Evo Morales Gets Bounced; Seeks Asylum in Mexico - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15048849
I as always apply my simple rules. Do you support / demand

1 No executive Presidencies / Governors / Mayors
2 Full proportional Representation
3 Fixed term elections of no longer than 2 years.

These are for me the non negotiable foundations of serious modern democracy. Now of course no one is obliged to take any notice of me. You are perfectly entitled to ignore me. However if you don't unequivocally support these 3 demands don't come looking to me for sympathy. Don't bother coming whining to me about the democratic injustices you have suffered. There is zero need for executive Presidencies. So there is zero need for me to waste my energy trying to rule on the inevitable problems created by this unnecessary concentration of power.

I try to apply this zero tolerance policy fairly across the board. Zero tolerance for American Conservative whining about Obama. Zero tolerance for British left wingers who whined about Margaret Thatcher. Zero tolerance for those whining that Brexit hasn't been implemented. and zero tolerance for the fanbois of Morales.
#15048864
Rugoz wrote:That's just creepy as fuck.


Hmm. I don't think anyone has thought of you that way eh?

I don't think you know people very well in this forum. Lol.

I am not you.

If @Potemkin thought it creepy he would say so?

Men do get their noses bent out of shape eh?

Are you British? Don't know much about Latin American women from the Caribbean and our style do you?

Too bad. You got limited experiences with that. :lol: :lol: :lol:
#15048868
JohnRawls wrote:So there supposed to be no consequences for violating term limits ? :eh:



John Rawls, each nation has the right to create their own term limits for their presidencies. Mexico's for example where I reside now only allows the Mexican prez one term. A six year term. And it is over. Finito. In the past with the PRI, and the PAN (the two parties that fight for seats in the Mexican senate, etc) would do a 'dedocracia'. Do you know what that is? It means once the sitting prez of Mexico finishes his term he chooses a successor who gets all the party apparatus to back him for replacing him in the presidential palace in Mexico City.

It means literally translated "dedo=finger" cracia....last part of democracia...or democracy. Finger democracy is what it means. You point the finger to the next guy or gal. That is the way it rolls. Unfortunately there was fraud with the PRI and the PAN for years. Morena the party now in power? Was denied victory about three times. The reason AMLO won so overwhelmingly was because unlike the USA's system? You can't circumvent the popular votes if they are very overwhelming. You don't have sufficient people to stem that tide, even with fraud going on in many counties and districts. Morena finally had the overwhelming majority that was extremely hard to deny. They caved to the socialists in Mexico. And they are PISSED. But nothing they can do about it. The Mexicans all said they were sick and tired of the corrupt PRI and PAN not doing anything for the lower classes. It should teach the USA something? But it doesn't. People in the states are not very politically intelligent about who is going to give the lower classes the best representation...too many years of being fed lines about çapitalism will be your savior...

Lol. No, it won't. And a corrupt billionaire is not the answer to a better society. No matter how many molotov cocktails BJ wants to throw at the American two party rotten system? In the end? You got to get someone who has a remedy to the out of control capitalists who are experts at coups, hating democratic forms of rule, love profits and who have nothing to do but create misery in the vast majority of the world's nations.
#15049047
Potemkin wrote:I repeat what I said earlier: the election was legal (though politically unwise, in retrospect) - the Bolivian Supreme Court had overturned the law on term limits. The election was legal; the coup was illegal.


The problem with this is that if society doesn't value democracy then indeed it is not illegal. As you said, it was overturned by the Supreme Court so it was legal. It still goes against principles of a democratic society. I am not disputing the legality or illegality part.

Its like saying your communist while at the same time killing people in sweatshops from over work.

If Evo Morales said that we are transitioning to autocratic one party rule because democracy is not working for us then it would be fine. I wouldn't say a word regarding violating term limits. (I would complain that autocratic rule will not work) Since i assume he wanted to keep democracy around but still stay in power so he gets the criticism.

@Tainari88

Indeed. Different countries set different limits on the terms. But there are rough guidelines where and when you exceed the norms of democracy. 14 years in power is definitely over any interpretation of term limits in my opinion. It is not smooth sailing for everyone even in democratic societies because of those rules. Obama would have destroyed Trump but he wasn't allowed to run from one side. This is democracy. Then on the other side we have Merkel in Germany who is not necessarily a bad politician but she has been in power for so long that no new ideas appear in the political field or at least restricted because of her.

