US US Politics General 2 - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

General Trump Banner.png

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, Trump goes pretty heavy with the bronzer, but this is the first I am hearing of a hair transplant.
I seem to remember Fallon being canceled for tousling his hair.
Say what you want about Trump but he has okay hair for an almost eighty year old.

Edit: Damn you @LiquidKid

BTW I met Fallon he is an ASSHOLE.
 
>people are doom posting about Wisconsin

It’s likely not that bad. Patrick Tomlinson is likely furiously masturbating in between xeeting and grinding black children into pepperoni, so I don’t know go read that. @Fatpacks could never match Fatrick’s smug attitude or bitch tits.

The white bitch did say that’d she will be openly partisan and just go whole hog on gerrymandering. I can see this as a positive going forward, lose a battle to win the war deal. I’d be more worried if a Florida district was lost. It just looks like Dems are burning money and even in purple states it’s close when they spend an ass load.
 
I'm not fucking exaggerating when I say that Crawford's victory combined with the Republican party's recent crashouts and horrible vibes will usher us in 10,000 years of darkness where Marxists will rule over us forevermore. We will be shot for treason and our children will be transed and molested but at least the normies are happy because le evil cheeto man isn't in office anymore.
This bait sucks.
 
Negro riots and promoting child sodomy contributed to their 2020 victory and will contribute to their 2028 victory when normies inevitably turn against the GOP.

"You know our old masters might have been pedophiles but at least they weren't RUDE and CRINGE."
In your opinion how does Trump's support of Israel effect the support of Republican's by voters?
 
I saw people talking about the federal reserve so I am going to post what might be my most controversial post here and that is saying something you people do not like me.

Ok if you are against the central banking, can you explain why without using America or the federal reserve as an example ?

The reason I say this is because the federal reserve is not a central bank at least not in the traditional sense of the world, it operates with way more autonomy then almost nay major central bank. If anything you think this would be liked my more market oriented libertarian types, so why do you critique the federal reserve but never say the Bank of England or the people's bank of China ? do your critiques extend to those central banks ? If not then why ? they are more government controlled and give the government more power over the market so you would think they would be worst but libertarians almost never critique them so I guess no.
 
I bet you no republican voter in Wisconsin had any idea who the republican was before musk got involved.
I’m from Upstate New York and it happens every time Hochul (happened under Cuomo too) Gillibrand and anyone other than Elise Stefanie run for office. Nobody knows who the fucking Rep candidate is and all you see are Dem commercials.
Very good video
Micheal Franzese has awesome content. He said to Larry Elder once that the Mafia were all Democrats and they all voted Democrat because Dems were easier to pay off.
since when were you right wing
Is @Fatpacks the retarded troll of this thread? Every KF thread has one.
Now that the sped elections are over, what's 2026 gonna look like?
Perfectly fine.
Reminder that the only reason the WI SC election was given any attention by the media is because they knew the Republicans were going to win the other elections and they desperately needed something to look like a Dem win. Wisconsin has had a liberal supreme court for years now. It’s not a big deal.
We won 3/4 things tonight yet it’s a loss to these black pilled SoyBoys.
It was the most expensive judicial race ever. Elon put millions down on this election. They're redistricting this year. Republicans probably lost some house seats in 2026 because of this election. There's no glory to be floating down de Nile.
Black pills get the wall.
 
I saw people talking about the federal reserve so I am going to post what might be my most controversial post here and that is saying something you people do not like me.

Ok if you are against the central banking, can you explain why without using America or the federal reserve as an example ?

The reason I say this is because the federal reserve is not a central bank at least not in the traditional sense of the world, it operates with way more autonomy then almost nay major central bank. If anything you think this would be liked my more market oriented libertarian types, so why do you critique the federal reserve but never say the Bank of England or the people's bank of China ? do your critiques extend to those central banks ? If not then why ? they are more government controlled and give the government more power over the market so you would think they would be worst but libertarians almost never critique them so I guess no.

