SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

The pernicious thing about this moron's reasoning is that it assumes that the only reason someone wouldn't object is that they haven't read the sign. Of course it's impossible that many of them read it and/or heard of it via word of mouth but were afraid to object to it for the obvious reasons. Yay freedom!🙄 Too bad I didn't work there. I'd have made my objections known to him in other ways.

 

He wasn't a bad guy. One of the best teachers I ever had in all honesty and not just musically. He was very very objectionable in some ways and he criminally underestimated his students intelligence on a regular basis. There was actually another instance after this where I called him out without really meaning to because his antics really did work with some of the other students but some of us found it ridiculous and I ended up asking him in front of people why he was like that. Like, just talk to me like a human and not whatever the **** this is. As you said, many of the ones that understood his point and would have without all the extra **** just never said anything to him about it because we assumed he was just as ignorant as the stuff that came out of his mouth. Its easy to do that to kids and make them think you have some kind of grander understanding then they.  

 

One of the most gifted musicians I have ever been around and its not close. And i learned a lot from him. But he was a band director for a reason. And I bet it was because he underestimated the people around him as much as he did. I don't think it was because teaching was some passion of his. 

[China]

The 4 remaining Supreme Court cases of this blockbuster term

 

Still to be decided are four disputes, and new opinions will be announced Wednesday morning.

A look at what remains:

Immigration: Remain in Mexico
The justices are considering whether the Biden administration can terminate a Trump-era border policy known as "Remain in Mexico." Lower courts have so far blocked Biden from ending the policy.

 

Climate change: EPA authority to regulate emissions from power plants
The justices will decide a case concerning the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, in a dispute that could harm the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions. It comes at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.

 

Congress' war powers: Work protection for veterans
In another dispute, the court could weaken work protections for veterans. Le Roy Torres, a veteran and former employee of the Texas Department of Public Safety, told the state agency that he could no longer serve as a state trooper and sought a comparable job to accommodate his service-related disability. When he was denied the job, he filed suit under a federal law meant to protect reemployment rights of returning veterans.But Texas responded that states are immune from such lawsuits brought under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, passed under Congress' war powers authority. 

 

Native American lands
Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Indian, was convicted of child neglect in a case concerning his step daughter, who is a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
His conviction was wiped away after a state appeals court held that because the crime occurred in Indian country, the state lacked jurisdiction. Now the court will decide whether a state has the authority to prosecute non-indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[86 Snyder]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

He wasn't a bad guy. One of the best teachers I ever had in all honesty and not just musically. He was very very objectionable in some ways and he criminally underestimated his students intelligence on a regular basis. There was actually another instance after this where I called him out without really meaning to because his antics really did work with some of the other students but some of us found it ridiculous and I ended up asking him in front of people why he was like that. Like, just talk to me like a human and not whatever the **** this is. As you said, many of the ones that understood his point and would have without all the extra **** just never said anything to him about it because we assumed he was just as ignorant as the stuff that came out of his mouth. Its easy to do that to kids and make them think you have some kind of grander understanding then they.  

 

One of the most gifted musicians I have ever been around and its not close. And i learned a lot from him. But he was a band director for a reason. And I bet it was because he underestimated the people around him as much as he did. I don't think it was because teaching was some passion of his. 

Unless I misunderstood something in your post about that letter, it sure sounds to me like he’s a piece of ****, and a racist one at that.  Hope I missed something.

[Llevron]

9 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

Unless I misunderstood something in your post about that letter, it sure sounds to me like he’s a piece of ****, and a racist one at that.  Hope I missed something.

 

I guess I didn't convey it correctly. The story used racist words to evoke emotion but he didn't write it nor was the point of it to make you feel like black people cant read. The point of it was that 'They' under estimate you and think that you wont read. Which is another great reason you should. My problem with him was always that you don't have to go to that extent for me to understand your point. Many of us understood what you were saying without the extra stuff. I don't think he would have posted it on his office door were he not black himself though so I guess I get the argument that its wrong regardless of his race.

 

You can learn a lot from flawed people though. He was a great example of that. 

