Jump to content

2020 Democratic Nominee


used2b

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Also, what ideology are you talking about?

The good ideas he fights for. You know what they are.  You advocate for them all the time. 

Bernie has a Russia problem politically. His voting record, whether nefarious or not, isn’t going to sit well with Democrats.  Can he overcome the perception problem? I don’t know but it’s foolish to pretend this isn’t there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The good ideas he fights for. You know what they are.  You advocate for them all the time. 

Like what? And, more importantly, what do they have to do with Russia?

Come on, temporary-lib, tell me. Don't be shy.

Quote

Bernie has a Russia problem politically. His voting record, whether nefarious or not, isn’t going to sit well with Democrats.  Can he overcome the perception problem? I don’t know but it’s foolish to pretend this isn’t there.

You literally talk like FOXNews by hiding your (complete garbage) arguments behind question marks and supposition about what other people might think.

Do you have any evidence that "Bernie has a Russia problem politically" outside of idiots on Twitter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already gotten 5 fundraising emails from her since her announcement. 
I haven't cared for her since she jumped into the mattress girl issue. We should of course take sexual abuse allegations seriously, but Gillibrand passionately took sides before the evidence was hashed out. Colombia ultimately took the guy's side. That showed a total lack of judgment on her part and a bizarre political craveness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The internet expands the bounds of acceptable discourse, so ideas considered out of bounds not long ago now rocket toward widespread acceptability. See: cannabis legalization, government-run health care, white nationalism and, of course, the flat-earthers. 

Yet there’s one political shore that remains stubbornly beyond the horizon. It’s an idea almost nobody in mainstream politics will address, other than to hurl the label as a bloody cudgel.

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.

Imagine not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace. Imagine that if you passed a minimal background check, you’d be free to live, work, pay taxes and die in the United States. Imagine moving from Nigeria to Nebraska as freely as one might move from Massachusetts to Maine.

[Farhad Manjoo answered your questions about this column on Twitter.]

There’s a witheringly obvious moral, economic, strategic and cultural case for open borders, and we have a political opportunity to push it. As Democrats jockey for the presidency, there’s room for a brave politician to oppose President Trump’s racist immigration rhetoric not just by fighting his wall and calling for the abolishment of I.C.E. but also by making a proactive and affirmative case for the vast expansion of immigration.

It would be a change from the stale politics of the modern era, in which both parties agreed on the supposed wisdom of “border security” and assumed that immigrants were to be feared. 

As an immigrant, this idea confounds me. My family came to the United States from our native South Africa in the late 1980s. After jumping through lots of expensive and confusing legal hoops, we became citizens in 2000. Obviously, it was a blessing: In rescuing me from a society in which people of my color were systematically oppressed, America has given me a chance at liberty.

But why had I deserved that chance, while so many others back home — because their parents lacked certain skills, money or luck — were denied it?

When you see the immigration system up close, you’re confronted with its bottomless unfairness. The system assumes that people born outside our borders are less deserving of basic rights than those inside. My native-born American friends did not seem to me to warrant any more dignity than my South African ones; according to this nation’s founding documents, we were all created equal. Yet by mere accident of geography, some were given freedom, and others were denied it.

“When you start to think about it, a system of closed borders begins to feel very much like a system of feudal privilege,” said Reece Jones, a professor of geography at the University of Hawaii who argues that Democrats should take up the mantle of open borders. “It’s the same idea that there’s some sort of hereditary rights to privilege based on where you were born.”

I admit the politics here are perilous. Although America’s borders were open for much of its history — if your ancestors came here voluntarily, there’s a good chance it was thanks to open borders — restrictions on immigration are now baked so deeply into our political culture that any talk of loosening them sparks anger.

People worry that immigrants will bring crime, even though stats show immigrants are no more dangerous than natives. People worry they’ll take jobs away from native workers, even though most studies suggests that immigration is a profound benefit to the economy, and there’s little evidence it hurts native workers. And if we worry that they’ll hoover up welfare benefits, we can impose residency requirements for them.

