-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
I think the market will move based on what outcome will least restrict and perhaps promote greed.
- Good for markets (harder to restrict greed)
- Bad for markets (Democrats like to regulate greed)
- Good for markets (greed wins)
I think tariffs and treaties are done at the EU level in this case.
Backing off auto tariffs, US and EU agree to more talks
Right now, EU charges 10% tariff on US cars while US charges 2.5% on German cars. That sounds like protectionism.
X Fan
Active Member
And, don't forget, the Germans have overweight influence in the EU....
Having run companies in Europe and Asia, its laughable that folks don't understand the lengths that some counties go to to protect industries/jobs (in EU: particularly Germany/France; in Asia: Japan, China). Often it's done via third parties, quasi Governmental agencies, rules and regs.
I did read your point and I agree that no tariffs are better and it is a lose-lose situation the way it is currently being handled. I hope negotiations work out in the long run to lower tariffs all around to benefit consumers and not corporations and governments.
I was wondering where all the new posts came from and this thread is the dumping ground for all things political.
BTW, Sen Barasso has introduced a bill to eliminate the EV tax credit and introduce a federal EV tax to pay for the damage to highways from EVs. The federal gasoline tax now doesn't really pay for the damage ICE do to the roads.
As @KarenRei posted Five Thirty Eight and most other pundits give good odds the Democrats will take the House, but the Republicans will hold the Senate. The math works very much against the Democrats in the Senate this time. Republicans only have 8 regularly scheduled Senate seats up and one special election in Mississippi. The Democrats are defending 24 seats with one special election added. Among the places the Democrats are defending are Indiana, North Dakota, West Virginia, Missouri, and Florida. Missouri is a toss up, North Dakota is leaning towards a flip (especially now the new law to prevent Native Americans from voting got upheld). Florida is also a toss up, Bill Nelson is a horrible campaigner and he's up against one of the best campaigners in the Republican Party: Rick Scott. But Scott is hampered from being in Trump's party, with a bad hurricane that is being managed about as well as Puerto Ricos, and a severe red tide problem made worse by pollution Scott allowed to happen.
Even at that, the Democrats have shots at flipping seats in Arizona and Nevada.
2020 looks brutal for the Senate Republicans. They will be defending over 20 seats in a presidential election year with a president who will likely be even more unpopular by then.
Trump has benefited from a strong economy he inherited. Delving deep into the presidential approval polls, the majority of the 55 or so percent who say they disapprove of Trump strongly disapprove. Of the 40 or so percent who do approve of Trump, most polls only show 10-15% strongly approve. The rest are more tepid. There are people who only approve because the economy is doing well and there haven't been any serious problems yet (other than a few acts of nature).
As Rick Wilson has said (and entitled his book) Everything Trump Touches Dies. Trump has set in motion a number of things that could lead to disaster. For the moment the Korean Peninsula looks OK. A lot of people claim Kim Jong Un is crazy, but I'm convinced it's just the act he's played to try and help his country. When he came up against a real crazy person (Trump) he suddenly started acting a lot saner and started serious negotiations with South Korea. However, if things do go bad in Korea, that will not only be a terrible disaster for Korea, it will have economic implications felt around the world. For one thing flat screens will become impossible to come by for a couple of years. 90% of the world's flat screens are made in South Korea, most around Soeul which will likely be badly damaged by North Korean artillery in the first hours of a war.
Other looming disasters are the trade war, which could badly damage the US economy. Somehow NAFTA has survived, though Trump is touting his tweaks to NAFTA as the greatest treaty ever. The effects of a trade war take time to percolate into the economy, but a number of US businesses have already folded because of the steel and aluminum tariffs. The tariffs will affect other auto makers worse than Tesla. The tariffs on steel are steeper than aluminum and Tesla tends to lock in contracts for materials several years in advance as well as focus on domestic sources. I know they were buying most of their sheet aluminum from a Portland company that used a lot of recycled aluminum. Though I don't know if they are now.
The Chinese are aiming their tariffs to do as much damage as possible in Trump states. So agricultural products are the primary target, though other things are targeted too. The trade war is also making companies uncertain in other areas not directly affected. I contract for a company that makes test equipment for the integrated circuit industry. I had my hours cut last week and they have had to lay off a number of people because capital investment across the industry is way down due to the uncertainty. When it looked like the economy was going to survive the 2008 crash, they had so many orders the engineers were building systems. I probably would have been on the production line too if I was physically there (I telecommute).
