Let's support whoever wins the election

1. 84

   Stevennix2001posted 2 years ago

   Well with the election results drawing near, it looks like Joe Biden may become our new president unless a miracle happens, and Trump somehow steals Nevada while keeping his current leads in three other battleground states. 
   
   While I know some of you have emotional ties in this election, the reality is only either Trump or Biden could win.  And regardless of whoever wins, I think come hell or highwater we should endorse whoever becomes our president in 2021.   Whether it be Trump or Biden, as we're going to need all the help we can get if we want our economy to recover after the covid19 situation; along from recovering from the riots across the USA.   And fighting amongst ourselves isn't going to solve anything, so I think after this year's election we should all focus on what needs to be done to fix our economy  than worry about who should've won, or who didn't deserve to win and etc.   Yes, I know it's controversial to some of you, but what other choices do we have once the election is over?
   
   Personally, I said this before in another forum. I don't like either Biden or Trump honestly for varying reasons, but regardless of whoever wins between them, I'll support them come hell or highwater after the election day.  What say you?   
   
   Anyways if you haven't voted yet, but you have the opportunity to, and want to see your candidate win then go out and vote.  May the best man win, and god bless us all no matter what happens.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Voting has been over for more than a day, so nobody can vote any longer.
      
      I don't think it matter who wins. This country is split right down the middle. For the second time, the media and the pollsters got it very wrong. And for the second time, the Democratic Party botched the election. Trump knows his base and knows what appeals to them and is a hell of a campaigner, no matter the lies he tells. It's the essence of his message and the pizzazz with which he delivers it.
      
      My thoughts don't lie with support of the candidates but with support of the American people. America is divided between rural America and urban America and it's time that we each try to appreciate the other much more. Rural America should not have to pay for or support the needs of urban America and the Dems need to do a much better job supporting an independent work ethic and keeping government out of people's daily lives and business. And Dems need to start saying to rural America that they should not pay the same tax rates as urban America since they do not receive the same kind of support from the government.
      
      Just my initial thoughts.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         You're right - the divide between urban and rural is starkly incredible. 
         
         You're also right that the two need to come together, or at least try more to understand the other...but I'm not sure that is possible.  The entire rural way of life, from self sufficiency to a work ethic to personal freedom is under attack (and has been for years) - their very roots, what makes them what they are, are being declared null and void while liberals demand they change into urban dwellers in philosophy of life. 
         
         That's a pretty hard thing to do.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "liberals demand they change into urban dwellers in philosophy of life."
            
            Honest question: How, exactly, do liberals do that? Can you provide an example or two of how that has occurred?

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Sure!  Confiscate guns needed for self protection.  Illegal drugs are OK to use, and illegal aliens will be supported and aided in their efforts to avoid the law.  A plethora of laws covering most areas of living.  A change from voluntary charity to forced giving.  A reduction in work ethic, coupled with free housing food, transportation and most other needs.  No longer a crime to defecate on public streets and sidewalks; basic sanitation requirements no longer required.
               
               Do you need more or is that sufficient to grasp the concept?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't see any of these as forcing anyone to change their philosophy of life. For example, If your philosophy is that drugs are unacceptable, then don't use them.
                  
                  If you don't like how laws are enacted in your community, state, or country, then you work to change them or elect those who share your ideas. If you consider any law or tax that you don't agree with to be an assault on your philosophy of life then you should withdraw from civilized society and live in a cave.
                  
                  I think you can simply say that cultural change and progression is not sitting well with you. Well, in case you hadn't noticed, times change because the current norms are nit sitting well with enough other people. Women didn't take too kindly to not being able to vote, black people resented sitting in the back of the bus, and gay people wanted to marry like everyone else.
                  
                  Your personal philosophy does not have to change but if you want to be part of this civilized society you will inevitably encounter laws and cultural shifts that you don't like.
                  
                  You are not the only one to experience discomfort with your neighbor's views.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     "For example, If your philosophy is that drugs are unacceptable, then don't use them."
                     
                     Really?  Don't use drugs...but allow the drug dealers, and the crime that comes with them, into your life and even home.  Accept that your children WILL be exposed to and encouraged to do drugs.  Spend your taxes to care for addicts that refuse to quit using.  Care for the children of addicts.  But most of all, as philosophy goes, change your thinking to realize that such activities are OK, that you must now accept the negatives that come with illegal drugs whether you use or not.
                     
                     Likewise for illegal aliens; the rural must accept that their state leaders are encouraging violation of the law, that their pocketbook must be emptied to care for illegals, that their job may be lost to someone here illegally.  Accept that the neighborhood culture will change into something you don't like as a result of the influx of illegals.
                     