But these are all defensive arguments, and when you’re on defense, you’re losing. For opponents of the president’s xenophobic policies, a better plan is to make the affirmative case for a lot more immigrants.

Economically and strategically, open borders isn’t just a good plan — it’s the only chance we’ve got. America is an aging nation with a stagnant population. We have ample land to house lots more people, but we are increasingly short of workers. And on the global stage, we face two colossi — India and China — which, with their billions, are projected to outstrip American economic hegemony within two decades.

How will we ever compete with such giants? The same way we always have: by inviting the world’s most enthusiastic and creative people — including the people willing to walk here, to risk disease and degradation and death to land here — to live out their best life under liberty.

A new migrant caravan is forming in Honduras, and the president is itching for the resulting political fight. 

Here’s hoping Democrats respond with creativity and verve. Not just “No wall.” Not just “Abolish ICE.” 

Instead: “Let them in.”

Edited by Iconoclast Texan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Farhad Manjoo of the NYT pens one of the most laughable op-eds I have ever read advocating for open borders. For real. 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates- please, please, please advocate for this!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/opinion/open-borders-immigration.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The internet expands the bounds of acceptable discourse, so ideas considered out of bounds not long ago now rocket toward widespread acceptability. See: cannabis legalization, government-run health care, white nationalism and, of course, the flat-earthers. 

Yet there’s one political shore that remains stubbornly beyond the horizon. It’s an idea almost nobody in mainstream politics will address, other than to hurl the label as a bloody cudgel.

I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.

Imagine not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace. Imagine that if you passed a minimal background check, you’d be free to live, work, pay taxes and die in the United States. Imagine moving from Nigeria to Nebraska as freely as one might move from Massachusetts to Maine.

[Farhad Manjoo answered your questions about this column on Twitter.]

There’s a witheringly obvious moral, economic, strategic and cultural case for open borders, and we have a political opportunity to push it. As Democrats jockey for the presidency, there’s room for a brave politician to oppose President Trump’s racist immigration rhetoric not just by fighting his wall and calling for the abolishment of I.C.E. but also by making a proactive and affirmative case for the vast expansion of immigration.

It would be a change from the stale politics of the modern era, in which both parties agreed on the supposed wisdom of “border security” and assumed that immigrants were to be feared. 

As an immigrant, this idea confounds me. My family came to the United States from our native South Africa in the late 1980s. After jumping through lots of expensive and confusing legal hoops, we became citizens in 2000. Obviously, it was a blessing: In rescuing me from a society in which people of my color were systematically oppressed, America has given me a chance at liberty.

But why had I deserved that chance, while so many others back home — because their parents lacked certain skills, money or luck — were denied it?

When you see the immigration system up close, you’re confronted with its bottomless unfairness. The system assumes that people born outside our borders are less deserving of basic rights than those inside. My native-born American friends did not seem to me to warrant any more dignity than my South African ones; according to this nation’s founding documents, we were all created equal. Yet by mere accident of geography, some were given freedom, and others were denied it.

“When you start to think about it, a system of closed borders begins to feel very much like a system of feudal privilege,” said Reece Jones, a professor of geography at the University of Hawaii who argues that Democrats should take up the mantle of open borders. “It’s the same idea that there’s some sort of hereditary rights to privilege based on where you were born.”

I admit the politics here are perilous. Although America’s borders were open for much of its history — if your ancestors came here voluntarily, there’s a good chance it was thanks to open borders — restrictions on immigration are now baked so deeply into our political culture that any talk of loosening them sparks anger.

People worry that immigrants will bring crime, even though stats show immigrants are no more dangerous than natives. People worry they’ll take jobs away from native workers, even though most studies suggests that immigration is a profound benefit to the economy, and there’s little evidence it hurts native workers. And if we worry that they’ll hoover up welfare benefits, we can impose residency requirements for them.

But these are all defensive arguments, and when you’re on defense, you’re losing. For opponents of the president’s xenophobic policies, a better plan is to make the affirmative case for a lot more immigrants.