The ripples from the trade war are just now being felt, but it's going to get a lot more pronounced. If Trump were replaced with someone sane tomorrow, the areas of the economy not directly affected by the trade war would bounce back quickly, but many areas are going to feel an effect for a long time.
The economy is a like a large ship. It takes a lot of effort and a long time to turn, but once it does, it take a lot of time and effort to get it back on course. If Trump is still in office in 2020, we will be feeling the full effects of his mismanagement.
Another domino Trump has set up is Saudi Arabia. Jared Kutchner has encouraged Mohamed bin Salman to pull off a palace coup and replace his brother as the primary heir. MBS could bring down the House of Saud who have ruled the country since the early 1920s.
The House of Saud have always been relatively liberal themselves, but to get and keep power, they had to ally themselves with one of the most conservative sects of Islam in the world, the Wahhabists. Part of the deal was the Wahhabists ran Saudi Arabia's education system. So at this point every Saudi outside the House of Saud has had about the most conservative Islamic education possible. The fact that a large number of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabians was because of this. They were people radicalized by the extreme form of Islam they were taught combined with a strong enough general education to be able to pull off the attack.
MBS is ticking off the Wahhabists with his liberal reforms like opening up movie theaters and allowing women to drive, and his actions with killing Khashoggi in Turkey could be even more destabilizing. While the Wahhabists probably have little issue with the killing of a journalist, the rest of the world does. The Saudi attacks in Yemen are also turning the world against Saudi Arabia.
Between external and internal tensions, the Wahhabists could decide to seize control in SA which would at minimum set off a civil war. It could end up handing SA over to people akin to ISIS and cause a worldwide oil crisis.
Back to Tesla, an oil crisis would help them. The cost of electricity probably wouldn't change because most of it is generated with domestic fossil fuels (natural gas and coal) which are cheap. If electric cars are zipping past long lines of ICE drivers waiting to buy gas, it would get a lot of people to rethink what they're driving.
The trade war could help Tesla too because they have been the most aggressive car company at securing parts from the US, or at least North America.
On the other hand the Republicans want to do everything they can to kill off electric cars and solar, but so far they have not been very good at it. The fact that the EV incentive overly benefits wealthy people probably helps it stay in place. Same thing with the solar tax credits.
We've been in uncharted waters politically for close to 2 years now and it looks like more uncertainty ahead. I think that a big Democratic win this election will help people's fears, but it won't completely stop Trump from doing idiotic things to destabilize the world.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I was completely unaware of this travesty:
Supreme Court Enables Mass Disenfranchisement of North Dakota’s Native Americans
It does make things tougher for Heitkamp, however, it has energized Native Americans to vote like never before. There is an all out effort to get the address thing straitened out in time on the reservations.
The Republicans have been big on stopping in person voter fraud with ID laws because it enables them to rig elections in their favor. In person vote fraud is so rare researchers have only been able to find a handful of cases out of over 1 billion votes cast. So several states are disenfranchising quite possibly millions of people to stop a few from breaking the law.
The disconnect between voter ID laws and voter fraud
Washington and Oregon are 100% vote by mail now and California is headed that way. It's cheaper, allows the working poor more opportunity to vote, and increases turnout. The last two things that would go against the Republicans, but I'm more in favor of fair elections than whoever can rig the system in their favor.
If the Republicans were winning elections based on better appeal to more people, then I could accept it, but picking your voters is wrong.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Oregon has been 100% vote by mail for so long, I can't remember the last time I went to a physical location to vote. I know that I've done it during my lifetime, but like 20 years ago or something?
Some history:
Vote-by-mail in Oregon - Wikipedia
(which says it came about by citizen petition in 1998)
I moved to Oregon in '83, but didn't start voting really until around '90.
Washington officially had polling places until about 6-8 years ago. I think you can still vote in person if you go into the county elections office, but basically they just give you a mail in ballot there and you fill it out in the office.