 

We are way off topic now though my bad 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Llevron

[86 Snyder]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I guess I didn't convey it correctly. The story used racist words to evoke emotion but he didn't write it nor was the point of it to make you feel like black people cant read. The point of it was that 'They' under estimate you and think that you wont read. Which is another great reason you should. My problem with him was always that you don't have to go to that extent for me to understand your point. Many of us understood what you were saying without the extra stuff. I don't think he would have posted it on his office door were he not black himself though so I guess I get the argument that its wrong regardless of his race.

 

You can learn a lot from flawed people though. He was a great example of that. 

 

We are way off topic now though my bad 

Ahh more context there for sure, including his own ethnicity.  Still seems inappropriate to put on a door of classroom but yeah, we are off topic lol.

[The Sisko]

22 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

Unless I misunderstood something in your post about that letter, it sure sounds to me like he’s a piece of ****, and a racist one at that.  Hope I missed something.

 

13 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I guess I didn't convey it correctly. The story used racist words to evoke emotion but he didn't write it nor was the point of it to make you feel like black people cant read. The point of it was that 'They' under estimate you and think that you wont read. Which is another great reason you should. My problem with him was always that you don't have to go to that extent for me to understand your point. Many of us understood what you were saying without the extra stuff. I don't think he would have posted it on his office door were he not black himself though so I guess I get the argument that its wrong regardless of his race.

 

You can learn a lot from flawed people though. He was a great example of that. 

 

We are way off topic now though my bad 

I certainly misunderstood it too. The added context helped...a lot.🙂

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

 

Thanks for your condescension and educating me about this. I just throw **** out there with no idea what it means.🙄 So, given this and your subsequent posts about how all we have to do is vote, please explain how voting fixes corporations being "people" too which leads to a host of rights for them that they shouldn't have. To fix that, you need to fix the garbage SCOTUS. How about Citizens United? Please explain how we fix that with voting. We could potentially replace legislators with voting, but you're right back to the garbage SCOTUS again because they'll just overrule the legislation.

 

The solution to Citizen's United is an Amendment that says the First Amendment doesn't apply to companies.

 

Plans for such an Amendment exists and it had 221 co-sponsors in Congress last year:

 

https://www.citizen.org/news/bipartisan-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united-introduced/

 

But you know so much assuredly you knew that and have already contacted your US Representative and told them to vote for it.  And your Senator.  And contacted your state legislators so that it is on their radar and they can be ready to approve if/when it passes Congress.  You've probably even already donated money to the organization pushing it.

 

No you didn't know the solution was an Amendment and there were efforts to pass such an Amendment?  

 

(Note, I would have broken into two different things if I were them.  I would have an Amendment that Corporation aren't people (i.e. the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to them) which I think gets pretty broad support and passes more easily.

 

And then a 2nd that money isn't speech.  Which I think is going to be more difficult.)

 

But none of that matters.  Even with Citizens United, we aren't an oligarchy.  People still get to vote.  Just because corporations and the wealthy get to spend money to influence how people vote doesn't make is an oligarchy.  It still a republic.

 

Yes, let's get upset and say there is nothing we can do because that will surely fix the problem rather than asking or doing a little work to figure out how to fix the problems and actually fix them.

Edited June 27, 2022 by PeterMP

[The Sisko]

13 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

But you know so much assuredly you knew that and have already contacted your US Representative and told them to vote for it.  And your Senator.  And contacted your state legislators so that it is on their radar and they can be ready to approve if/when it passes Congress.  You've probably even already donated money to the organization pushing it.

 

No you didn't know the solution was an Amendment and there were efforts to pass such an Amendment? 

Clearly you know my mind better than I do. Please quote here and provide my reply. Thanks for the much needed help.

[PeterMP]

2 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

Clearly you know my mind better than I do. Please quote here and provide my reply. Thanks for the much needed help.

 

The fact that you thought the answer was legislation is/was good evidence that you didn't know the answer was an Amendment and that such an Amendment has been introduced to Congress.

 

Or you would have mentioned that in your post.