Economically and strategically, open borders isn’t just a good plan — it’s the only chance we’ve got. America is an aging nation with a stagnant population. We have ample land to house lots more people, but we are increasingly short of workers. And on the global stage, we face two colossi — India and China — which, with their billions, are projected to outstrip American economic hegemony within two decades.

How will we ever compete with such giants? The same way we always have: by inviting the world’s most enthusiastic and creative people — including the people willing to walk here, to risk disease and degradation and death to land here — to live out their best life under liberty.

A new migrant caravan is forming in Honduras, and the president is itching for the resulting political fight. 

Here’s hoping Democrats respond with creativity and verve. Not just “No wall.” Not just “Abolish ICE.” 

Instead: “Let them in.”

 

Why are you posting this article in this thread?  Wouldn’t it be more on topic in the numerous immigration threads?

 

Edited by Patrick Bateman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

If you're interested in knowing why, here's why.

 

What about the Magitsky vote and then the vote yesterday? If this were the only thing, okay...his explanation could be reasonable. There is a troubling pattern that he has with Russia. I don't trust Russia and Bernie would be a perfect tool to fuck our democratic process with. Fuck Russia in the ass for making me so wary but you can't ignore this pattern. I feel the same about Ron Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

What about the Magitsky vote and then the vote yesterday?

The 2012 bill that Sanders voted against did not just sanction specific oligarchs, it normalized trade with Russia, which Sanders didn't want to do. (look at the official title; its primary purpose is a repeal of something else)

The political game is this: The right ties something the left doesn't want into a bill the left DOES want and then issues the challenge: "Either vote for this or we'll say you're in bed with Russia." Political cowards bend. Sanders didn't. (And generally doesn't.)

A clean Magnitsky Act was put forward in 2015 and Sanders voted for it.

The 2017 bill was like the 2012 bill, saddled by the right with terms Sanders didn't support (putting the Iran deal at risk), so Sanders didn't vote for it.

This one? I don't know what is actually in the bill. Sanders' vote was completely immaterial to whether or not it would pass/fail and he says he was meeting with women from his 2016 campaign about the allegations of sexual harassment.

But if we assume that Sanders is a Russian "stooge"... what does that mean? Why would he be a Russian "stooge" and what would he even be getting out of it? Does he travel there? Does he get money from them? Do they help him in Vermont politics? It's all so non-specific; it's like PizzaGate.

It's silly, and the source of the vague conspiracy mongering is generally an idiot like Eric Garland or some other everything-I-don't-like-is-Russia freak, almost 100% of the time someone who spends a lot of their time being mad at everyone who may have hurt Hillary's chances to get what she was entitled to.

Quote

Fuck Russia in the ass for making me so wary but you can't ignore this pattern.

There are still basic questions you can ask:

- What does the alleged "stooge" stand to benefit?
- What connections does the alleged "stooge" have to Russia?

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I fully understand that there is a small-but-furious group of people who will oppose Sanders in the general election if he wins the primary. I know. I was in the trenches in 2007/8 Hillary vs Obama and saw the unhinged, vague rage of the Democratic establishment and the loyal horde that went 25% to John McCain. I remember the PUMA movement and listening to them in the Hillary line shouting at us in the Obama line about Bill Ayers and how we're the REAL racists.

This is all very familiar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

(CNN)Imagine this: A 46-year-old former congresswoman and mother of three, who just lost a Senate bid to one of the most despised incumbents, sets off on a road trip adventure to clear her head.