                     The rural are being asked to forego the idea of hard work - that their hard work and efforts will go to feed those that don't want to work, and often produce a better life than working does. 
                     
                     No, PP, the philosophical changes that have happened between urban and rural are very real and cannot be written off as "we need to be tolerant".  Tolerance is fine, it is necessary, and we all need to do a better job there (consider gay marriage as just one obvious example that causes no harm at all).  But when that tolerance gives massive changes to our own lifestyle and culture it just isn't going to happen, and probably should not happen.

                     replyreport
               2. 92

                  crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness, I think it's essential to understand how public policy and political needs are different in rural and urban areas.
                  
                  In urban areas, a huge number of people are needed to do the menial tasks needed to support business - hotel cleaning, kitchen work, basic stuff. They move to urban areas for these opportunities. Unfortunately, most of them cannot afford to live where they work. So, they either live in a slum or they live far, far away, requiring public transportation to get to their job. These businesses rely on these people, so the government helps support them through various public assistance: transportation, housing; etc. because it's good for the businesses - a public/private partnership.
                  
                  It's this basic relationship in urban areas that create many of the issues that don't play well in rural areas.
                  
                  I don't think there's a way to fix the philosophical differences, but there needs to be understanding. Is it wrong to need public assistance in this situation? I don't think so. However, it changes how we view the world and how we view government.

                  replyreport
                  1. 96

                     wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     At the root, I disagree although I'm happy to make concessions there.
                     
                     For example, the little town of Ketchem, Id (think Sun Valley tourist area) had exactly those problems a few years ago - their employees at the ski area, all the little touristy shops, etc. couldn't afford to live there.  Should I, living far away, subsidize wages so Sun Valley could continue to have low cost employees servicing a town of movie stars and astronomical rents?  I don't think so.  But when I visited there this year I bought an expensive bicycle and found the cost to be above what I calculated with sales tax - the city has imposed an additional 2% sales tax on residents and visitors to the area in order to subsidize low wages.  That's one solution, but there are others (perhaps raising property taxes on residents) that do NOT require me, living far away and not benefitting, to subsidize the outlandish lifestyle in Ketchum.
                     
                     So it is my opinion that, for the most part, local costs must be borne locally.  If the residents aren't willing to pay for what they get then they either need to scale back their expectations or move to somewhere that doesn't require outside help.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        We, in Colorado, had the same issues with Aspen.
                        
                        How much money and and associated tourism benefits the state as a whole? Sun Valley has got to be one of the biggest draws for tourism in the state of Idaho. And like Hawaii, where I also lived, making things difficult for Waikiki tourists effects the economy. The money from tourism benefits all.
                        
                        So, the fact is that no man is island, not really.

                        replyreport
                     2. 92

                        crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        I think we agree on this. If businesses need employees but the employees can't live anywhere near the business, then the business should be paying higher wages as opposed to asking the government to subsidize those employees in some way. Or the residents nearby should be paying higher taxes to maintain their lifestyle. Or the business needs to charge more.
                        
                        However, there can be reasons the government intervenes because they want that tax revenue from the business, so there's some incentive to provide services.

                        replyreport
                        1. 96

                           wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           I agree that occasionally the state (never the feds) might find it in their best financial interests to intervene.  I also believe (opinion only) that that is very seldom true, particularly when it is the other citizens of the state paying the cost and the return to them is negligible.  Same goes for huge tax breaks when a big business looks into coming to town - the people of the state very seldom actually benefit much.  Only the handful that get to work there.

                           replyreport
         2. 84

            Stevennix2001posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            A large part of that is the media's fault.    Most media outlets are only concerned with ratings than reporting the facts while others will only tell their viewers things from one side of the equation.

            replyreport
      2. 83

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         It will be interesting to see what happens in regards to taxes. With the Senate still holding a Republican majority, it would seem a President Biden would not have the Trump tax cuts repealed. I have read Biden's tax plan, and he does not differentiate between rural and urban. This is not out of the norm.
         
         "Rural America should not have to pay for or support the needs of urban America and the Dems need to do a much better job supporting an independent work ethic and keeping government out of people's daily lives and business."
         
         You are aware as a norm Democrats have a long history of keeping their noses in big business?  I will hold my opinion on the big Government and the history of Democrats on American's daily lives. History supports their overreach into our society.
         
