IRV?We DO need to switch to a parliamentary system, so we can actually have more viable third parties.I wouldn't object, though those systems have their own drawbacks.
Not going to happen though. Massive constitutional changes with no real constituency pushing it.
Adopting something like IRV would be more possible. I think it could even be done on a state by state basis.
I doubt it would actually have a large affect though. We'd see that the two major parties really do have majority support.
Instant Runoff Voting.
Rank candidates in your order of preference. The candidate with the lowest number of 1st rank votes is eliminated and all those voters now move to their second ranked choice. Lets you vote for minor parties without worrying much about spoiler effects.
Except it doesn't. Arrow's theorem, and all that. All IRV does is move the spoiler effects around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the unregistered just don't bother.And may they continue not to.
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the purpose behind the "get out and vote" initiative,
The purpose is that the get-out-and-vote initiatives individually target specific types of voters with specific issues that make them more likely to vote the way the person behind the initiative wants to.
Whether you have 10,000 electors or 500,000, as long as the winner is the person with the most votes, third parties will simply split the vote and more or less a loss not only for themselves but for the party from whom they split the most votes. This is well enough understood in political science to have a name ("Duverger's Law," which see).
Oh hey, look...I learned something new today. Thank you. :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Politics are largely a matter of compromise, so Sanders endorsing Hillary is just another compromise.
Functional politics are definitely a matter of compromise. Of course, when one believes that all government is bad, there is no incentive to compromise. Dysfunction is good, because it proves you were "right."
Time and numbers, 3rd parties get a sum of <2% of the vote. There is no current trend showing a change there.The way the system is set up, yes, only two parties have a realistic shot at getting one of their candidates (and political platforms) elected. By design, we don't have a coalition government, which has its own strengths and weaknesses.Abraham Lincoln was third party at the time. The Republicans ousted the Whigs, why not Libertarian take out Republicans?
Johnson is already up to 11% by himself in polls. Considering the time it's been since he won the libertarian nomination and the fact that he's third party, that's considerably impressive, and definitely a trend change. That's not even counting Stein.
But is it a change? Or is it indicative of how shitty the field is this election.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't consider this Bernie selling out. It's unfortunate but I think he's just making the best of a terrible situation.
I wish he'd won the democratic nomination. His plans might have all been pipe dreams but he made me believe the system could be repaired. He made me want to vote. If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But is it a change? Or is it indicative of how s*@!ty the field is this election.
It could be both. I know people on both sides of the spectrum who are voting for him - Republicans for his fiscal stances, Democrats for his social stances. It's not mathematically impossible for him to win if he actually got enough news coverage. 15% will get him to the debates.
More than half of all voters are independent. More than half of all voters have expressed a disdain for both Trump and Clinton. If those same people voted for Johnson and he won, you can bet even if he got booted in the next four years third parties would get more press coverage, offering more of a choice in the future.
Even if he loses, if he steals enough votes from Trump, the Libertarian party will get more of a foothold in the general Republican arena, as social conservative issues are put on the backburner in favor of a "leave it the frick alone" policy set (similarly how Ross Perot changed Republican outlook to more fiscal and Nader stole enough votes to push the Democrats to more environmental), and sane politicians like Rand Paul will get more spotlight over looney toons like Trump and Cruz in the future.
Sounds win-win to me.
|
But is it a change? Or is it indicative of how s*@!ty the field is this election.It could be both. I know people on both sides of the spectrum who are voting for him - Republicans for his fiscal stances, Democrats for his social stances. It's not mathematically impossible for him to win if he actually got enough news coverage. 15% will get him to the debates.
More than half of all voters are independent. More than half of all voters have expressed a disdain for both Trump and Clinton. If those same people voted for Johnson and he won, you can bet even if he got booted in the next four years third parties would get more press coverage, offering more of a choice in the future.
Even if he loses, if he steals enough votes from Trump, the Libertarian party will get more of a foothold in the general Republican arena, as social conservative issues are put on the backburner in favor of a "leave it the frick alone" policy set, and sane politicians like Rand Paul will get more spotlight over looney toons like Trump and Cruz in the future.
Sounds win-win to me.
And if he ends up stealing more votes from Hilary?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damn, gotta find where my wife put Fear and Loathing on The Campaign Trail '72.