This is the US politics general, so I don't have to and am not going to ignore the US federal reserve. Why should I care about how the central banks of China and England do things when their economies are communist directed economies and most of the same arguments against general central banking apply. Using the bank of China as an example they only serve to extend the power of the CCP and last October they were printing money just to buy stocks. They have the same lack of transparency as the other central banks and only add to inflation and debt.

The argument against the federal reserve is the same as the one against the other central banks they only add to inflation and debt because of their insane printing of money without any backing. Where the bank of China serves to extend the power of the CCP the federal reserve only exists to prop up US banks that should have to suffer for their own retarded decisions instead of placing more debt on the government and it's citizens.

Why should the federal reserve still exist as an organization when it is doing the opposite of what its original claimed purpose was?

To get to the point US libertarians or people that lean that way economically don't argue against Chinese and English central banks because they don't live under those systems and they represent even worse forms of central banking than what they already argue against.
 
Former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff’s law firm latest to strike deal with Trump
Los Angeles Times (archive.ph)
By Seema Mehta and Kevin Rector
2025-04-02 05:00:29GMT
The law firm that employs Doug Emhoff, husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, is the latest to strike a deal with the Trump administration and agree to conform with the president’s policies.

On Tuesday, Trump announced that Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which Emhoff joined as a partner in January, agreed to provide at least $100 million in pro bono legal work during President Trump’s time in the White House and beyond. The president said the services will be dedicated to helping veterans, Gold Star families, law enforcement members and first responders.

Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social media platform, that the firm agreed to combat antisemitism and not engage in “DEI” efforts.

“Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP proactively reached out to President Trump and his Administration, offering their decisive commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession,” the White House said in a statement. “The President is delivering on his promises of eradicating Partisan Lawfare in America, and restoring Liberty and Justice FOR ALL.”

Emhoff told his law firm’s leadership that he disagreed with making a deal with Trump, according to a source familiar with the conversations who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Harris and Emhoff did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday

Trump’s agreement with Emhoff’s firm is the latest in a stretch of deal-making between the White House and major American law firms the president has accused of liberal bias, frivolous or fraudulent litigation or other malpractice.

The president’s efforts have raised widespread alarm among Democratic elected officials as well as constitutional and campaign attorneys about their impact on the separation of powers embedded in the United States Constitution and the independence of the judiciary.

“The actions against law firms are blatantly illegal. Capitulating just encourages going after more law firms,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law, who tried to rally other law school deans to speak out with him against the White House’s targeting of individual law firms, with limited success. “The best hope was their sticking together and fighting the illegal, retributive orders.”

The head of Emhoff’s firm — which has 1,200 employees across six countries — confirmed the agreement, according to Trump’s post.

“The substance of that agreement is consistent with our Firm’s views on access to Legal representation by clients, including pro bono clients, our commitment to complying with the Law as it relates to our employment practices, and our history of working with clients across a wide spectrum of political viewpoints,” said Thomas M. Cerabino, the chairman of firm, according to Trump’s post.

Emhoff, 60, has worked as an entertainment, media and intellectual property attorney, and was hired to help advise corporations, entities and people in the midst of crisis or dealing with shifting legal ground, according to the firm’s announcement when he was brought on board in January.

Cerabino said at the time that Emhoff was “a trusted counselor to many global business leaders across a broad range of industries.”

Shortly before Trump announced the agreement on social media Tuesday, Emhoff spoke to Georgetown Law School students.

“The rule of law is under attack. Democracy is under attack. And so, all of us lawyers need to do what we can to push back on that,” he said. “Us lawyers have always been on the front lines, fighting for civil rights, for justice. ... I love being a lawyer, this is what we do: We fight for people. We fight for what’s right.”

.

Trump has attacked major law firms for employing attorneys who have participated in cases against him and his allies in the past, including supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He has also targeted them for promoting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, including in hiring, and for allegedly showing a liberal political bias in selecting pro bono clients.

Trump issued a presidential memorandum threatening all law firms with sanctions, revoked security clearances and other punishments if his administration determines that they have improperly sued the federal government.

Several firms have struck deals to preempt or avoid further reprisal, while others have sued, alleging they are being unlawfully targeted for retribution.

The firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison agreed to contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed and to represent clients regardless of political affiliation. The firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom agreed to provide more than $100 million in free services for Trump-backed initiatives.

Leaders of those firms have defended the deals, arguing the work promised as part of them serve the interests of the firms.

Several other firms have sued the administration over its attacks.

“For more than 100 years, Jenner has stood firm and tirelessly advocated for our clients against all adversaries, including against unlawful government action. We once again go to court to do just that,” the firm Jenner & Block wrote in a recent statement about its decision to litigate. “To do otherwise would mean compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA.”

The firm WilmerHale hired the prominent conservative attorney Paul Clement to handle its case.

Many in the legal world, including prominent academics, have balked at the agreements that law firms have struck with the Trump administration, worrying that they represent a major threat to the legal profession and the core tenet of American law, that everyone deserves representation from competent counsel in court — whether or not a political ally resides in the White House.

“The way the system of justice is supposed to work is that everyone has a right to counsel and you don’t get punished for representing people who are politically unpopular,” said a veteran Washington, D.C., campaign lawyer, who requested anonymity to speak candidly because they feared retaliation. “It’s a chink out of our system of government to villainize law firms like this.”
Europe thought it had a way past Trump’s tariffs. He didn’t care.
Politico EU (archive.ph)
By Gabriel Gavin
2025-04-02 02:27:35GMT
BRUSSELS — Donald Trump had a simple warning for Europe: Buy more American gas or I’ll hit you with crippling tariffs. Great, Europe said. Let’s talk.

Then Trump imposed the tariffs anyway.

In reality, the talks never really even got off the ground. According to four EU officials and diplomats with knowledge of the situation, negotiators were regularly confused and frustrated when they tried to take the U.S. president up on his energy offer, often hitting a wall of bureaucracy and disinterest in Washington.

Now the American leader is set to impose sweeping, across-the-board trade barriers on Wednesday as part of a self-declared “Liberation Day.” It was a moment Europe had hoped to avoid, proactively suggesting all sorts of goodies to placate Trump and avoid an economic maelstrom.

High on the list was buying more American liquefied natural gas (LNG). It was the first thing that Ursula von der Leyen, who runs the EU’s executive arm, suggested following Trump’s election.

The offer seemed logical. Since Russia rolled its tanks into Ukraine in 2022, the EU has bought up more and more U.S. LNG — nearly tripling its imports to help replace Moscow's energy. Monthly consumption even hit a record high last month after Trump entered office.

Europe was doing what Trump said he wanted: buying more American LNG. Officials hoped that could help appease him and escape tariffs. After all, in Trump’s first term, Europe had cooled trade hostilities with pledges to buy more soybeans and LNG.

This time, though, things were different. A more unrestrained Trump is on a crusade to remodel the economic order — for now, that is.

The big lesson was that pandering to Trump's demands simply doesn't work.

The Room Where It Didn’t Happen
In the weeks after Trump’s election, the EU offered to launch talks over energy purchases, and von der Leyen convened a team of officials to sort through the logistics.

“The priority is to have a conversation, to engage early, discuss common interests and then be ready to negotiate,” a European Commission spokesperson said the day after Trump was sworn in.

American LNG had also been central for von der Leyen’s predecessor, Jean-Claude Juncker. In 2018 the Commission president convinced Trump to pause planned tariffs with, among other things, a promise to boost U.S. LNG purchases and build more terminals to import American gas.

After Trump was elected a second time, he said Europe must go even further.

The EU, the Republican said in December, must “make up their tremendous deficit with the U.S. by the large scale purchase of our oil and gas. Otherwise, it is tariffs all the way.” (The EU and U.S. actually have a relatively balanced trade relationship when accounting for both goods and services).

But the diplomats, granted anonymity to discuss the private talks, said they struggled to find a path through the personnel changes and shifting power dynamics inside the new administration.

“We are trying to identify who are the key people in the U.S. administration; you need to understand who can actually deliver — some … may not be what their titles say,” said one of those envoys in March, complaining that key roles in the White House and the State Department responsible for dealing with Europe had remained unfilled weeks after the inauguration.