I moved to Washington in 1987 and within a few months of registering to vote here I got a form from the state's Republican party to register for full time vote by mail. I had been registered Republican in California because my family is Republican, but I really liked Washington's system. You just register to vote, the state doesn't want to know what party you affiliate with. The state Republicans may have gotten notice of the cancellation of my registration in California or something.
In any case, I signed up for the vote by mail and always have in Washington. I read that by the time Washington went to full vote by mail something like 80-90% of the votes were already by mail anyway. California is well down that road too. Everyone in my family has been on permanent vote by mail for at least a decade.
I've noticed Oregon and Washington tend to be very progressive with some things and California ends up adopting what started in the NW. Oregon introduced full vote by mail and death with dignity. Washington has been party-free as long as I've lived here and after the Supreme Court decision that eliminated Washington's completely open primary (which 97% of the public liked) we settled on the top 2 primary we use today that California adopted. Washington also pioneered non-partisan redistricting and California adopted it.
Washington is also the only state in the US to pass an initiative allowing same sex marriage and was one of the first two states to legalize recreational marijuana use (though everyone paid more attention to Colorado, but their law went into effect first).
The only thing that annoys me is ideas start in the NW, but on the national level people tend to attribute them to California when California adopts them. The country paid more attention to marijuana legalization in Colorado. I can sort of understand the attention paid to California, that state has 1/10 the population of the country, but Colorado has a smaller population than Washington.
Oregon did get national credit for the death with dignity thing, and both senators have been getting higher profile lately. I thought Jeff Merkley was kind of loony when he first ran, but he's turned out to be a good senator.
Back to the subject, I think non-partisan redistricting should be mandated nationally. Let the party win that really is the people's choice. Additionally we should eliminate these voter ID laws that effectively disenfranchise many voters and stop the extreme voter roll purges.
Jefferson said about the legal system that it is better than 50 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. Of course that isn't how the legal system works today and it needs reform, but a similar idea needs to be applied to voting. It's ultimately better for the whole if a handful of illegal votes are cast if everyone who is legally eligible to vote and wants to vote gets to.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
And in fact, most of those documented cases were Republican activists voting illegally in a district they didn't really live in. Like Ann Coulter.
Yeah, it's evil. If they were winning honestly, I'd accept that as the will of the people. But if they keep stealing elections, they're traitors who need to be removed by any means necessary.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
I agree with the sentiment, feeling, and belief @neroden
I disagree with the language and terminology you're using to express it very strongly.
You might be right that we're down to mass mayhem, murder, and general societal break down as the only way out of the pit we're digging ourselves. I sure hope not, and intend to do at least the little bit that I can do, by not using such extreme language.
I think one of the highest profile cases was James O'Keefe (the guy who made the video that brought down ACORN) who was trying to show how easy it was to pull off in person voter fraud and got caught.
I agree with @adiggs about the "any means possible". I think you meant by any legal means possible (campaign hard, put up better candidates, raise more money, and prosecute anyone breaking the law, then change the laws so these games can't happen again). In that regard I agree heartily. We don't need lynch mobs, which is one means that is possible, but both unethical and self defeating.
There's an interesting article on fivethirtyeight posted yesterday.
Why Politicians Don’t Always Listen To Political Scientists
It's pretty straight forward about the merits/demerits of so-called deep canvas polling which can be measured for its ability to change people's policy preferences. It works for attitudes toward transexuals but not for abortion. There are other examples and a useful evaluation of which campaigning techniques seem to work best. TV commercials apparently are the least effective, while door to door campaigning by members of the same community work best—hence the power of facebook and twitter. (Also, the power of effective political machines like the senior Mayor Daley's or Tammany Hall.)
It's always nice to have statistical studies, especially when they back up common sense. I was educated in the old school of political philosophy where the smart guys applied common sense and history to their analyses. I remember assaulting a distinguished political scientist while a PhD. candidate at another university. He had just informed us of a study of liberals funded by a $100,000 grant. He discovered some liberals were more independent minded and others were more favorable to large government programs. So he got an additional $100,000 from the foundation for another more refined survey.
I asked him if he had read John Dewey's, Liberalism, Old and New, published in the thirties and available in reissue as a paperback for $6.95? I don't remember his answer.
Let's see what common sense might explain the recent finding. I don't have an opinion about transgenders. If I were surveyed by a deep canvasser I suppose the person would have to explain a lot about the issue for me to form an opinion. Hence, deep canvassing works.