Seems like the perfect summer reading this year. :-)
And if he ends up stealing more votes from Hilary?But is it a change? Or is it indicative of how s*@!ty the field is this election.It could be both. I know people on both sides of the spectrum who are voting for him - Republicans for his fiscal stances, Democrats for his social stances. It's not mathematically impossible for him to win if he actually got enough news coverage. 15% will get him to the debates.
More than half of all voters are independent. More than half of all voters have expressed a disdain for both Trump and Clinton. If those same people voted for Johnson and he won, you can bet even if he got booted in the next four years third parties would get more press coverage, offering more of a choice in the future.
Even if he loses, if he steals enough votes from Trump, the Libertarian party will get more of a foothold in the general Republican arena, as social conservative issues are put on the backburner in favor of a "leave it the frick alone" policy set, and sane politicians like Rand Paul will get more spotlight over looney toons like Trump and Cruz in the future.
Sounds win-win to me.
Then the Democrats will shift their emphasis on social and try to spend a bit less money for once.
Anyway, given that Johnson and Weld are former Republicans, the odds are they'd steal considerably more votes from Trump.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see any signs of The People seeing the system is illegitimate,... moreI would turn it around and say, "I don't really see any signs of The People seeing the system as legitimate."
Based on approval ratings for the legislative branch that have been hovering in the 10-20% range for years now. And the two most hated candidates in history competing for president. I can't remember the last time I talked to someone about politics who didn't use words like "dysfunctional, broken, and corrupt." There might have been a time when people only felt that way about the opposition, but that is now how seemingly everyone feels about their own Party (if they still affiliate with one).
Yet they continue to vote the same people back into office. An incumbent running rarely has difficulty retaining their seat.
"Those low approval ratings? Those are for all those other legislators, our guy is one of the good ones." says enough of the voters that nothing changes. After all, how often do you hear "earmarks" demonized, yet voters praise a legislator's ability to bring federal funds back to their district. There's no consistency.
The system isn't illegitimate, people just don't use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Third parties are marginalized in this country because we use a first past the post electoral system, not a proportional one.
This bears repeating.
Again, and again, and again.The electoral system itself is essentially hostile to the concept of choices beyond "either-or." That's both a feature and a bug.
|
|
Then the Democrats will shift their emphasis on social and try to spend a bit less money for once.And if he ends up stealing more votes from Hilary?But is it a change? Or is it indicative of how s*@!ty the field is this election.It could be both. I know people on both sides of the spectrum who are voting for him - Republicans for his fiscal stances, Democrats for his social stances. It's not mathematically impossible for him to win if he actually got enough news coverage. 15% will get him to the debates.
More than half of all voters are independent. More than half of all voters have expressed a disdain for both Trump and Clinton. If those same people voted for Johnson and he won, you can bet even if he got booted in the next four years third parties would get more press coverage, offering more of a choice in the future.
Even if he loses, if he steals enough votes from Trump, the Libertarian party will get more of a foothold in the general Republican arena, as social conservative issues are put on the backburner in favor of a "leave it the frick alone" policy set, and sane politicians like Rand Paul will get more spotlight over looney toons like Trump and Cruz in the future.
Sounds win-win to me.
Dosent really work that way in the current system which is the problem the system itself needs changed but the people who could change it have a vested intrest in keeping it that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then the Democrats will shift their emphasis on social and try to spend a bit less money for once.And if he ends up stealing more votes from Hilary?But is it a change? Or is it indicative of how s*@!ty the field is this election.It could be both. I know people on both sides of the spectrum who are voting for him - Republicans for his fiscal stances, Democrats for his social stances. It's not mathematically impossible for him to win if he actually got enough news coverage. 15% will get him to the debates.
More than half of all voters are independent. More than half of all voters have expressed a disdain for both Trump and Clinton. If those same people voted for Johnson and he won, you can bet even if he got booted in the next four years third parties would get more press coverage, offering more of a choice in the future.
Even if he loses, if he steals enough votes from Trump, the Libertarian party will get more of a foothold in the general Republican arena, as social conservative issues are put on the backburner in favor of a "leave it the frick alone" policy set, and sane politicians like Rand Paul will get more spotlight over looney toons like Trump and Cruz in the future.
Sounds win-win to me.
Hahahahahahahahaha... wait... You're being serious.
I've long liked the idea of IRV.