Complicating the matter further, the diplomat said, the Trump administration preferred to communicate directly with individual EU capitals, even though Brussels plays a pivotal role in trade policy for its 27 members.

“Trump sees the EU as the only thing between him and subjugating individual countries to his will,” the diplomat said. “So the main bridge for us has been national capitals. France, Germany, Italy — they are very well connected and these are the channels we have been forced to use.”

Two officials from EU countries said they had expressed a willingness to buy more American LNG to Washington, but that the U.S. had offered no clarity about how a deal would work or what Europe would get in return.

Fossil fuel fury
In addition to the diplomatic obstacles abroad, there have been challenges back home. Many EU countries are already heavily dependent on American gas, and increasing imports would present more hurdles.

“There is not much more we can do,” outgoing German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck said in January, noting that 90 percent of his country’s LNG already came from U.S. sources.

Some climate-conscious countries warned Brussels that any fossil fuel deal with the U.S. would only harm EU efforts to save the planet.

EU countries should “concentrate on getting rid of fossil [fuels] and not find new markets where to buy,” Finnish Energy and Environment Minister Kai Mykkänen told POLITICO in January.

Still, the Commission plowed ahead. In February the EU executive released a plan to lower the high energy prices weighing down local companies. The strategy included an offer to back longer-term contracts with American LNG exporters — even raising the possibility of indirectly backing investments in U.S. gas infrastructure to get better access.

That riled green groups, who argued such moves would lock the bloc into fossil fuels for decades and hamper the planned switch to renewables.

Behind the headlines
Unproductive high-level talks aside, market forces are already driving the EU and the U.S. closer together on energy.

“Europe will likely buy more LNG from the U.S. this year, not due to geopolitics, but due to the continent’s need to restock inventories ahead of next winter and because more U.S. LNG supply is coming online this year,” said Laura Page, head of gas analytics at intelligence firm Kpler.

According to the company’s latest data, the EU is facing a gas supply shortfall and will end the winter with its tanks only a third full. That’s because of “a cold and windless winter coupled with a supply shock from Russia at the start of the year,” when a major transit pact that allowed Moscow to ship supplies to Europe via Ukraine expired.

That has put Washington in a prime position to cash in. New LNG plants at Plaquemines in Louisiana and Corpus Christi in Texas, which were completed under the previous administration, have also ensured there’s enough capacity to meet the demand.

Kpler data shows American gas imports have risen sharply in recent years, hitting a record of 5.59 million metric tons in March this year.

"The question is how seriously can we take Trump's plans for tariffs," said Ajay Parmar, an analyst with commodities intelligence firm ICIS. "As with everything, these moves can always be seen as the real start of negotiations, not the end."

But for now, at least, Trump doesn’t seem keen to listen much on energy, leaving Europe facing economic upheaval and wondering what, if anything, might work.
 
I'm not fucking exaggerating when I say that Crawford's victory combined with the Republican party's recent crashouts and horrible vibes will usher us in 10,000 years of darkness where Marxists will rule over us forevermore. We will be shot for treason and our children will be transed and molested but at least the normies are happy because le evil cheeto man isn't in office anymore.
Fucking hell, Fat, you used to at least try with your bait. (Yes, I recognize the irony of responding to it anyway.)
 
Hopefully not late if so give me my clocks...but

Time for some popcorn. This can be either a really good thing or a really bad thing for current military peeps.
If the the neutral standard is lowered to the gender normed level then combat will most likely suffer leading to unnecessary deaths.
If put at the current male level or a level females can work to obtain then might not be that bad of a hit.
Regardless peeps aren't gonna be happy. But this is probably as good if a "compromise" as this issue will get.
Edit can someone archive, am phone fag.
 
Last edited:
Get off the Internet for a few days bud, you are becoming mentally retarded.
becoming mentally retarded?