I am fully aware that those term limits are not all good. The problem is that they are necessary. In my opinion, for example, Merkel is also already going over the term limit guidelines. She needs to go also, not because she is a bad polictian, but simply because she has been in power too long. I guess she is an example comparable to Morales. She has been in power for 14 years and Morales also was 14 years i think. Both of them are not bad and I would even say good politicians but it doesn't mean that those 14 years do not build up anger against them even as good as they are. 14 years is way too long. Merkel aknowledges that compared to Morales. Right now she is wrapping up and seems will retire from politics soon, depending on how long the coalition survives.
#15049055
JohnRawls wrote:The problem with this is that if society doesn't value democracy then indeed it is not illegal. As you said, it was overturned by the Supreme Court so it was legal. It still goes against principles of a democratic society. I am not disputing the legality or illegality part.

Its like saying your communist while at the same time killing people in sweatshops from over work.

If Evo Morales said that we are transitioning to autocratic one party rule because democracy is not working for us then it would be fine. I wouldn't say a word regarding violating term limits. (I would complain that autocratic rule will not work) Since i assume he wanted to keep democracy around but still stay in power so he gets the criticism.

He was not trying to transition to autocratic rule; he just wanted the chance to be democratically elected to power again. This is no different from what Thatcher was doing in the UK throughout the 1980s. She could do it; why couldn't Morales? :eh:

Indeed. Different countries set different limits on the terms. But there are rough guidelines where and when you exceed the norms of democracy.

No there aren't. There are no term limits in the UK or in Germany, as you have noted. And if there are "rough guidelines", then specify what those guidelines are. Because I'm pretty sure you aren't trying to claim that the UK is not a democracy. :eh:

14 years in power is definitely over any interpretation of term limits in my opinion.

Why? Just because you have a 'feeling'? :eh:

It is not smooth sailing for everyone even in democratic societies because of those rules. Obama would have destroyed Trump but he wasn't allowed to run from one side. This is democracy. Then on the other side we have Merkel in Germany who is not necessarily a bad politician but she has been in power for so long that no new ideas appear in the political field or at least restricted because of her.

Why "because of her"? Isn't it rather a failure of the political opposition?

I am fully aware that those term limits are not all good. The problem is that they are necessary. In my opinion, for example, Merkel is also already going over the term limit guidelines.

I repeat, what guidelines? Germany has no such guidelines, and neither has the UK.

She needs to go also, not because she is a bad polictian, but simply because she has been in power too long.

I fail to see the logic. How long is "too long"? :eh:

I guess she is an example comparable to Morales. She has been in power for 14 years and Morales also was 14 years i think. Both of them are not bad and I would even say good politicians but it doesn't mean that those 14 years do not build up anger against them even as good as they are. 14 years is way too long. Merkel aknowledges that compared to Morales. Right now she is wrapping up and seems will retire from politics soon, depending on how long the coalition survives.

Merkel has chosen to retire, which is fine. Morales wasn't ready to retire yet. Why is that not fine? :eh:
#15049069
Potemkin wrote:He was not trying to transition to autocratic rule; he just wanted the chance to be democratically elected to power again.


Except of course for the fraud allegations, which started the protests in the first place. There's a paper form CEPR that disputes the OAS' statistical findings, but then again the OAS had 100 people on the ground and its accusations go beyond implausability of results.

In any case, as much as I believe Morales rigged this, the coup leaders are fucking idiots. Why? Because Morales' party MAS literally has a 2/3 majority in both chambers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurinati ... e_Assembly

Like WTF? Unless they know something I don't, like MAS being willing to dump Morales, this must be the dumbest coup ever.
#15049070
What fraud allegations?

Aren't you the one who claimed election rigging and still haven't backed that up with any evidence?

The coup was illegal.

The military have signed an order giving them impunity over killing Bolivians.




They've been firing at protesters, imprisoning them without their families having any knowledge of where they are etc.


But that won't stop the people.

Because as RA said:

Red_Army wrote:El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido.




Even this guy is calling this bullshit out for what it is.


There've been solidarity protests from around the world.