I have an opinion about abortion. I take the typical male cop out and say it's none of my business. I did refuse to give an errant son $60 he wanted to pay for an abortion for a woman friend. Logically, the pro life folks do have a powerful moral argument on the other hand in terms of self-restraint, responsibility for one's actions, and the horror of taking an innocent's life. Thus I admire at least the consistency of the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion as well as execution. Similarly, Libertarians are consistent on the same principle, the right to life for both the mother and someone facing capital punishment.
When people have steadfast opinions about policy based on principle and/or fact, deep canvassing doesn't change minds. Duh!
Why Politicians Don’t Always Listen To Political Scientists
It's pretty straight forward about the merits/demerits of so-called deep canvas polling which can be measured for its ability to change people's policy preferences. It works for attitudes toward transexuals but not for abortion. There are other examples and a useful evaluation of which campaigning techniques seem to work best. TV commercials apparently are the least effective, while door to door campaigning by members of the same community work best—hence the power of facebook and twitter. (Also, the power of effective political machines like the senior Mayor Daley's or Tammany Hall.)
It's always nice to have statistical studies, especially when they back up common sense. I was educated in the old school of political philosophy where the smart guys applied common sense and history to their analyses. I remember assaulting a distinguished political scientist while a PhD. candidate at another university. He had just informed us of a study of liberals funded by a $100,000 grant. He discovered some liberals were more independent minded and others were more favorable to large government programs. So he got an additional $100,000 from the foundation for another more refined survey.
I asked him if he had read John Dewey's, Liberalism, Old and New, published in the thirties and available in reissue as a paperback for $6.95? I don't remember his answer.
Let's see what common sense might explain the recent finding. I don't have an opinion about transgenders. If I were surveyed by a deep canvasser I suppose the person would have to explain a lot about the issue for me to form an opinion. Hence, deep canvassing works.
I have an opinion about abortion. I take the typical male cop out and say it's none of my business. I did refuse to give an errant son $60 he wanted to pay for an abortion for a woman friend. Logically, the pro life folks do have a powerful moral argument on the other hand in terms of self-restraint, responsibility for one's actions, and the horror of taking an innocent's life. Thus I admire at least the consistency of the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion as well as execution. Similarly, Libertarians are consistent on the same principle, the right to life for both the mother and someone facing capital punishment.
When people have steadfast opinions about policy based on principle and/or fact, deep canvassing doesn't change minds. Duh!
Last edited:
Getting someone to change their mind is tough. It's even tougher when people have integrated the beliefs so deeply that no longer engage their brain before reacting. Direct confrontation will never work because that just raises someone's defenses. Instead you need to get the person's brain thinking again, then introduce them to the idea their deeply held beliefs may need to be reassessed. Another way is to let someone hit the wall and realize their knee jerk beliefs aren't working.
There are some people on the right in the US who are getting into that hitting the wall point. They aren't becoming liberals, though they are beginning to realize the Republicans are no longer conservative. At least not in the way it's generally been defined in American politics.
I do know people on the left who have their brain shut down whenever politics come up. But I have known a lot more people on the right who do. There was a saying I heard some years back that when it comes to general elections, Democrats need to fall in love with the candidate and Republicans fall in line.
Democrats are less reliable voters because if they don't like the candidate, they will often stay home. Republicans will turn out to vote for their guy/gal, even if they don't like him/her.
This tendency is frustrating for the Democratic Party, but often means that more Democrats keep their brains engaged. Now if all people see is garbage, they may end up believing garbage, but these people are willing to take in data. On the right you have more people who are essentially sheep. You tell them to vote for Herr Hitler and they will vote for him. Conservative media has played on this tendency and fine tuned to to a point the Republican Party has turned into a cult.
There is a false equivalency that MSNBC and Fox News are two sides of the same coin. It is true that one caters to the left and the other to the right, but what they report and how they report it are very different.
MSNBC has plenty of opinion, but they tend to tell you the facts about something, then opine on it. I don't agree with the opinion all the time, but I can appreciate that the audience knows the facts before the opining begins.
Fox is all opinion all the time. When they report "facts" some of the time it's completely made up, other times it's very heavily slanted facts, or it's just blanket assertions masquerading as facts. And they opine even further on these made up facts.