Hopefully not late if so give me my clocks...but

Time for some popcorn. This can be either a really good thing or a really bad thing for current military peeps.
If the the neutral standard is lowered to the gender normed level then combat will most likely suffer leading to unnecessary deaths.
If put at the current male level or a level females can work to obtain then might not be that bad of a hit.
Regardless peeps aren't gonna be happy. But this is probably as good if a "compromise" as this issue will get.
Good. The fitness standard needs to match the demands of actual combat. Does that mean a lot of women won't be able to make those standards? Yes. But what would you rather have? Women who feel sad about not being good enough, but are alive, or women that are dead because they thought they were good enough, but weren't?
 
I saw people talking about the federal reserve so I am going to post what might be my most controversial post here and that is saying something you people do not like me.

Ok if you are against the central banking, can you explain why without using America or the federal reserve as an example ?

The reason I say this is because the federal reserve is not a central bank at least not in the traditional sense of the world, it operates with way more autonomy then almost nay major central bank. If anything you think this would be liked my more market oriented libertarian types, so why do you critique the federal reserve but never say the Bank of England or the people's bank of China ? do your critiques extend to those central banks ? If not then why ? they are more government controlled and give the government more power over the market so you would think they would be worst but libertarians almost never critique them so I guess no.
Jews.
Wait, I can't do 1-word answers.
We don't care about other countries either.
 
1743582825039.png

Google apparently noticed I was googling SNAP and candy/soda/unhealthy goyslop last week and this popped up in my feed. Apparently no more goyslop on SNAP in the Potato State. The dems are arguing this would also ban "power bars" (hipster preferred candy bars with oatmeal in them, don't be fooled) and granola (hipster preferred candy with oatmeal in it). Of course, Idaho still has to ask permission from the fedboys to do the ban, which is hilarious to me but the wrong side did lose the civil war, so...

A bill to ban a food assistance program from covering candy and soda is headed to Gov. Brad Little for consideration.

Idaho also needs federal approval for the proposed ban.

House Bill 109 would require the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to seek federal approval to exclude candy and soda from foods eligible for coverage by the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d'Alene, presents House Bill 345 before the Senate Health and Welfare Committee
Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d’Alene, presents House Bill 345 before the Senate Health and Welfare Committee on March 10, 2025, at the Idaho Capitol Building in Boise. (Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun)
Idaho’s bill is part of the national movement coined “Make America Healthy Again,” or MAHA, promoted by U.S. health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the bill’s cosponsor Rep. Jordan Redman, R-Coeur d’Alene has told lawmakers.

And, he said, soda is the “number one commodity spent on SNAP.”

Business industry representatives oppose the bill. Arguing the bill wouldn’t be workable, Idaho House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, has said it would cause grocery stores to stop accepting SNAP.

But bill cosponsor Senate Majority Caucus Chair Ben Toews, R-Coeur d’Alene, says he’s skeptical the bill would be hard on retailers. He said the bill’s candy definition is used in 24 other states’ sales tax laws.

The Idaho House passed the bill on a 48-20 vote on Monday, after the chamber had already narrowly approved the bill. It came back to the House after the Senate amended the bill to tweak the candy definition. The Idaho Senate passed an amended version of the bill on a 25-10 vote last week.

Idaho Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, critiqued the bill as another way to control poor people.

Sen. Camille Blaylock, R-Caldwell, suggested it isn’t likely Idaho would make the change alone. Idaho’s waiver, she argued, would join other states’ requests, applying pressure for a nationwide change.

When the bill is transmitted to the governor, he has five days, excluding Sundays, to decide on it. He has three options: sign it into law, allow it to become law without his signature, or veto it.

If passed into law, the bill would take effect July 1.

Bill’s candy definition is broad, and would ban granola and power bars, critics say
Pushback has largely focused on the bill’s broad candy definition, which critics say would also ban granola bars and power bars.

The bill defines candy as “a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners combined with chocolate, fruit, nuts or other ingredients or flavorings” in several forms.

Under the bill, candy would not include items that contain flour or need refrigeration. The Senate amended the bill to tweak the candy definition, removing an exemption for items with more than 10% flour by weight.