Still, there are districts where there isn't even a 2nd major party candidate running. Generally, that's where I'd expect 3rd parties to be able to challenge. Sure, they'll be at a disadvantage due to lack of national exposure and funding and all, but that's going to be true of any minor party regardless of your system. The major party controlling the area won't be happy about it, but they...
Yes, but in most of those areas, the 2nd party isn't running because the vast majority of voters prefer the 1st party. A 3rd party isn't likely to be able to win without a lot of money.
Johnson is already up to 11% by himself in polls. Considering the time it's been since he won the libertarian nomination and the fact that he's third party, that's considerably impressive, and definitely a trend change. That's not even counting Stein.
Oh, it's not necessarily a trend change. Even if the libertarians won by a landslide, it would still settle down to a two party system within a few election cycles. It's built into the system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.
Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.
If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.
It can also get your ballot discarded, depending on local vote tallying rules.
If I'm unsure of who to vote for, I write myself in. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can also get your ballot discarded, depending on local vote tallying rules.If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.
The point is that they keep records of who votes and, while it's unlikely to get that much attention, a discrepancy between number of voters and number of votes in a given race says more than missing voters.
That way there's at least data to differentiate from apathy. Also, it means it's no longer reasonable to dismiss your complaints as just laziness.
I say we should all write-in Satan. Lesser evils just are not doing the job anymore.
But Trump is the Anti-Christ anyway so a vote for him is a vote for Satan
If I'm unsure of who to vote for, I write myself in. :-)
And to continue that thread, in Wisconsin, unless you're a registered write-in they will consider that the same as a non-vote. Probably doesn't matter in the grand scheme but worth being aware of.
It can also get your ballot discarded, depending on local vote tallying rules.If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.The point is that they keep records of who votes and, while it's unlikely to get that much attention, a discrepancy between number of voters and number of votes in a given race says more than missing voters.
That way there's at least data to differentiate from apathy. Also, it means it's no longer reasonable to dismiss your complaints as just laziness.
The discrepancy depends on how they count the missing voters. If it's simply people who never submitted a ballot, a discrepancy would exist. But if it's people who never submitted a proper ballot, then your blank ballot automatically gets you cast as one of the missing voters.
It also, in their eyes, potentially marks you as too lazy to fill in a ballot, thus going right back to apathy and right back to dismissing your complaints as laziness. After all, you didn't actually put in the effort to vote legitimately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can also get your ballot discarded, depending on local vote tallying rules.If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.The point is that they keep records of who votes and, while it's unlikely to get that much attention, a discrepancy between number of voters and number of votes in a given race says more than missing voters.
That way there's at least data to differentiate from apathy. Also, it means it's no longer reasonable to dismiss your complaints as just laziness.
The discrepancy depends on how they count the missing voters. If it's simply people who never submitted a ballot, a discrepancy would exist. But if it's people who never submitted a proper ballot, then your blank ballot automatically gets you cast as one of the missing voters.
It also, in their eyes, potentially marks you as too lazy to fill in a ballot, thus going right back to apathy and right back to dismissing your complaints as laziness. After all, you didn't actually put in the effort to vote legitimately.
Fair. If there's a better way to provide that feedback when there's no "no confidence" option I welcome it. Until then, I will continue to advocate for getting out and casting a ballot, even if your conscience or gag reflex prevents you from voting for any candidate on the ballot.
And they do record which voters came to the polling place to cast a ballot. I feel that "voted with invalid ballot" is closer to proper protest than "didn't even sign in". If candidates' data scientists can't tell the difference, that's on them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm unsure of who to vote for, I write myself in. :-)And to continue that thread, in Wisconsin, unless you're a registered write-in they will consider that the same as a non-vote. Probably doesn't matter in the grand scheme but worth being aware of.
I know. :-)
Customer Service Manager
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, if you feel like something has not been removed that should be, you can contact community@paizo.com. Thanks!
Find a way to play together
And find a way to share with each other
Playing is great
Playing together is so much better
Find a way to play together
Each one of us brings our own special gifts
And makes us who we are
And when we play together the time we spend is better
And more exciting by far
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kudos for the Mister Rogers quoting. :-)
First Carson and Rubio sell out and back Trump, now Bernie has gotten behind the Clinton machine.
I think a lot of us are tired of the options before us.
Just gonna leave this right here....
Meanwhile, Johnson isn't bowing down.All he needs is 15% to make the general debates, and I think America is ready for a third party option.