Back when Roger Ailes was in charge, he would give all his on air talent their marching orders daily. He would tell them exactly what narrative he wanted them to take on any given issue. That has loosened up a bit since Ailes left, but there still is a sort of mind meld in messaging going on, at least among the more popular hosts.
MSNBC has never told anchors what to say and only require they comply to NBC news guidelines. Management suspended and even fired some people for going too far.
The left and the right in the US have some similarities these days. However, they are not the same at the fundamental level of how people on the left and right approach information and opinion.
There are some people on the right in the US who are getting into that hitting the wall point. They aren't becoming liberals, though they are beginning to realize the Republicans are no longer conservative. At least not in the way it's generally been defined in American politics.
I do know people on the left who have their brain shut down whenever politics come up. But I have known a lot more people on the right who do. There was a saying I heard some years back that when it comes to general elections, Democrats need to fall in love with the candidate and Republicans fall in line.
Democrats are less reliable voters because if they don't like the candidate, they will often stay home. Republicans will turn out to vote for their guy/gal, even if they don't like him/her.
This tendency is frustrating for the Democratic Party, but often means that more Democrats keep their brains engaged. Now if all people see is garbage, they may end up believing garbage, but these people are willing to take in data. On the right you have more people who are essentially sheep. You tell them to vote for Herr Hitler and they will vote for him. Conservative media has played on this tendency and fine tuned to to a point the Republican Party has turned into a cult.
There is a false equivalency that MSNBC and Fox News are two sides of the same coin. It is true that one caters to the left and the other to the right, but what they report and how they report it are very different.
MSNBC has plenty of opinion, but they tend to tell you the facts about something, then opine on it. I don't agree with the opinion all the time, but I can appreciate that the audience knows the facts before the opining begins.
Fox is all opinion all the time. When they report "facts" some of the time it's completely made up, other times it's very heavily slanted facts, or it's just blanket assertions masquerading as facts. And they opine even further on these made up facts.
Back when Roger Ailes was in charge, he would give all his on air talent their marching orders daily. He would tell them exactly what narrative he wanted them to take on any given issue. That has loosened up a bit since Ailes left, but there still is a sort of mind meld in messaging going on, at least among the more popular hosts.
MSNBC has never told anchors what to say and only require they comply to NBC news guidelines. Management suspended and even fired some people for going too far.
The left and the right in the US have some similarities these days. However, they are not the same at the fundamental level of how people on the left and right approach information and opinion.
As usual you have targeted one of the major factors differentiating the parties and voters. Another influence on behavior and changing it is that more Democrats are used to governing while Republicans since Reagan are pretty vocal about government being bad in itself. Now with Trump, Republicanism has reached its logical conclusion—anarchism. There is a lot of agreement upthread.
That has not always been the case. According to Robert N. Bellah and his colleagues at Berkeley the founders were imbued either with a common religious or civic republican ethos where conflict of opinion was about how best to govern rather than the fundamental issue of government itself.
Robert N. Bellah - Google Search
Standard political socialization research concludes our early political preferences generally reflect those of our parents. That was certainly true in my case. (It was only later that my toilet training in politics was corrupted by post graduate education.) But such research is subject to suspicion since those political scientists never ask children if they are communists, anarchists, or monarchists, only framing research in a traditional way. One of the wisest sentences in a M.A. thesis of a former student captured the problem well: "American socialization research is part of the socialization process itself."
Maybe the difficulty here is broader than we suppose. It is the problem of observer involvement. The Greeks got it wrong. Man (sic) is not the measure of things, we are the measurer of things as Robert M. Pirsig has taught me. The quantum magicians always seem to get the particle they want even if they have to build a better machine to find it.
But now I'm off topic and way out of competence.
That has not always been the case. According to Robert N. Bellah and his colleagues at Berkeley the founders were imbued either with a common religious or civic republican ethos where conflict of opinion was about how best to govern rather than the fundamental issue of government itself.
Robert N. Bellah - Google Search
Standard political socialization research concludes our early political preferences generally reflect those of our parents. That was certainly true in my case. (It was only later that my toilet training in politics was corrupted by post graduate education.) But such research is subject to suspicion since those political scientists never ask children if they are communists, anarchists, or monarchists, only framing research in a traditional way. One of the wisest sentences in a M.A. thesis of a former student captured the problem well: "American socialization research is part of the socialization process itself."