This one is from the one in London that I attended yesterday. I made this little video. 8)
#15049078
Rugoz wrote:Except of course for the fraud allegations, which started the protests in the first place. There's a paper form CEPR that disputes the OAS' statistical findings, but then again the OAS had 100 people on the ground and its accusations go beyond implausability of results.

In any case, as much as I believe Morales rigged this, the coup leaders are fucking idiots. Why? Because Morales' party MAS literally has a 2/3 majority in both chambers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurinati ... e_Assembly

Like WTF? Unless they know something I don't, like MAS being willing to dump Morales, this must be the dumbest coup ever.

After 14 years in power followed by yet another election victory for Morales, the ruling elite of Bolivia were clearly getting desperate. It underlines, however, the thoroughly anti-democratic and reactionary nature of the coup. They can only rule as a dictatorship.
#15049087
Potemkin wrote:After 14 years in power followed by yet another election victory for Morales, the ruling elite of Bolivia were clearly getting desperate.


So you think Morales won the election fair and square, I say that is hopelessly naive. Left-wingers are always blind on one eye until it's too late (and some beyond that).

Potemkin wrote:It underlines, however, the thoroughly anti-democratic and reactionary nature of the coup. They can only rule as a dictatorship.


They cannot rule as a dictatorship, if they try the coup will fail. I suspect large parts of the MAS are willing to dump Morales, we know he lost the support of the unions. We have to wait and see.
#15049090
Rugoz wrote:So you think Morales won the election fair and square, I say that is hopelessly naive. Left-wingers are always blind on one eye until it's too late (and some beyond that).

[...]

They cannot rule as a dictatorship, if they try the coup will fail. I suspect large parts of the MAS are willing to dump Morales, we know he lost the support of the unions. We have to wait and see.

It rather seems that right-wingers are always blind in one eye until it's too late (and some beyond that). Can you not see this for what it is? :eh:
#15049100
Potemkin wrote:After 14 years in power followed by yet another election victory for Morales, the ruling elite of Bolivia were clearly getting desperate. It underlines, however, the thoroughly anti-democratic and reactionary nature of the coup. They can only rule as a dictatorship.

This is a much better summary of the coup than your earlier hint that perhaps Morales made some strategic errors along the way.
His use of the Bolivian Supreme Court to overturn the legislation on term limits was politically unwise

The Bolivian Supreme Tribunal of Justice is elected by popular vote. And term limits are a distinctively Western concept aimed at limiting the damage from our corrupt Western leaders' almost universal Machiavellianism and pillaging of state coffers and international relations.

The suggestion that coups are caused by "imperfect governance" makes it impossible to fight against coups anywhere at anytime because all goverance (especially during times of transition) involves a bit of improvisation and error.

About words of affection between two members, Rugoz wrote:That's just creepy as fuck.

Whenever I go to malls in suburbia, I always see groups of young cabin-crazy (don't get out much) teens nursing coffee and cokes in fast food joints sneering about how awful all the other customers are.

Do you ever do this? :lol:
#15049120
Rugoz wrote:I can see where Maduro was going. I don't know where this is going yet.

It's a military coup d'etat against a popular left-wing indigenous leader. They've already started killing and arresting demonstrators. It's obvious where this is going.

Besides, I'm not a right-winger.

Yes, you are.
#15049122
Western Media Whitewash Bolivia’s Far-Right Coup
For all the supposed threat Trump represents and the enthusiasm sparked by his possible impeachment, Western media continue to march lockstep behind his administration’s coups in Latin America.


Bolivia has a new US-backed puppet leader, and the Western media can hardly conceal their adulation.

Jeanine Áñez declared herself “interim president” in a near-empty Senate chamber on November 12, proceeding to don the presidential sash with the assistance of uniformed soldiers. Despite a lack of quorum rendering the move nakedly unconstitutional, Áñez was immediately recognized by the Trump administration and 10 Downing Street.

Tuesday’s scene seemed like a parody of January’s events in Venezuela, in which a virtually unknown lawmaker, invoking highly dubious constitutional arguments, proclaimed himself “interim president” to the delight of Washington.

For all the supposed threat Trump represents and the enthusiasm sparked by his possible impeachment, Western media continue to march lockstep behind his administration’s coups in Latin America.