 

And I did phrase it as a question.  You want to tell me that I'm wrong.  That's fine.

Edited June 27, 2022 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, 86 Snyder said:

The story definitely has revealed more details than earlier reports indicated.   This has pretty far reaching implications.  Essentially, there’s nothing to stop a teacher from leading class in prayer with this as precedent.  Ridiculous.

 

I will say, I don't think that's necessarily true (though with this Court certainly possible).

 

You aren't allowed to leave a classroom.  He isn't making students stay on the field.

 

(Though, does anybody know are they completely free to leave?  Is this stick around for my "prayer" if you want and if not see you tomorrow?  Or is this, I'm going  to "pray: at midfield for 10 minutes and you're welcome to join me and after that we'll meet in the locker room for a post-game talk?)

[The Sisko]

18 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The fact that you thought the answer was legislation is/was good evidence that you didn't know the answer was an Amendment and that such an Amendment has been introduced to Congress.

 

Or you would have mentioned that in your post.

 

And I did phrase it as a question.  You want to tell me that I'm wrong.  That's fine.

 

And the fact that you think an amendment is the answer is comical. I never took civics in school and haven't ever read a book or anything so I have no idea how Constitutional Amendments work but I'm certain it's a cinch to pull off. After all, it happens all the time. So, please enlighten me. How are you going to get to 38 on that? Here's a hint.

 

 

[tshile]

I’m sorry but the whole “we can’t do anything, the system is rigged against us, wealthy elite pull all the strings” is just really pathetic to read. 
 

Look I’m not really doing a damn thing to make it better, in the grand scheme. I vote, I pay attention, I donate some money here and there, but I’m not gonna act like I’m some shining example of activism. 
 

But anyone absolutely could if they put their mind to it. 
 

And lets remember - this track of conversation didn’t start about how people are lazy and stupid because they won’t go full bore into politics and be the change they want. 
 

It started with recognizing where people put their effort and time. Instead of leaning about and understanding their government, how it works, and some core issues, people dedicate their time to consuming bull****. 
 

asking people to pay attention to their government so they can vote as an informed person, in every election, including primaries, isn’t a big ask. 
 

people are just that ignorant of their basic responsibilities as a member of the society they like to claim they care about. 
 

Much like Walmart doesn’t sell slutty 10 year old girl outfits, if parents aren’t buying them, out News media doesn’t thrive peddling bull**** if they don’t have uninformed and ignorant people to eat it up. 

[PeterMP]

42 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

 

And the fact that you think an amendment is the answer is comical. I never took civics in school and haven't ever read a book or anything so I have no idea how Constitutional Amendments work but I'm certain it's a cinch to pull off. After all, it happens all the time. So, please enlighten me. How are you going to get to 38 on that? Here's a hint.

 

 

By having enough people that it is important enough to vote to do it.

 

You said it couldn't be done by voting.  It can.  We need enough people that passing that amendment is important enough to go vote.

 

Is it going to be easy?  No.

 

But voting can make it happen.  Just because it isn't going to be easy doesn't mean that voting isn't the key.

 

(Though, again I think if they broke it into 2 pieces they'd have much better luck with at least the one piece related to corporations.)

[LD0506]

Gonna have to weigh in on tshile's side on this one, the vast majority of people want "someone" to come fix things but when it involves them getting off their ass then that's a bridge too far.

 

Just for example I've heard a brazilian times how all the blue urban areas have all the economic might but do they ever flex that **** to change things? Nope, **** those flyover ****ers, we don't need 'em (when ya really kinda do).

Have any of the stylish new tech billionaires put their money where their mouth is? Like plopping down a new tech-centric hub of industry in the middle of Wyoming for example, with 25K workers that might shift the vote? Oh hell no, can't get good sushi there

I see a guy like Lebron paying for a school full of kids, that's trying to make a difference.

Companies relocating to Tx to save money on taxes, that's not.

 

There are plenty of options to make a change, make a difference but none of them involve a couch and a remote.