         I must point out in the past year, Democrats have pushed to reform and in some cases dismantle law enforcement in our major cities,  they are pushing a new green deal that will certainly change how we live our daily lives in a major way...  They have suggested closing all schools but our public schools which would remove the right to choose a private education for one's children.  Another example all for one health insurance, and building low-cost housing in suburbs. I am not attempting to point these things out for the sake of argument. I am pointing all of these Democratic ideas just to point out that the Dems have a different ideology that certainly will have the big government making decisions that will affect us in our very way of life, and inhibit our personal rights to make our own decisions. ... These Dem ideologies provide a Government that will be the opposite of an independent work ethic and will leave us with more government in our daily lives and business.
         
         I realize a lot of the Dems wish list has been wrapped up and a nice big bow put on top, but all their ideas lead to big Government making our decisions. These ideas are not progressive they are socialist in nature.
         
         I am sorry to say the time for coming together has passed. Many of us will not ever concede to socialist ideals.  I prefer American ideals and could care less about traveling any other path or of the people that do.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That's because, when allowed to operate unfettered, businesses frequently cheat or exploit their workers or their customers. You know, like using child labor and such - dropping cancer causing chemicals into the drinking water; etc.
            
            Thus, those businesses who follow the rules should be left alone and those that don't should be punished harshly.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I never said we have no need for Government. We certainly need the Government to function for the people to set safeguards with laws that benefit our society. Such as safe workplaces, good environmental practices, and business regulations. I don't want the Government making decisions that impact my personal rights... I want to take responsibility for my healthcare, the education of my children,  the right to dispute what is built in my surroundings (Zoning laws). I want my civil rights protected by law enforcement.  I do not hope to have my safety taken away for a grand Government experiment. The government certainly has its place and the Constitution keeps good checks on Government, as well as my rights. I will stick with that concept. It's worked well for the majority.

               replyreport
         2. 96

            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I think a lot of this comes down to Democrat philosophy that ALL people should benefit the same, regardless of effort, ability or anything else.
            
            So we see the closure of charter schools...because they give a better education but are limited to better students that can and will avail themselves of the opportunity offered.
            
            We see the defunding and shrinkage of police departments so that criminals won't be hassled or harmed by cops.  Criminals deserve the same right to be left alone in their chosen pursuit as law abiding citizens.
            
            Dems want to build slums (low cost housing) in the areas that are neat, clean and crime free - those that can't (or won't) support themselves deserve the same living arrangements as those that provide for themselves.
            
            And this is a tremendous ideological shift - away from "you get what you earn" to "you get what everyone else has" - and is not well accepted by rural people.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               "I think a lot of this comes down to Democrat philosophy that ALL people should benefit the same, regardless of effort, ability or anything else'
               
               Yes, so agree. But disagree with that form of philosophy and find it unconstitutional.
               
               Perhaps CRANKALICIOUS is lean toward being independent.

               replyreport
               1. 92

                  crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Sharlee, actually you are not that far off. I am very angry at the Democratic Party right now and once I saw the election results, I am very seriously considering pulling my affiliation. However, I am pro-choice, so not likely to ever vote Republican. I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative. The social liberalism determines my votes though. But I am very tired with how the Democratic Party operates.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     After reading your thoughts for some time now I felt you walk a line sort of down the middle a bit to the left. Usually, your comments are buffered with common sense. Our country has become so  I must say traumatized over the past  12 years. It makes it very hard to find true political footing. At this point, I am weary, tired.  I can only find soleus with picking myself up and just trying to move forward, be positive. I have become tired of think of what's coming. I am just willing to wait for whatever and hope it all is good.... LOL

                     replyreport
                     1. 92

                        crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        Democrats do not believe that all people should benefit equally. We believe that all people should have equal and fair opportunity. And even that perhaps does not quite describe it. Equal access to opportunity perhaps.

                        replyreport
      3. 78

         Reason and Factsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Something to consider.  Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is one of the most common measures of economic / business activity.  Keep in mind, economic and business activity is what generates revenue, and therefore, taxes.
         
         Metropolitan areas generate approximately 89% of GDP for the entire US.  (Between 2001 - 2018, it has ranged from 88.9% to 89.5%.
         - Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (bea.gov)
         
         Rural America should thank God that we as a country aggregate revenues and spending.  They are kept afloat because of the economic engines in metropolitan America.

         replyreport
   2. 83

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      In my view, the divide is too deep to repair. American's have clearly split in regards to ideologies, and values.  I will say, I hope conservatives continue to take the high road and respect the fact that American's have spoken. It will serve no purpose to disparage the new president just because we can...  WE have lived that for 5 years. No looking back, look forward...

      replyreport
      1. 92

         crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         The high road? You mean like this:
         
         
         
         
         
         We had 8 years of that. Please don't talk about the high road. Also, Americans have not really spoken given that the popular vote does not determine the outcome.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I perhaps should have worded my comment to say It's time to take the high road. This is what I meant to convey.  Your point taken.  I must add, you chose to ignore the context of my entire message, how I summed up my comment. ---  ".It will serve no purpose to disparage the new president just because we can...  WE have lived that for 5 years. No looking back, look forward..."
            