Áñez has been sympathetically described as a “qualified lawyer” (BBC, 11/13/19), a “proud Christian” (France 24, 11/13/19) as well as a “women’s rights activist and television presenter” (Time, 11/12/19). Reuters (11/13/19) called her “Bolivian Interim President Jeanine Áñez,” AP (11/13/19) had her as “Bolivia’s newly declared interim president,” whereas for the BBC (11/13/19) she was simply “President Áñez.” AFP (published in France 24, 11/13/19) described her as “the South American country’s 66th president and the second woman to hold the post.”

This language mirrors corporate media profiles of Venezuelan coup leader Juan Guaidó (FAIR.org, 7/23/19), who was depicted as a “freedom fighter” (Fox Business, 1/29/19) and a “salsa-loving baseball fan” (Reuters, 1/23/19) who had “captured the heart of the nation” (New York Times, 3/4/19). References to Guaidó as “president,” however, have dwindled in the face of his repeated failure to seize power (FAIR.org, 7/23/19)

Meanwhile, corporate outlets have euphemistically labeled Áñez as “conservative” (Guardian, 10/13/19; New York Times, 10/12/19; Reuters, 10/13/19), eliding any mention of her far-right, virulently anti-indigenous politics. Áñez is a member of the right-wing Democratic Social Movement from the eastern lowland region of Santa Cruz, historically a bastion of separatist groups and home to some of the most powerful Bolivian oligarchic families. She has a history of making glaringly racist remarks, tweeting in 2013 (6/20/13) that the “Aymara New Year,” an indigenous holiday, was “Satanic”: “There is no replacement for God.” Just days before seizing power, she questioned on Twitter (11/6/19) whether some people being interviewed could really be Indigenous—because they were wearing shoes. For all of liberal journalists’ virtue-signaling concerning minority rights in the global North, the silence is deafening when it comes to blatant racism from pro-US elites in Latin America.

Áñez has another scandal brewing, which has yet to be reported in the English-speaking press: Her nephew was arrested for drug trafficking in 2017. According to EFE (10/20/17), Carlos Andrés Áñez Dorado was arrested in Brazil on October 15, 2017, in possession of 480 kilograms of cocaine—more than half a ton.

Given the extensive coverage corporate journalists gave to the arrest and conviction of Venezuelan first lady Cilia Flores’ “narco-nephews” in 2015–17 (e.g. Business Insider, 10/31/16; Miami Herald, 12/13/17; Daily Beast, 12/15/17), one could expect equally damning exposés in the case of Áñez. Readers shouldn’t hold their breath.

In addition to whitewashing Áñez, corporate journalists have sought to sanitize the image of the figure widely considered to be the real force behind the coup: Christian fundamentalist multimillionaire Luis Fernando Camacho.

Camacho is quite literally a fascist who got his political start in the sieg-heiling Santa Cruz Youth Union, an ultra-right paramilitary outfit that was instrumental in the Santa Cruz oligarchy’s 2008 US-backed secessionist plot which ultimately failed.

But none of this appears to matter to the Western media, which have portrayed Camacho as a “conservative protest leader” (BBC, 11/13/19), “a firebrand Christian” (Financial Times, 11/12/19) and a “civic leader” (Reuters, 11/7/19).

Also notoriously absent from mainstream coverage of the Bolivia coup are references to the fascist tactics employed by the opposition. Images and reports on social media showed MAS leaders attacked by mobs, tied to trees, their houses set on fire and several being forced to resign by opposition violence. Instead, corporate journalists innocuously described the increasingly violent right-wing mobilizations as “mass protests” (BBC, 10/31/19), “dissent” (AP, 11/8/19) and “civil disobedience” (New York Times, 10/31/19).

The right-wing violence was framed as “clashes” (DW, 11/8/19; France 24, 11/8/19) over “controversial” or “disputed” electoral results (Washington Post, 11/07/19; BBC, 11/7/19) enabling the US-backed opposition to don the mantle of pro-democracy protesters. To bolster this “fraud” narrative, Western journalists uncritically repeat the US-financed OAS’ claims of “irregularities,” and largely ignore a CEPR report that found no evidence discrediting the results.

