reminding me that a Hillary Presidential run is going to be all about her; her grievances, her past. She has like this entire industry built around the sustaining of her as a public figure, but not really to advocate for any set of policies.

Put another way, if Elizabeth Warren were to run for President you know the campaign's mission is going to be about getting her policies enacted. She's a policy candidate, an advocate. A Hillary Presidential campaign is going to be about getting Hillary elected as the end in itself.

Um, last time around Hilary did this she had the most thought out, detailed policies of any of the candidates. I absolutely preferred Obama over her but there was no competition between the two when it came to concrete policies and proposals. Hilary is much more of a policy wonk than Bill was.

Hilary cleaned Obama's clock when it came to health care proposals, for example. Hers was far more detailed and solid as a concept and plan.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm really hoping Hillary Clinton is serious about still deciding whether to run, and that she chooses not to run. This book rollout is reminding me that a Hillary Presidential run is going to be all about her; her grievances, her past. She has like this entire industry built around the sustaining of her as a public figure, but not really to advocate for any set of policies.

Put another way, if Elizabeth Warren were to run for President you know the campaign's mission is going to be about getting her policies enacted. She's a policy candidate, an advocate. A Hillary Presidential campaign is going to be about getting Hillary elected as the end in itself.

If she doesn't run Republicans will win back the white house.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm really hoping Hillary Clinton is serious about still deciding whether to run, and that she chooses not to run. This book rollout is reminding me that a Hillary Presidential run is going to be all about her; her grievances, her past. She has like this entire industry built around the sustaining of her as a public figure, but not really to advocate for any set of policies.

Put another way, if Elizabeth Warren were to run for President you know the campaign's mission is going to be about getting her policies enacted. She's a policy candidate, an advocate. A Hillary Presidential campaign is going to be about getting Hillary elected as the end in itself.

Meh. The book is a way to prebutt all the attacks that are going to be coming at her. I wouldn't view it so much as trying to build an industry around her as much as her getting her view of the proper narrative out there.

She'll eventually come up with a full policy platform. But it is not wise to come up with one now (other than broad strokes) since things can significantly change and thus making any policy position she takes now look really bad later.


I know, it all sounds so cold and calculating . . . but that is reality in modern politics.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Which is weekly. You'd think this would be a bigger deal. I remember Columbine, we spent weeks talking about it. These days unless it's really bad we just sort of brush it off.

Actually gun violence is down, nationally.

With respect to Hillary...the grievance industry that surrounds her is moreso about the media than her. She doesn't invite or create that atmosphere. The media, be it news media or right wing, is threatened by confident women in positions of power. I don't like Palin but there's no denying she faced quite a bit of blatantly sexist shit. In fact the first time I heard of her was on Daily Kos, detailing a variety of ugly false rumors and heresy about her. It's hard to feel bad for Palin because she is a legit dumbass who hasn't put in the hard work to learn the issues, but the fact remains she was a target.

Hillary is more of a threat because she's actually effective, and poised to be the next president. My complaint is that I feel like she's coming out with the book too soon, and all this focus on her campaign takes away from 2014 races. If democrats looked like they were poised to have a big year, she would have been out there on the campaign trail stumping for folks, making allies, etc; the Nixon approach basically, which Obama followed perfectly in 2006. But when things are going bad there's less interest in stumping for candidates who might lose.

 

[speculawyer]

Safe-

Yes, safe. Perhaps there are some bad parts in some of the bigger Cities. But Iowa is a pretty darned safe nice place. Even though the best thing to come out of it is 35W. (Hey-Yooo!

Spoiler

(I'm originally from Minnesota and 35W is a highway that goes north out of Iowa and into Minnesota.)

 

[Particle Physicist]

4 per month since Sandy, actually.

Another school shooting? Meh, old news. Why even talk about them anymore past a quick blurb? It's a dangerous world out there, nothing we can do about that.

 

[Coriolanus]

If she doesn't run Republicans will win back the white house.

If they don't self-implode again.

But yeah, you're probably correct. Gods, how can that party still have almost half of the popular vote?

 

[Ecotic]

If she doesn't run Republicans will win back the white house.

It's like we're locked in this self-sustaining loop.

If Hillary doesn't run Republicans will win back the White House.
Why can only Hillary beat the Republicans?
Because there's no Democratic field getting publicity and building name recognition.
Why aren't they doing this?
Because Hillary Clinton might be running for President.

 

[speculawyer]

It's like we're locked in this self-sustaining loop.

If Hillary doesn't run Republicans will win back the White House.
Why can only Hillary beat the Republicans?
Because there's no Democratic field getting publicity and building name recognition.
Why aren't they doing this?
Because Hillary Clinton might be running for President.

Oh I think there are others that could run and have a good chance. Brian Schweitzer, that Castro guy, Al Franken (It could happen!), Biden, etc.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Sanders 2016 believe

 

[PhoenixDark]

Oh I think there are others that could run and have a good chance. Brian Schweitzer, that Castro guy, Al Franken (It could happen!), Biden, etc.

Nah. Short term Obama has ruined the democrat party; if Hillary doesn't run, a republican will likely win. Long term it doesn't matter, dems will probably win on demographics alone until the next credit crash, assuming it happens on Hillary's watch.

 

[Black Mamba]

Nah. Short term Obama has ruined the democrat party; if Hillary doesn't run, a republican will likely win. Long term it doesn't matter, dems will probably win on demographics alone until the next credit crash, assuming it happens on Hillary's watch.

I love how you just happened to make this post a day when Nate Cohn basically wrote an article arguing Obama is irrelevant to the Democrat coalition's numbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/u...g-term-trouble-for-democrats.html?rref=upshot

PD gonna PD. You have impeccable timing.

 

[speculawyer]

Nah. Short term Obama has ruined the democrat party; if Hillary doesn't run, a republican will likely win. Long term it doesn't matter, dems will probably win on demographics alone until the next credit crash, assuming it happens on Hillary's watch.

Nonsense.

You get some mainstream Dem from a somewhat red state and they'll do fine. That's why I see people like Brian Schweitzer, Mark Warner, Jon Tester, etc. And any decent woman candidate stands a good shot .. . thus Hillary, Elizabeth Warren, etc.

 

[Wilsongt]

Obama made a statement about all of the shootings. Cue Republican backlash.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Nah. Short term Obama has ruined the democrat party; if Hillary doesn't run, a republican will likely win. Long term it doesn't matter, dems will probably win on demographics alone until the next credit crash, assuming it happens on Hillary's watch.

Care to expand on this statement? Is it because he caused the GOP to turn things up to 11? It was bound to happen to the first minority president, regardless of who it was going to end up being. I think that if Hillary runs and becomes president, she will have an easier time because of Obama. It is much easier to sit back and analyze how things should have been handled from the outside.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

PD gonna PD.