            Your very comment goes to prove my statement --" In my view, the divide is too deep to repair. American's have clearly split in regards to ideologies, and values. "
            
            My values tell me to move forward, your values clearly had you revert to a derogatory period in the past, and continue cementing the split with the ugliness of the past.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               "My values tell me to move forward, your values clearly had you revert to a derogatory period in the past, and continue cementing the split with the ugliness of the past."
               ---------
               That is very convenient, the problem is that what appears to you to be moving forward is, in fact, moving back. IMHO. The meme displayed was done within a recent period  that can hardly be considered the Middle Ages.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  The conversation of the thread is Let's support whoever wins the election. My first comment addressing the subject, My true feelings --- "In my view, the divide is too deep to repair. American's have clearly split in regards to ideologies, and values.  I will say, I hope conservatives continue to take the high road and respect the fact that American's have spoken. It will serve no purpose to disparage the new president just because we can...  WE have lived that for 5 years. No looking back, look forward..."
                  
                  I am not sure how you perceived my comment relates to going backward?  I was clearly responding to the Meme, not the past 200 years. We were discussing the aftershock of the election. Not anything e more not anything less... You dug too deep here. Please revisit the back and forth Crank and I was having.  I simply started out more or less saying we have a new president let's move on, let's respect the voice of the American's that voted this election. I added I hoped conservatives would take a high road, and not continue to disparage the new president, that it would serve no purpose. I added my sentiment don't do it just because we can...   No looking back, look forward... I feel this is beneficial, just part of my own make-up. Always licking a wall, playing the blame game works little to move anything in the right direction. In fact, it stagnates progress.
                  
                  It is your prerogative to feel my ideals stand to move things backward. My ideals and hard work set me on a path that provided me with a satisfying life. Life is what you make of it. yes, many do have to work harder...
                  
                  That meme proves to show some are racist in our society. These people make it harder to move on. However, more would find that meme discussing than not. In my view once again we need to look forward when faced with this kind of viciousness. Letting this kind of hate draw us back will not solve anything.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     I could have misconstrued your comment.
                     
                     Yes, I agree with you that the divide may well be beyond repair, there has not been an era this contentious since the Civil War.
                     
                     I don't trust conservatives to ever be that congenial, no more than I could expect McConnell to be honest and consistent about Supreme Court nominations.
                     
                     I can hope for the best, but if the past has been a reliable guide....
                     
                     Yes, some have to work harder and yet there is a reality that some impediments in the face of their hard work needs to be removed.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        Agree...

                        replyreport
   3. 77

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      That depends on what you mean by support. I am not for insurrections and extralegal approaches if my man does not win. But,  I reserve to myself the right to continue to criticize Trump and the Republicans to the extent that I see appropriate, or Biden, as well, if he turns out to be too much of a pu$$y in the face of anticipated political onslaught by Rightwingers.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Stevennix2001posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         I was mostly speaking in general.     I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to criticize Trump if he wins, and goes off to screw up the country after he's reelected.  Nor am I saying you can't criticize Biden either if he wins, and does a horrible job, as I think one of the best parts about this country is that unlike others, we can openly criticize and question our leaders.
         
         Therefore I would never discourage you or anyone from doing that.     However, one of my biggest concerns in this country is that we've grown too divided over the years where America is not as United as it once was.    And given everything this country has been through especially this year, I think now is the time more than ever to try to have both sides try to work together as we're all going to suffer from this pandemic for awhile and if rumors are true about a possible cold war with China, then it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I hear you, Stephen
            
            I tend to be pessimistic, as America can not revert to a less contentious political scene, not in the near future, anyway. There has simply been too much "bad blood" shed.
            
            How do we work together?
            
            Even if Biden wins, if The Senate remains under control of the Republicans, Machiavelli Mitch, master of obstruction and hypocrisy, will "deep six" every new policy initiative eminating from the Biden administration.
            
            They will build a brick wall, voting to a man or woman against any Democrat initiative. I am afraid that Biden will be too conciliatory and reluctant to use C4 to destroy the wall, mistaking that these people can actually be reasoned with.
            
            That talk from McConnell about his relying on the will of the American people is just so much bull$hit to spread until it becomes inconvenient for him and his party.
            
            It will take an invasion from Mars for us all to see and fight for a common purpose.

            replyreport
   4. 59

      Kayode Doyakposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      “I'll support them come hell or highwater after the election day.  What say you?”
      