Once Evo Morales was forced to resign, the switch was immediately flipped. State security forces, which had stepped aside to let Camacho’s fascist gangs wreak havoc and attack opponents, were now deployed to crush the inevitable resistance from indigenous MAS supporters. But now the media could resort to their tried and tested technique of criminalizing the anti-coup protests as “violence by looters or by Mr. Morales’ supporters” (New York Times, 11/12/19), just like was done in the case of anti-neoliberal rebellions in Chile and Ecuador (FAIR.org, 10/23/19). In some cases, journalists seemed to be preemptively justifying repression, for example writing that “violence erupted” after Morales’ resignation (Financial Times, 11/11/19), or that security forces were being deployed to “quell violence” (Reuters, 11/11/19). AP (11/13/19) asserted, perhaps wishfully, that “a sense of normalcy returned to the capital on Wednesday.”

Backed by Washington, the coup that the Western media deny is a coup (FAIR.org, 11/11/19) appears successful, at least for the time being. However, as in the short-lived 2002 coup in Venezuela, the media blackout and savage repression have not stopped multitudes of Bolivians from taking to the streets to restore democracy. Only time will tell if the pueblo will triumph.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019 ... origin=rss


Rugoz wrote:Besides, I'm not a right-winger.


Holy shiza, I snorted. :lol:
#15049129
QatzelOk wrote:This is a much better summary of the coup than your earlier hint that perhaps Morales made some strategic errors along the way.


Any political leader will make mistakes Q. Evo should have known those wolves were waiting in the wings and just got some kind of successor to his 14 years Q. You can't give them a damn inch of an excuse of any sort. None. Or they will take it and manipulate it. It is sad to realize that the Left has to be nearly flawless in every move to be able to hold off these aggressive fascists, but that is the way it has to be. Got to be nearly flawless.

The Bolivian Supreme Tribunal of Justice is elected by popular vote. And term limits are a distinctively Western concept aimed at limiting the damage from our corrupt Western leaders' almost universal Machiavellianism and pillaging of state coffers and international relations.


I happen to think running a nation is hard work and stressful. I think you should have enough excellent leadership developed within a politcal party to have depth and have at least a dozen excellent people that can run the nation if something happens like a prez dying in office, or someone resigns or if you can't do the job well after a while. For me? Running a nation well is not for single figureheads, it is a set of principles that must stand the test of time. The big problem is that the Right and the Corporate don't respect anything like that. Just naked killing and aggression. Still power can corrupt people both on the right and the left. To avoid people getting either burned out with work, or getting too attached to making weighty decisions for a long time? Got to distribute the responsibilities and the pressures to others within a party to very competent leaders. Got to do it. Otherwise? You do risk a vulnerability. I talk to Castro Cubans here all the time. There are a lot of Cubans who live in Merida and go back and forth to Cuba. And they are not Miami Cubans. They said there is a fight for power in Cuba internally now, but that the socialist principles won't be abandoned. The foundation is set and they will only expand good things that work. No one approves of Trump but the way Cuba is? There are not people running in the streets wanting a regime change and so on? None. Fidel died. The Miami crowd screamed for years that once he did? It will be a Soviet Union collapse in Cuba and the Cuban exiles could sweep in and take over the country and Malls and Shopping at Amazon was around the corner. It did not happen. Why? Again, the foundations are set. Period. Now comes reform. That is it. If you hold on to power for a long time.....make it impossible for these fascists to turn it into another anti indigenous bullshit thing where they rule over the poor forever. But you can't be naive and think in the Left there is no power hungry people who want to stay in their positions and not move out of them. That is not wise as well Q.

The suggestion that coups are caused by "imperfect governance" makes it impossible to fight against coups anywhere at anytime because all goverance (especially during times of transition) involves a bit of improvisation and error.


I agree. But he did go against the people not wanting to change that policy. That was an error. If the referendum about the term limits resulted in that Bolivian voters wanted term limits and you ignored it? That was an error. Period.

Whenever I go to malls in suburbia, I always see groups of young cabin-crazy (don't get out much) teens nursing coffee and cokes in fast food joints sneering about how awful all the other customers are.