She instagrams part of her trip to the dentist. She gives a two-hour interview to The Washington Post where she shows no real knowledge of policy.
Like a first-year college student, she pontificates on whether the Constitution is still a thing that matters after all these many years.
And then she writes a stream of consciousness diary entry, where she is all in her sad and confused feelings, over ... something:
 
 
Have been stuck lately. In and out of a funk. My last day of work was January 2nd. It's been more than twenty years since I was last not working. Maybe if I get moving, on the road, meet people, learn about what's going on where they live, have some adventure, go where I don't know and I'm not known, it'll clear my head, reset, I'll think new thoughts, break out of the loops I've been stuck in.
Another dispatch, posted a day later:
This was the most intense fog I'd seen. A thick all encompassing blanket. I figured that by the time I'd finished breakfast at the Pancake House in Liberal (top three pancakes I've ever had) the sun would burn through, but it didn't.
I left Liberal with a full stomach, and with gratitude for my hosts at Southwind. But since I came in at night and left in a fog, I had no idea what the town really looked like.
This is Beto O'Rourke's navel-gazing, self-involved, rollout of a possible rollout of a possible presidential campaign. Oprah Winfrey's couch is next.
This could never, ever be a woman.
We've seen the field fill up already with women. And we've seen how they think they must run -- as serious, surefooted, policy experts with big ideas. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard are in; and on the same day as O'Rourke's emo-essay, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand announced that she feels "called at this moment to make a difference."
One of the first questions she got was about her likability, because of course she did.
O'Rourke, 46, we are told, is "Obama, but white," because of his fundraising prowess -- he raised nearly $80 million in his loss to Sen. Ted Cruz. He skateboards! He listens! He connects on the internet!
And Jack Kerouac-style, he roams around, jobless (does he not need a job?) to find himself and figure out if he wants to lead the free world. This is a luxury no woman or even minority in politics could ever have.
But O'Rourke, tall, handsome, white and male, has this latitude, to be and do anything. His privilege even allows him to turn a loss to the most despised candidate of the cycle into a launching pad for a White House run.
Stacey Abrams, a Yale-trained lawyer, couldn't do this.
O'Rourke is being criticized for his randomness. For his TMI'ing and for his "what do I want to do with my life" aimlessness.
But the fact that he knows he has the freedom to cast about as a campaign-in-waiting forms, shows how much of his political identity is predicated on being white and male.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/17/politics/beto-orourke-funk-drive-2020/index.html

 

Everyone has to be an enemy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is where I part with my fellow Democrats.

I want the primaries to give us the best candidate. I want them to be tough and about ideas and policies.

But the above article is what divides the voters into “teams” and makes the losses of their candidates feel personal. It bakes in a resentment to the ultimate winner that results in grudging support come the general election instead of a united and inspired base.

I’m a woman. I care deeply about women’s issues. I don’t care to make everything about what’s between a person’s legs.

The 2020 election is literally a fork in the road - with one path leading to danger and marginalization and all sorts of bad things for minorities and women.

And if we eat each other alive before we get to that fork, we’re fucked.

I deeply dislike Bernie Sanders.

But if he’s the ultimate nominee, I’ll volunteer and work and vote enthusiastically. Because the alternative is too horrible.

Tell me why Beto is bad. Tell me why Gillibrand is good. Don’t drape a generic societal critique around a candidate to stoke my emotions because “Women aren’t allowed to be emo”.

I’m smarter than that.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2020 Democratic primary absolutely should be tough and lamenting someone's complete lack of depth is kind of important when choosing someone to potentially lead us out of the swamp that the Republicans have driven us into.

Personally, I really like what Beto is doing right now. I think he's an authentic person, but he is so public with his authenticity it is very easy to be skeptical. It's all well and good to have a head-clearing road trip after a grueling campaign and contemplating a bigger, even more grueling one. However, navel-gazing is something you generally do in private. He's looking longingly in a mirror at himself, which is fine, but he also has a camera in the background so we can watch him do it.

Is he just an authentic, dorky guy who is genuinely just so curious about how much wind techs make that he drives across the country to find out? Or is he aware of how it makes him look caring and interested and is purposefully crafting that image? Or is it a mix of both?

I, personally, don't really care because whether or not he's an authentic cool-dork or a carefully-crafted political product doesn't matter to me.

What matters is the beef. He needs to show me the beef.

Not everyone cares about the beef. Most don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree but the beef has nothing to do with the purpose of that article.

It focuses more on why an imaginary woman can’t be like Beto than focusing on telling me about Beto.