[tshile]

4 hours ago, LD0506 said:

There are plenty of options to make a change, make a difference but none of them involve a couch and a remote

I recognize I may go far enough here to lose some people but I also think liberals/progressives over estimate the popularity of their ideas (and I’m not even going to touch what they think about how awesome their ideas are - just how popular they think they are)

 

(and conservatives have the same problem)

 

I told you all during 2020 if biden won, it wouldn’t be because liberal/progressive policies suddenly gained immense popularity, it would be because even the average/moderate republican/moderate couldn’t stand trump and all that comes with trump being the leader of republicans. And that if you kept on with your “this is a mandate” mentality, you’d lose the support you got as quickly as you got it. 
 

and now we got an article in the how to fix the dems thread about political party affiliation realignment. 
 

i don’t want to get carried away reading too much into that except to generally point at it as an example. And while the midterms haven’t happened yet and the scotus ruling throws those up into the air - prior to that the thought it was a bloodbath and that’s not because liberal/progressive ideas are that popular. 
 

You point to polls on individual topics; you point to a rigged system (gerrymandering/electoral college/popular vote/etc); but the reality is bundling all those policies up into one  creates a candidate that struggles to win. 
 

Add to it that your acceptance of every topic as part of your platform, creates odd factions that are willing to *actually vote for the other side* out of spite for not getting exactly what they wanted. That you have representatives that will decide not to fall in line when it matters most to the party. 
 

every one of you remembers all the gloating about the blue wave around here (and elsewhere.) about how republicans are dead and gone cause the tide finally changed, game over. 
 

now we’re seeing Latinos move towards republicans. College educated people. 
 

As much as I think conservatives are wrong in how they think their opinions represent the majority, I think the dems have the exact same problem. 
 

you overestimate the popularity of your ideas, which only serves to heighten your righteousness about them, which results in you beating everyone over the head with the “you’re a bad person for thinking otherwise” bat, which leaves you complaining that the system is rigged, people vote against their self interest, and saying dumb things like we’re an oligarchy, because why won’t anyone else listen to you 

 

the system is the result of the quality of the two parties. Things aren’t this ****ty just because one party sucks. (Which is not to be conflated with botherism, it’s possible to say two things suck without strictly implying they suck equally)

 

anyways. Dems can turn the tide if everything by successfully going after this ruling. 
 

and I’d suggest they make it about short term legislation, long term amendments.

and that they make it clear, every precedent from the court is now in open season, because the other side has already said as much.  So this isn’t just about abortion. It’s about gay marriage, segregated schools, interracial marriage, birth control, and whatever else you can pull for various quotes (cause there’s plenty to look at.) if you believe the original rulings are how this country should work, then you need to vote for democrats that will product legislation short term and amendments long term to remove the courts ability to do what it did with roe. 
 

Edited June 28, 2022 by tshile

[China]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

 

anyways. Dems can turn the tide if everything by successfully going after this ruling. 
 

and I’d suggest they make it about short term legislation, long term amendments.

 

 

Meanwhile, the GOP is doubling down and trying to get their legislation in first:

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by China

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Luckily they don’t have enough votes to override a veto, this time.

[China]

So, what's next for the Supreme Court?

[PeterMP]

17 minutes ago, China said:

 

Meanwhile, the GOP is doubling down and trying to get their legislation in first.

 

They do this essentially every year.  The bill this story is on was introduced back in Feb.  

 

Here's a story from 2017 that talks about the same bill:

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/anti-abortion-rep-tim-murphy-asked-mistress-terminate/story?id=50274843

 

They also always contain language that says something like:

 

"However, nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child."

 

So if you get an abortion, you've violated the 14th Amendment but the government doesn't have any power to prosecute you.  It is pretty meaningless.  It is a nothing burger for show that they won't let come to an actual vote.  If they want to do something seriously, it will include punishments.

 

(which is also why the press isn't reporting on it.)

Edited June 28, 2022 by PeterMP

[ixcuincle]

Content edited to not give talking head attention

Edited June 28, 2022 by ixcuincle

[tshile]

51 minutes ago, China said:

Meanwhile, the GOP is doubling down and trying to get their legislation in first:

they can act faster because they fall in line. 
 

it still just blows my mind that this type of law has ANY real support. Much less be popular. 
 

