News Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on Ron Paul's candidacy and his lack of media attention despite his distinct views. Participants express skepticism about his chances of winning the Republican nomination, citing his libertarian beliefs as too extreme for mainstream acceptance. Many agree that his socially liberal stances, such as support for drug legalization and gay marriage, alienate potential supporters from both conservative and liberal backgrounds. While some participants acknowledge his consistency and principled stance on issues like war and debt, they also label his ideas as impractical or radical. The media's marginalization of Paul is debated, with some suggesting it stems from his perceived unelectability, while others argue that the media influences public perception by focusing on more mainstream candidates. Overall, there is a consensus that Paul's unique ideology does not resonate broadly enough to secure significant electoral support, despite a dedicated following that excels in informal polls.
  • #251
FlexGunship said:
Guess what, I wouldn't choose "as a check."

The reality probably is that it doesn't matter. People [with low income] will need to spend their income on food and housing. I personally would say it's irrelevant.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #252
A libertarian wouldn't have welfare even in place. The government is in place to uphold civil liberties
 
  • #253
Woopy said:
A libertarian wouldn't have welfare even in place. The government is in place to uphold civil liberties

Which is my point. If the government doesn't work anymore for the welfare of the public, the public ends up starving. It's their role, weaseling out of it just shows lack of responsibility.

[ I personally think (extreme) libertarianism is a defeatist stance against: Hey, we tried to solve some problems the last decade, and failed. Let's stop solving, and see where that gets us. I personally would say: God, man, don't give up, just try again. ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #254
social darwinism man. When you say the government needs to spend money to fix my neighbor's problems, that just translates to me having to pay for my neighbor's woes. I'm a rugged individualist and do not believe in any form of aid and everyone can forge their own destinies. The lazy are the ones asking everyone else to fix their problems
 
  • #255
Woopy said:
social darwinism man. When you say the government needs to spend money to fix my neighbor's problems, that just translates to me having to pay for my neighbor's woes. I'm a rugged individualist and do not believe in any form of aid and everyone can forge their own destinies. The lazy are the ones asking everyone else to fix their problems

Social darwinism is a perversion of humane goals. You'll end up with fascism down that route. If your neighbor is starving, you either take care of it yourself, or you organize a public 'decent' endeavor to solve the problems in a professional, and just, manner. And the latter is preferred, since individuals have little to no rights intervening in the matters of other individuals, the collectivized public government, after pondering a lot about the ethics of intervening, on that other hand, does have that right. [ Since the public gave them that right after determining that individually, people just suck at ethics. ]

Btw. As I said before, I agree with a lot what Ron Paul says, certainly with civil rights. But not with economics, the role of the government, or international policy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #256
MarcoD said:
The reality probably is that it doesn't matter. People [with low income] will need to spend their income on food and housing. I personally would say it's irrelevant.

I watched a woman get into a fight with a cashier because she wasn't allowed to use food stamps to buy Red Bull.

That really happened. In real life. Real people were involved. What possible role could Red Bull (an expensive energy drink) play in a balanced tight-budget diet?

Woopy said:
A libertarian wouldn't have welfare even in place. The government is in place to uphold civil liberties

That's not necessarily true. That's like saying "a Republican would never raise taxes." Or "a Democrat would never cut entitlements." Practicality and ideology often clash. In the case of welfare, even a libertarian would be forced to provide something. It might look different, come in a different amount, or seek to accomplish a different goal... but it wouldn't just disappear.
 
  • #257
FlexGunship said:
That really happened. In real life. Real people were involved. What possible role could Red Bull (an expensive energy drink) play in a balanced tight-budget diet?

Well, she has some right to spend her 'money' in her own way. But, it's also somewhat irrelevant. It's not her response, but your response which matters. You won't always get kudos for doing the right thing. Take some pride in that you, and your government, did the right thing; despite some individuals.
 
  • #258
MarcoD said:
Well, she has some right to spend her 'money' in her own way.

Hardly! It's not her money. It's money that was taken forcibly from the populous and given to her for the purpose of meeting baseline nutrition... so that she wouldn't starve to death. Welfare (and food stamps) are not supposed to be a luxury.