That’s not beef either. It’s fucking dipping sauce.

Don’t try and make me feel guilty for supporting a man over a woman and assume I’m doing so only because I’ve been duped and I haven’t been allowed to see the women as their authentic selves.

It just makes me feel defensive and resentful. The article is dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

It just makes me feel defensive and resentful. The article is dumb.

Imagine what it's like knowing that there are 2 clearly substantive candidates and one is dismissed for nonsense about Native American DNA and the other is dismissed for even vaguer nonsense reasons.

Quote

Don’t try and make me feel guilty for supporting a man over a woman and assume I’m doing so only because I’ve been duped and I haven’t been allowed to see the women as their authentic selves.

You made it about you. It's not about you. It's a piece placing Beto in a larger social context, and a pretty good piece overall. There is nothing unfair about it. Beto IS engaged in self-absorbed navel-gazing. A woman doing the same thing WOULD be far more heavily criticized for it. I cannot argue with either of those premises.

Feeling guilty is your choice, and it hits you because there is truth in it. We love to bemoan sexism and patriarchy until we're asked to look in the mirror and see how it is reflected in ourselves and how it shapes what we believe and, in the case of Beto, what makes us feel good.

I think Beto should be allowed to do some preening. I have no problem with him going off on a rich man's jaunt of self-discovery, riding his midlife crisis motorcycle down Route 66 as he uses charming writing (purposeful sentence fragments, the CONSTANT reference to running as metaphor, etc...) to spin banality into folksy charm. Personally, I like it. As a fellow self-absorbed white man of means, I ALSO love to look at myself in the mirror and tell myself how great I am. I read that and smile. I don't fault Beto for being such a midlife crisis hack. I was there not long ago and it didn't hurt anyone. He earned it.

(Marco)But let's dispense with the notion that he doesn't know what he's doing. He knows what he's doing.(/Rubio)

 

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well,of course it’s about me - it’s my vote.

But it’s also my real concern about nonsense fracturing the voters who lean and vote Democrat.

You’re the poster boy for resentment stemming from the 2016 election. That’s about your feelings - duh.

That’s my point.

And those bad feelings remain after two years and that happened with only two candidates.

Multiply that by 15 and we run a real risk of alienating a lot of folks.

Don’t expect me to take Beto’s navel gazing as some offense to my gender because a woman can’t do it when we’ve got an admitted pussy grabber and accused sexual assaulter in charge of foisting men like Kavanaugh into our lives.

If we could start with a baseline of “Every single Democrat running is better than Trump for women/racial minorities/sexual preferences/religious folks other than evangelicals. Let’s not be pulled into that briar patch.”, we would all be better off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

And this is where I part with my fellow Democrats.

I want the primaries to give us the best candidate. I want them to be tough and about ideas and policies.

But the above article is what divides the voters into “teams” and makes the losses of their candidates feel personal. It bakes in a resentment to the ultimate winner that results in grudging support come the general election instead of a united and inspired base.

I’m a woman. I care deeply about women’s issues. I don’t care to make everything about what’s between a person’s legs.

The 2020 election is literally a fork in the road - with one path leading to danger and marginalization and all sorts of bad things for minorities and women.

And if we eat each other alive before we get to that fork, we’re fucked.

I deeply dislike Bernie Sanders.

But if he’s the ultimate nominee, I’ll volunteer and work and vote enthusiastically. Because the alternative is too horrible.

Tell me why Beto is bad. Tell me why Gillibrand is good. Don’t drape a generic societal critique around a candidate to stoke my emotions because “Women aren’t allowed to be emo”.

I’m smarter than that.

It was a race baiting article and an awful read.  She's getting flayed for it on social media, as she should, but I think your general point will remain.  Tribalism is alive and well in both parties makeup.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

You’re the poster boy for resentment stemming from the 2016 election. That’s about your feelings - duh.

This is ironic, because there is not a potential candidate for 2020 on the Dem side that I dislike with 1/10th the passion you and others like you dislike Bernie.