Do you ever do this? :lol:


I hang around with regular working class Mexicans. I bought my home in Mexico in an old neighborhood with a bunch of working class Mexicans.
#15049139
Potemkin wrote:He was not trying to transition to autocratic rule; he just wanted the chance to be democratically elected to power again. This is no different from what Thatcher was doing in the UK throughout the 1980s. She could do it; why couldn't Morales? :eh:


No there aren't. There are no term limits in the UK or in Germany, as you have noted. And if there are "rough guidelines", then specify what those guidelines are. Because I'm pretty sure you aren't trying to claim that the UK is not a democracy. :eh:


Why? Just because you have a 'feeling'? :eh:


Why "because of her"? Isn't it rather a failure of the political opposition?


I repeat, what guidelines? Germany has no such guidelines, and neither has the UK.


I fail to see the logic. How long is "too long"? :eh:


Merkel has chosen to retire, which is fine. Morales wasn't ready to retire yet. Why is that not fine? :eh:


Its hard to answer these questions honestly. My opinion on this is that there are actual term limits on politicians even in countries when they are no official ones. In some systems it is not expected of a person to last that long as the head, in others the people tend to self-retire i suppose. US can be a curious study on the topic. It didn't have official limits till a certain someone was popular for a very long time. And probably would have gotten couple of more terms since he just won the 2nd world war. So the Americans implemented official term limits after that.

Margaret Thatcher didn't rule for 14 years and then get re-elected again. Even if it is a democratic vote and people support somebody being the head for a long time then you definitely have a choice to stay BUT it doesn't mean that you should. Look at Merkel, she is self-retiring of sorts and has been trying for the last couple of years. (How honest this is, i am not sure)

Moraleses case is complicated. He is indeed popular for the things that he has done. He managed to get the high court to permit him to run. Some of the people revolted. Its a mess. Why wouldn't he pass the torch to somebody else in his party? I think he understands this and regrets this a bit right now otherwise he wouldn't have surrendered so fast. At his core, his agenda seem to be more honest and inclusive compared to many other left wing politicians in SA.
#15049141
JohnRawls wrote:Its hard to answer these questions honestly.

I can imagine....

My opinion on this is that there are actual term limits on politicians even in countries when they are no official ones.

Your opinion is incorrect.

In some systems it is not expected of a person to last that long as the head, in others the people tend to self-retire i suppose. US can be a curious study on the topic. It didn't have official limits till a certain someone was popular for a very long time. And probably would have gotten couple of more terms since he just won the 2nd world war. So the Americans implemented official term limits after that.

Can't have a popular left-winger winning too often, now can we...?

Margaret Thatcher didn't rule for 14 years and then get re-elected again. Even if it is a democratic vote and people support somebody being the head for a long time then you definitely have a choice to stay BUT it doesn't mean that you should. Look at Merkel, she is self-retiring of sorts and has been trying for the last couple of years. (How honest this is, i am not sure)

She is not retiring because she feels there should be term limits in Germany, but simply because she personally has had enough. Governing a country is an incredibly difficult and tiring job.

Moraleses case is complicated. He is indeed popular for the things that he has done. He managed to get the high court to permit him to run. Some of the people revolted. Its a mess. Why wouldn't he pass the torch to somebody else in his party? I think he understands this and regrets this a bit right now otherwise he wouldn't have surrendered so fast. At his core, his agenda seem to be more honest and inclusive compared to many other left wing politicians in SA.

Ignoring the result of the referendum and getting the Bolivian equivalent of the Supreme Court to overturn the law on term limits was a political error. If you're simply going to ignore the result, then why hold the referendum in the first place? But I repeat: Morales' election as President of Bolivia was legal, and the military coup d'etat which overthrew him was illegal. And given the composition of both chambers, in which Morales has a 2/3 majority, the coup leaders will have no choice but to govern as a dictatorship.
#15049149
This story isn't about political mistakes/errors/whatever, it's about an illegal military coup that's directed by the West and that'll only benefit 5% of the population who can only steal power since they don't have popular support in the country.

It is absurd to see leftists criticize the Morales government while it's fighting imperialism, but here we are.

Also, more of this please:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

As a 'not really lefty but somewhat lefty', a War[…]

Wake me up when you have a couple polls from actu[…]

Yes. It is so far in the weeds that there is hard[…]

December 10, Tuesday An act of the Confederate […]