The last time a third party (at the time) candidate won was Abraham Lincoln, the consistently-rated-best-by-historians president in American History. You don't always have to choose between two piles of crap.
I wonder how long until the inevitable flame war locks this up. Worth it.
Lincoln wasn't exactly a "third party" candidate, at least not the way we think of them today. The Republicans had absorbed the Free Soil Party, and were dominant in Congress before the election of 1860.
Franklin Pierce a Northern Democrat, was a Southern sympathizer. His stance split the Democratic Party into two factions, each of which would nominate their own candidate in the 1860 election, and gave the Republicans control of of both houses Congress. At this point all Buchanan wanted was to safely exit the White House so he declined to seek re-election. There were three third parties also created at this time, t he Constitutional Union Party (remnants of the Whigs who were no longer a major party) , the Liberty Union Party, and the People's Party. The Constitutional Union got 12 percent of the vote.
Steven Douglass was the candidate of the Northern Democrats while James Beckenridge was the standard bearer of the Southern Democrats. In a sesne everyone BUT Lincoln was a "third party" candidate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It can also get your ballot discarded, depending on local vote tallying rules.If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.The point is that they keep records of who votes and, while it's unlikely to get that much attention, a discrepancy between number of voters and number of votes in a given race says more than missing voters.
That way there's at least data to differentiate from apathy. Also, it means it's no longer reasonable to dismiss your complaints as just laziness.
The discrepancy depends on how they count the missing voters. If it's simply people who never submitted a ballot, a discrepancy would exist. But if it's people who never submitted a proper ballot, then your blank ballot automatically gets you cast as one of the missing voters.
It also, in their eyes, potentially marks you as too lazy to fill in a ballot, thus going right back to apathy and right back to dismissing your complaints as laziness. After all, you didn't actually put in the effort to vote legitimately.
Fair. If there's a better way to provide that feedback when there's no "no confidence" option I welcome it. Until then, I will continue to advocate for getting out and casting a ballot, even if your conscience or gag reflex prevents you from voting for any candidate on the ballot.
And they do record which voters came to...
I hope one is found. Blank ballots are really not treated as anything other than a citizen just choosing not to vote.
The recording of voters is simply to prevent people from voting twice.
It can also get your ballot discarded, depending on local vote tallying rules.If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.Is that really true, anywhere in the US?
I know plenty of people vote the top line and ignore the smaller, local races. Their votes are still counted. I'm pretty sure they don't discard the whole ballot for leaving a spot blank, even if it's the top spot.
How they actually tally it for that race, I don't know.
It's true everywhere. A completely blank ballot is simply discarded because it contains no usable voter data. And most are even more strict. They do vary if you skip an issue, though.
Indiana will record an undervote if you skip an issue, but at the same time limits what you make mark a ballot with and where you may mark it; marking it in an not-allowed spot by accident can have the ballot discarded. California simply doesn't count ballots for skipped questions, but also has limitations on who you may vote for.
It's true everywhere. A completely blank ballot is simply discarded because it contains no usable voter data. And most are even more strict. They do vary if you skip an issue, though.
Indiana will record an undervote if you skip an issue, but at the same time limits what you make mark a ballot with and where you may mark it; marking it in an not-allowed spot by accident can have the ballot discarded. California simply doesn't count ballots for skipped questions, but also has limitations on who you may vote for.
Fair enough. It seemed like you were claiming that leaving the Presidential line blank would get your entire ballot, including your votes for other candidates, discarded. That doesn't happen anywhere. That really boils down to "If you don't vote, your vote won't be counted."
As for the other issues, sure most states limit how and where you mark the ballot. You can't just scrawl "Trump" on it in orange crayon and expect it to be counted. Indiana apparently uses Scantron machines to read the ballots - Fill in the little circles with a pen and it'll work just fine. Up until a few cycles back, we had the old lever voting machines - you didn't get to write anything at all. It's a not a big deal. Really.
As for California's law, the limitation is "must have officially declared themselves a candidate". If that ever affects the outcome, let me know and I'll worry about it. The country as a whole actually has limits on who you can vote for too: For example the presidential candidate must be at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen. The horror. The horror.
I may be taking "blank ballot" a little too literally. Sadly, I know people who have submitted completely blank ballots.
They technically don't have to be natural-born, but I doubt we're going to find someone that's around 230 years old and willing to lead the nation :p
The California one is that they not only have to declare themselves, but it has to be written. Which brings up an interesting question about what happens if California rejects this form from someone.