- Beto seems shallow, but I like him the most (by far) as a person and general election candidate as far as winning potential. (I did vote for Sema Hernandez in the primary)

- Warren is my best hope. I don't think Bernie has a shot in the primary given the hatred he gets from centrists who just want a return to normalcy, but Warren might actually get us a legitimately substantive candidate who cares about the working class.

- I don't know much of anything about Sherrod Brown. He'll either not run or he'll likely disappear.

- Gillibrand seems sketchy, but I don't have any feelings about her. I think she'll disappear so it's not even worth thinking about.

- Kamala seems promising. I have some misgivings, but she seems fine.

- Bernie is awesome. Supremely substantive and completely lacking in charm or charisma. America's wrinkled, lecturing grandpa. He's too good for the party, honestly (Warren pretty much is, too).

- Castro seems like someone harvested from a cloning vat in the DNC's basement. (He'll disappear, same as Gillibrand)

- Biden was a bad candidate in 2008. He was a bad speaker, he was disjointed and meandering. He's got some populist charm, but Beto and Warren are just so much better than him on that front. His political history is gross (anti-busing, horrible to Anita Hill, etc...). If Obama comes out in favor of Biden I will be legitimately sad. (I love Barack)

Quote

If we could start with a baseline of “Every single Democrat running is better than Trump for women/racial minorities/sexual preferences/religious folks other than evangelicals. Let’s not be pulled into that briar patch.”, we would all be better off.

Who on our "side" isn't starting off from that baseline? (Other than those of you who actively hate Bernie Sanders?)

It's certainly not CNN's job to do that.

I'd be interested to hear you make your case for Beto.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Cormac has an understanding of the plight of West Texas Hispanics.  He was going for something interesting, I'll give him that.  He even inspired Kopser, who also lost a U.S. Congress race, to do something similar and Kopser leads---doesn't follow.  

I suspect Rep. O'Rourke will be about as beloved in the Hispanic community one day as Charles Kuralt and his travels is/was...that is to say, "Quien?"  

The overall field is good for the U.S. though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lobo said:

At least Cormac has an understanding of the plight of West Texas Hispanics.  He was going for something interesting, I'll give him that.  He even inspired Kopser, who also lost a U.S. Congress race, to do something similar and Kopser leads---doesn't follow.  

I suspect Rep. O'Rourke will be about as beloved in the Hispanic community one day as Charles Kuralt and his travels is/was...that is to say, "Quien?"  

The overall field is good for the U.S. though...

It's not the Hispanics that Beto is going to win with... it's this...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, for all the sexiest implications, Beto is going to clean up with suburban and young women.

He’s my guy - for now. He could be a terrible national campaigner or say something terrible or any number of things. But- and it’s probably because I followed his senate race closely because of this website - I don’t expect that and I like everything I’ve seen about him so far.

I also like all the other declared candidates - except Bernie and Tulsi. I don’t know as much about Brown, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, and Castro as I’d like but I’m open to hearing their stories and their visions.

I like Harris and I know more about her than the above but I have concerns about her criminal justice past.

I’ve always LOVED Joe Biden but I cannot help my feeling that he’s too old and he kind of fucked up not running in 2016. I still kind of hold a grudge about that.

I like everything about Warren and she’s my second choice right now. If the election were tomorrow, a Warren/O’Rourke ticket would be my preference - in either order.

My only two no’s for the primaries are Bernie and Tulsi. If they somehow win - he has a small chance, she’s got zero chance - I’d still vote for them over any republican. (She says hoping Trump is in the clink by 2020 or gets primaried.)

But seriously, underestimate women inspired by brains, sensitivity, and a hot-dork tall guy with a head of great hair at your peril.

Bitches will move the world for that guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

People publicly posting stuff like this is where we are as a culture and a nation. I blame Trump for opening the flood gates and starting the fire.

It has nothing to do with Trump. It’s just how people communicate now. Look at social media/Tinder/online dating/dick pics. People are much more upfront, but from a distance, nowadays. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...