The bill’s soda definition also appears to be broad.

Under the bill, soda includes nonalcoholic beverages with sweeteners, artificial or natural. But the bill doesn’t consider soda to be drinks with more than 50% juice, contain milk or milk substitutes, or that need preparation, such as powders or concentrates.

About 132,000 Idahoans are enrolled in SNAP, according to Idaho Department of Health and Welfare figures, receiving an average of $177 in monthly program benefits.

If the federal U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, doesn’t grant Idaho’s candy/soda SNAP ban waiver, the bill says Health and Welfare “shall request such a waiver annually until such a waiver is granted.”

The bill’s fiscal note estimates it would not have a fiscal impact.

Republican legislators in Arizona, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming introduced similar bills, Stateline reported.
 
Or the easier answer is Dominion (seriously it's called fucking Dominion) has once again rigged it for Crawford. Why would Question 1 pass and Crawford win? That would mean thousands of Democrats, about 100,000 btw, chose to JUST vote for Crawford but vote FOR voter ID? Well, maybe but that's not very likely. Voter ID is wildly unpopular with Dems. You're telling me, blue people voted for Voter ID overwhelmingly and still voted for Crawford?

Or is it easier to just assume there's a bunch of ballots voting for Crawford and contained no votes on the Questions, showed up. Which wouldn't happen unless they were fake, because Democrats overwhelmingly do not want Voter ID. Thus meaning...the Democrats...LE CHEATED!!!!!!
Just for fun, let's look at the 5 biggest counties which voted for the State Supreme Court with 966,095 total votes (41.56% of the entire election):
1. Milwaukee County (916,205) [ source | archive ]
Ballots Cast ( 305,814 )
Schimel = 77,301 (25.35%)
Crawford = 227,334 (74.57%)
Write-in = 241 (0.08%)
Total Votes Cast = 304,876
Votes/Population = 33.27%
Question 1/Voter ID: 48.91% Yes (+24.56% over Schimel)

2. Dane County (575,347) [ source | archive ]
Ballots Cast ( 287,443 )
Schimel = 52,369 (18.3%)
Crawford = 234,115 (81.7%)
Write-in = 204 (0.1%)
Total Votes Cast = 286,688
Votes/Population = 49.82%
Question 1/Voter ID: 35.5% Yes (+17.2% over Schimel)

3. Waukesha County (412,591) [ source | archive ]
Ballots Cast (not stated on county website)
Schimel = 115,997 (57.6%)
Crawford = 85,128 (42.3%)
Write-in = 98 (0%)
Total Votes Cast = 201,223
Votes/Population = 48.77%
Question 1/Voter ID: 71.7% Yes (+14.1% over Schimel)

4. Brown County (271,417) [ source | archive ]
Ballots Cast ( 99,956 )
Schimel = 48,227 (48.25%)
Crawford = 51,403 (51.43%)
Write-in = 54 (0.05%)
Total Votes Cast = 99,684
Votes/Population = 36.72%
Question 1/Voter ID: 63.89% Yes (+15.64% over Schimel)

5. Racine County (196,613) [ source | archive ]
Ballots Cast ( 74,038 )
Schimel = 36,323 (49.33%)
Crawford = 37,235 (50.57%)
Write-in = 66 (0%)
Total Votes Cast = 73,624
Votes/Population = 37.44%
Question 1/Voter ID: 71.52% Yes (+22.19% over Schimel)

To put this into perspective, they're claiming that Milwaukee County, which has 340,858 more people than Dane County, only had 18,188 more votes. Or Waukesha County, despite having 503,614 less people, had only 103,653 less votes. Even more amazingly, they're claiming that nearly half the population of Dane and Waukesha County went out to vote during a non-presidential election. These are also the counties that had something like a 66% of their population in 2024 while the other 3 counties were pushing 50-55%. Truly a miracle and totally not some sort of fraud. Especially when you consider Crawford apparently won with like 235k more votes. Totally believable guys. Just don't pay attention to this supposed blue wave coming out and swinging 14%-25% more in favor of voter ID.
 
Last edited:
Back