Maybe the difficulty here is broader than we suppose. It is the problem of observer involvement. The Greeks got it wrong. Man (sic) is not the measure of things, we are the measurer of things as Robert M. Pirsig has taught me. The quantum magicians always seem to get the particle they want even if they have to build a better machine to find it.
But now I'm off topic and way out of competence.
Not yet, but it really depends on whether the Republican leadership decides to accept democracy, or whether they keep illegitimately seizing power. It's not really up to us.
They've already decided to put a fake judge on the Supreme Court. Judges are supposed to serve on "good behavior" and Kavanaugh has already behaved badly, blatantly lying under oath about his drinking.
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, law professor Lawrence Tribe, and 2700 other law professors stated that Kavanaugh should not be a judge because he simply did not qualify -- he has the appearance of a conflict of interest, the appearance of bias, and a lack of judicial temperment.
The Republicans decided to run a party-line vote to put this fake judge in robes. So much for the rule of law.
You are wrong. The only way to get out of this without violence is to make it clear to people, particularly the traitors, what is actually going on. Pussyfooting makes things worse.
Lord Grey, in the battle to pass the Great Reform Act in the UK (which required equally-sized districts and standardized who could vote, thus making the UK more democratic, eliminating rotten boroughs and pocket boroughs) openly warned his fellow Lords that if they didn't pass it, he could not be responsible for their personal safety. Any warning less dire would not have gotten through to the Lords.
And the country was on the verge of open rebellion, as the disenfranchised, unrepresented industry *owners*, engineers, and tradesman had no reason to consider the government legitimate. Lord Grey specifically told Parliament that the new industrial class had to be "cut in on the deal" (a cards analogy) or they would get rid of the game, i.e. overthrow the government. He was right. When the Act was rejected by the Lords the first time, the country rioted and became ungovernable -- it was only saved by the final passage of the Act.
Governments exist by the consent of the governed. If the majority of the population is unrepresented and run roughshod over, they won't consent. Violence will follow.
Because of the structure of minority rule which was in place at the time in England (like the one in place now!) the options were two: the existing aristocracy who had illegitimate power could give it up voluntarily; or they could have it removed through force and violence. You couldn't vote them out if you didn't have the vote. I can't vote out the Wyoming senators, let alone make the Senate representative.
(As an example of the essentially illegitimate tactics the Republican leadership have been using, Arizona voted to end gerrymandering. A popular vote by referendum! A large majority! The Republican leadership then fought tooth and nail in the courts to preserve gerrymandering; thankfully, at the last stage, the Supreme Court allowed the abolition of gerrymandering. But what option is left for the majority when the minority in power, who *know* they don't have popular support, *refuse* to relinquish power? The only options left to the majority then are illegal.)
Billionaire Nick Hanauer has been warning about this. I'm on his side. I'm wealthy and pretty comfortable. If the government becomes sufficiently blatantly illegitimate, it *will* be overthrown French-Revolution-style, and then *I'm* in trouble. We have to get these antidemocratic traitors out of power *before* that.
During the leadup to the Civil War, and again during the labor fights in the 19th century US, there were several cases where the slavers (or business owners in the second case) claimed to have won the elections and set up a state government -- and the anti-slavery forces (or the labor interests) rejected their claim, said that they'd won the elections, and set up their *own* state government. Competing state governments. It has come to this before in US history. It may come to it again, because it may be necessary.
I'd rather it wasn't necessary -- but we all know Al Gore won the election in Florida in 2000, and it was stolen by five traitors who ordered that votes not be counted in a blatant attempt to suppress democracy and make sure the government was illegitimate. (After the Republicans *flew in a group of rioters in Brooks Brothers suits* to stop the vote counting.) I never expected that. Since then I have had to look back to what was done in US and other history when stuff like that happened before. In every case (even the French Revolution), the authoritarian, anti-democratic forces started the violence; after a while, the supporters of democracy started defending themselves.
Last edited:
I will simply note that Catholic doctrine claims that the unborn child is not innocent, being tainted with original sin. But one should never expect consistency from religious doctrine...
- Status
Similar threads