 

[bearrock]

37 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

They do this essentially every year.  The bill this story is on was introduced back in Feb.  

 

Here's a story from 2017 that talks about the same bill:

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/anti-abortion-rep-tim-murphy-asked-mistress-terminate/story?id=50274843

 

They also always contain language that says something like:

 

"However, nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child."

 

So if you get an abortion, you've violated the 14th Amendment but the government doesn't have any power to prosecute you.  It is pretty meaningless.  It is a nothing burger for show that they won't let come to an actual vote.  If they want to do something seriously, it will include punishments.

 

(which is also why the press isn't reporting on it.)

 

The bill linked by China bans abortion at conception.  The bill referenced in the 2017 article bans abortion after 20 weeks.  Pretty significant difference.

 

And while the pregnant women avoids prosecution, doctors don't have that same protection.  So the law, if ever passed, would be far from meaningless.

[Dan T.]

Just became a bigger Joe Burrow fan…

 

 

[The Sisko]

 

12 hours ago, PeterMP said:

By having enough people that it is important enough to vote to do it.

 

You said it couldn't be done by voting.  It can.  We need enough people that passing that amendment is important enough to go vote.

 

Is it going to be easy?  No.

 

But voting can make it happen.  Just because it isn't going to be easy doesn't mean that voting isn't the key.

 

(Though, again I think if they broke it into 2 pieces they'd have much better luck with at least the one piece related to corporations.)

Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, you don't know what you're talking about on this. I thought maybe I misremembered it, but I looked it up and sure enough, it's state legislatures, not the people that vote on amendments. So, other than a constitutional convention which has never happened, to get an amendment, you need a 2/3ds vote in both houses of Congress followed by 75% of state legislatures approving it within a seven year window. It's a grey area as to whether states can rescind it so you couldn't have a turnover in state legislature or they'd rescind followed by litigation up to the level of the garbage SCOTUS. So no, your vote doesn't matter other than the ability to get a 2/3rds majority in both houses AND take over the heavily gerrymandered state legislatures AND do it before any of those state legislatures turn over. See, like I said, it's a cinch.

 

If I were a betting person, I'd bet the my left testicle on the Grand Oligarch's Party banning abortion nationwide long before a constitutional amendment of any kind happens. So yeah, that's a pipe dream

 

11 hours ago, tshile said:

I recognize I may go far enough here to lose some people but I also think liberals/progressives over estimate the popularity of their ideas (and I’m not even going to touch what they think about how awesome their ideas are - just how populate they think they are)

 

(and conservatives have the same problem)

 

I told you all during 2020 if biden won, it wouldn’t be because liberal/progressive policies suddenly gained immense popularity, it would be because even the average/moderate republican/moderate couldn’t stand trump and all that comes with trump being the leader of republicans. And that if you kept on with your “this is a mandate” mentality, you’d lose the support you got as quickly as you got it. 
 

and now we got an article in the how to fix the dems thread about political party affiliation. 
 

i don’t want to get carried away reading too much into that except to generally point at it as an example. And while the midterms haven’t happened yet and the scotus ruling throws those up into the air - prior to that the thought it was a bloodbath and that’s not because liberal/progressive ideas are that popular. 
 

You point to polls on individual topics; you point to a rigged system (gerrymandering/electoral college/popular vote/etc); but the reality is bundling all those policies up into one  creates a candidate that struggles to win. 
 

Add to it that your acceptance of every topic as part of your platform, creates odd factions that are willing to *actually vote for the other side* out of spite for not getting exactly what they wanted. That you have representatives that will decide not to fall in line when it matters most to the party. 
 

every one of you remembers all the gloating about the blue wall around here (and elsewhere.) about how republicans are dead and gone cause the tide finally changed, game over. 
 

now we’re seeing Latinos move towards republicans. College educated people. 
 