      I say:
      
      Support them? Like the Democrats supported Trump after 2016?
      
      When this election was basically a choice between a socialist agenda and what the founders of America envisioned you would support the former? The antithesis to our constitution!
      
      When the prospect of a Biden administration very well could be the result of massive fraud and unconstitutional election practices you would support the former?
      
      Either you are very naive or you don’t understand that to “fundamentally transform the United States” (the Obama/Biden campaign slogan and still the Democrat’s goal) means to destroy the greatest nation on earth and does not intend to make it great!
      
      And then there is this: If Biden is elected you want to show respect to the leader of a coup d’etat
      
      https://youtu.be/bxok12Tg9rQ

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Stevennix2001posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Well I will admit I did find it rather odd that Trump was literally labeled the worst president in USA history from day one of his administration by most media outlets I've seen when it happened.    Sure Rolling Stone said the same thing about George W Bush once but that was after he was president for at least awhile I believe if memory serves me correctly as I know that issue came out long after 9/11.   
         
         As far as voter fraud goes, I'm not dismissing that possibility, but the question is how do you prove it? 
         
         I will agree with you that the media is predominantly liberal so it's not surprising that there's a huge media bias against Trump.  However I'm just going to wait until all the facts come out first before making any final conclusions about the 2020 election.   Again I'm not dismissing the possibility of voter fraud, as I didn't dismiss that possibility either in 2016.      However we also need to keep a few things in mind here. 
         
         While you're right that Trump didn't have the full support of Democrats and even some Republicans, the problem is that 2016 is vastly different than 2020.    Yeah there was still an issue regarding police brutality and racial tensions in 2016 but it wasn't quite to the extent that it is now where you have people tearing down statues.   People demanding we defund the police, while the Washington Post publishes an article calling out all cop films and movies toxic and etc, yet nobody has a problem with that article for whatever reason.   
         
         It wasn't this freaking bad in 2016 as far as I can remember.     Plus we're in an ongoing pandemic, where we don't know how long it's going to last.     And that's not even considering the possibility that we could be heading towards a cold war with China if we're not careful so being as divided now or more in 2020 than we were in 2016 could make things worse possibly.     
         
         Like I told credence there's nothing wrong if you want to criticize Biden.   Hell I might even join you if he does a shitty job running this country if he's elected.   However all I'm saying is with as many problems facing this country and possibly more in the foreseeable future, then it might be best to find ways to unite this country before it's too late.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Kayode Doyakposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            And all I’m saying is to unite this country on Biden’s terms (the godless infanticide Democratic party’s terms) would mean uniting evil with good! It can’t be done. Evil has to be defeated by good. To unite evil with good can only result in good becoming evil.

            replyreport
            1. 92

               crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Well, now you have two terms to learn how to define: socialism and infanticide.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Kayode Doyakposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Funny, from someone who doesn’t seem to know that the Democrats are socialists (or godless) and abortion up to the time of birth is infanticide! You are someone who apparently defines exactly election fraud as good.
                  
                  Just wait and see.
                  
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Stevennix2001posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Assuming that's true, all i will say is that life can be stranger than fiction sometimes.  And if it's true, then they should definitely make a movie about it someday, as it sounds like it would make for a helluva a story.     All jokes aside, I guess we'll wait and see what happens.

                     replyreport
                  2. 92

                     crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Right. And the Dems are running a child sex ring under a pizza shop... and... and... Sandy Hook was fake and the Dems are coming to get your guns and... and.... Sharpiegate, Obamagate... I get it. This lack of critical thinking skills and gullibility are what will doom America.

                     replyreport
   5. 83

      jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you 100%. I do think we need a change in DC...with leadership like Nancy Pelosi, just a very toxic environment and she has been there forever....why would she change?
      we need fresh blood in DC and a turning of the page and a new leaf.

      replyreport
      1. 92

         crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         And Mitch McConnell?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            yes, definitely....I was never a fan of Mitch.

            replyreport
            1. 92

               crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Well, we agree on something. I too would like to see them both replaced. I don't find Nancy's positions objectionable as I do Mitch's, but I think that sort of entrenched power is just not good.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  jackclee lmposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  That is why I have supported term limits for Congress for a long time.

                  replyreport
                  1. 92

                     crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm not crazy about term limits. I think I prefer getting money out of politics. If people want to vote for Nancy and Mitch, that's their right.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        I agree with this.

                        replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 2 years ago

   I'll be honest. If Biden wins in leaning toward acting like the democrats have for the last four years.
   
   Not my president

   replyreport
   1. 92

      crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      And like the Republicans did the previous eight. Makes sense.

      replyreport