But, in any case, if you pick someone as a write-in and they haven't submitted that form, your vote simply doesn't count. One of the many interesting ways they've come up with to negate votes. Remember the hanging chads?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm not going to be Comptroller of Pasadena... :-(>
But, what'll I do with all these business cards...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my choices are status quo and slightly worse status quo, I'll just be abstaining from voting altogether.Please consider casting a ballot even if you leave the presidential election options empty. While I am short-term pragmatic with my vote (especially in this election) and feel strongly I need to prevent one of the candidates from winning, I respect people who demand that politicians earn their vote. But casting a blank ballot is an actually measurable way of indicating disapproval of all candidates rather than the apathy that people assume is the motivation (or lack thereof) behind not voting.
I would also like you to please consider voting. While I would personally prefer you to vote against Trump being elected, even a vote for the Libertarian PotUS/VPotUS ticket (assuming they are on your state's ballot) can be a good thing in the long run. I may be wrong, but I think if they get a minimum percentage of the popular vote, they become eligible for federal election funding. If they hit a different percentage, they are supposed to be included in the national PotUS/VPotUS debates. I'm opposed to most all of the Libertarian Party's platform positions, but I'd rather see them become a viable major party that represents the many disaffected Republicans (and some Democrats) than to see those voters give up on the process entirely.
And while I have the soapbox, even if you can't bring yourself to pull the lever for any PotUS/VPotUS ticket, please consider voting for all the downticket races, measures, and amendments. These people and decisions will directly affect your life, your family's life, and those of your friends and communities. Research what you can, and as a minimum, maybe you can help cull the least qualified/most batsh!t people from office. It's all important, from your county commissioners to schoolboard officials to the local mosquito control. Remember too that most future state and federal candidates will get their starts in these local races. Maybe you can't decide on the best candidate, but I find (in Florida anyway) I can usually vote against the least qualified/most batsh!t people.
Edit: If a mail-in ballot is an option in your area, please consider it. Then you can sit at home, looking up candidates and measures/amendments up on the Internet at your leisure, all while consuming your favorite beverage. Plus the postage is far cheaper than than driving to the polling place, and you don't have to wait in line.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who took my soapbox? Great! Now I can say goodbye to being on the Sioux Falls school board.
It's official!
‘Secretary Clinton Is A Different Person Than Donald Trump,’ Says Bernie Sanders In Ringing Endorsement
It's a pretty important distinction to make. Not setting fire to important infrastructure or relationships in a fit of irritation is pretty vital to remaining a functioning nation.
That it is a real possibility from one (or more, if you count libertarians) candidates is absolutely vital to point out to people.
Especially if they feel The Cause(s) was/were somehow betrayed by giving it airtime for 12 months, which was really the best that could be expected.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And to think, it was two days from retirement.
MMCJawa: The Republican Party has effectively been nuked from orbit. Now the question is: Are they the survivors of the fallout who will try to rebuild a functioning society with the numbers they have left? Or are they the radioactive mutants who will mindlessly swarm the one they failed to take down before in a bid for vengeance?
There are pretty large swaths of the country that always go Red. So even if the Republicans lose the next presidential election, and lose some seats in the Senate and such, there will be still a pretty big base for them to build upon. So "nuked from orbit" is not at all what I would consider the state of the country. But they are reaching a point where they may now longer be competitive in enough states to win the presidency, and where many traditional battleground states are going to shift to being locked down as Blue states.
The Republicans can definitely still salvage themselves with some rebranding and strong leadership. But the current party leadership seems to still be in shock from Trump getting the nod and other events, while the latter might prove difficult with the amount of control the Tea Party still has on Republican politics.
Also, on a different tangent related to this thread. Something else to consider is that, even if by miracle a third party candidate got elected, how easily would they get anything done? Likely the third party candidate would either need to already be very close politically to one of the major parties, or need a significant number of house and senate positions to also go to his party. It's hard for me to look at say, the libertarian platform, and see positions that are not likely to annoy both the Dems and the Republicans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why doesn't the same thing happen in the U.S. House? It may well simply be that Americans are more closely aligned with our major parties than the Brits are with their major parties.
You take that back! THEMS FIGHTIN WORDS!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say! Now he's mocking both of us!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hwhat? I can't unnerstant a dangol' thing that man's speakin, with his accent! Can't ya speak proper English, like an American?!