As much as I think conservatives are wrong in how they think their opinions represent the majority, I think the dems have the exact same problem. 
 

you overestimate the popularity of your ideas, which only serves to heighten your righteousness about them, which results in you beating everyone over the head with the “you’re a bad person for thinking otherwise” bat, which leaves you complaining that the system is rigged, people vote against their self interest, and saying dumb things like we’re an oligarchy, because why won’t anyone else listen to you 

 

the system is the result of the quality of the two parties. Things aren’t this ****ty just because one party sucks. (Which is not to be conflated with botherism, it’s possible to say two things suck without strictly implying they suck equally)

 

anyways. Dems can turn the tide if everything by successfully going after this ruling. 
 

and I’d suggest they make it about short term legislation, long term amendments.

and that they make it clear, every precedent from the court is now in open season, because the other side has already said as much.  So this isn’t just about abortion. It’s about gay marriage, segregated schools, interracial marriage, birth control, and whatever else you can pull for various quotes (cause there’s plenty to look at.) if you believe the original rulings are how this country should work, then you need to vote for democrats that will product legislation short term and amendments long term to remove the courts ability to do what it did with roe. 
 

I somewhat agree with your analysis about the parties tendency to overestimate their mandates. However, where you're wrong is what they do with it. The Dems do a few things here and there, but rarely anything major. The Grand Oligarch's Party OTOH, does exactly the opposite. They do the damn thing, take any resulting losses, then obstruct and wait for their chance again. Wash, rinse, repeat. In that way, they've played the long game and gradually, over time, they've moved everything to the right such that today's Dems are the equivalent of Reagan. In essence, they figured out the "cheat codes" in the system and exploited them incredibly well. In fairness, our human tendency to be reactive, lazy, and focused on the wrong things, i.e. bread and circuses as Juvenal put it, made things easier for them. However, they discovered the flaws in the system and have exploited them exceptionally well, especially in an era when social media makes disinformation an easy and cheap tool to use to confuse/convince/discourage voters .

Those of you saying my position is a cop out don't know me. I've volunteered and gone door to door on political campaigns for candidates on both sides when I believed in them, e.g. Ellen Saurbrey in a very blue Maryland, W., and more recently Barack, Stacy Abrams, and Joe Biden. I have also given a few bucks here and there, but we're not job creators so in the grand scheme of things, that's minimal. I also haven't missed voting in any election for as far back as I can remember, midterms and runoffs included and I always make a point of finding out as much as I can about all the candidates, all the way down to dog catcher if it's on the ballot. That said, I have recently come to recognize and accept reality. Most of the crap we were taught in civics and elsewhere was a pack of lies. The Grand Oligarch's Party, and by extension the super rich and the dream hoarders hold all the cards....for now. However, history says things change in this country when major events, usually financial collapses happen. Such events have mitigated the power and influence of the wealthy and put most people into a mindset where they're willing to demand major changes. As much as it sucks, I think the next depression is our best hope. Whenever it happens, we'd better make use of it to enact long-term structural changes. That's the time to go for the Constitutional Amendments and legislation that really changes things in a way that makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible for it to be rolled back. I'm talking about stuff like getting rid of the electoral college, revisiting the numbers of representatives given to each state to reverse the outsize influence of "flyover" states with lots of land and small populations, limiting the ability of money to influence politicians, and removing the ability of the Senate to game the system a-la Moscow Mitch, by introducing term limits for SCOTUS. Until that time, I think we're stuck with what we've got now, i.e. an ever rightward ratcheting of policy by the Grand Oligarch's Party with token resistance by the Dems. So, I'm not saying it's totally hopeless. I'm saying we need to get whatever we can in the short term without regard to re-election, bide our time and make it count when we get our chance.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by The Sisko

[tshile]

Btw @The Siskoi was speaking in the general you. Our society.
 

not you specifically. You put effort into your opinions. 
 

but we got lots of people that don’t vote in primaries. 
 

my whole life the general opinion has been republicans base almost always show up to vote, dems not so much. 
 

im just not in step with the idea we’re helpless. I’m of the opinion that the government is the result of the work we put into it. To many people don’t put any effort into it other than occasionally commenting randomly to people about the current topic, and maybe voting once in a while. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by tshile