In my mind, if you don't have enough food to buy bread and milk, then you CERTAINLY don't have enough money to buy Red Bull. Take a second to really process those events:
  1. Woman is hungry: "please, help me, I'm out of work and I'm starving!"
  2. Government agrees to help: "Okay, fine, these people have some extra cash, we'll grab it from them so you don't die of starvation"
  3. Government gives the money to the woman: "here you are ma'am, it took the threat of incarceration, but we took money from other people so that you could eat"
  4. Woman gets food stamps: "Hmm, food stamps? So I can only buy food with these?" "Well, yeah, obviously... you said you were starving."
  5. Woman is incredibly ungrateful for the help: "what do you mean I can't buy sugar lumps, chocolate lollipops, and energy drinks with my food stamps?"

I cannot possibly sympathize with your argument.
 
  • #259
FlexGunship said:
I cannot possibly sympathize with your argument.

Ah well, it's social-democrat versus libertarian, so I don't think we can possibly agree. I will give you and Paul the kudos for believing that you are doing the right thing. Looks decent to me.
 
  • #260
If you can't afford milk and bread, you are not looking for a job. I refuse to believe that someone couldn't afford to eat in this country. I know a girl who came here from vietnam with virtually no money at age 19 (now is 24) and has had to forge her entire destiny without the help of the government, and is managing to get through school (as an electrical engineer no less) and is able to atleast feed herself, have a room that she can live in, and pay for her own education (which I should mention cost a lot more for an international student than a U.S. citizen). With that in mind, I see no reason why someone can't have a full time job. The problem is people won't do what it takes to survive if they know the government will bail them out. If they were thrown onto the streets with nothing but what they carry on their back (like my friend), things would be a lot different.

I should also mention my friend managed to find menial jobs even though she didn't even speak english hardly at all when coming here, she'd do any job no matter what it was no matter the pay, even going as far as to make $3/hr working at vietnamese restaurants as a dishwasher without knowing about minimum wage laws and being grateful to god for even having a wage of $3/hr.

Rugged individualism, man.
 
  • #261
MarcoD said:
Ah well, it's social-democrat versus libertarian, so I don't think we can possibly agree. I will give you and Paul the kudos for believing that you are doing the right thing. Looks decent to me.

Well, I'm not voting for Ron Paul, anyway. I was just playing devil's advocate. Libertarianism is the CORRECT ideology, but it's not practical; the question is whether you should restart from a libertarian society and move away from it again (i.e. start at 1776 in the U.S. and head to the present).

I was trying to point out the absurdity of claiming "it's her money, she can do what she wants with it." It's my money, and she may only use it to meet her base nutritional requirements so she doesn't die while trying to rejoin society.
Woopy said:
I should also mention my friend managed to find menial jobs even though she didn't even speak english hardly at all when coming here, she'd do any job no matter what it was no matter the pay, even going as far as to make $3/hr working at vietnamese restaurants as a dishwasher without knowing about minimum wage laws and being grateful to god for even having a wage of $3/hr.

Rugged individualism, man.

Another strong argument for abolishing the minimum wage law. It basically amounts to discrimination against unskilled workers. My brother has Asperger's and would love to learn to work a cash register, or learn how to take inventory... but no one will hire him for minimum wage. When he offers to work for less... well... doesn't matter... it's illegal for him to take a job for less than minimum wage.

It's a law that discriminates against unskilled workers and it's grossly outdated.

EDIT: It's amazing to me that people who promote a higher minimum wage will not even take a breath before that go on to complain about the unemployment rate.
 
  • #262
FlexGunship said:
Another strong argument for abolishing the minimum wage law. It basically amounts to discrimination against unskilled workers. My brother has Asperger's and would love to learn to work a cash register, or learn how to take inventory... but no one will hire him for minimum wage. When he offers to work for less... well... doesn't matter... it's illegal for him to take a job for less than minimum wage.

I'd hardly call an argument based on two unprovable anecdotes a "strong" argument. Is there any data that indicates that unemployment would go down (and that poverty wouldn't rise sharply) from abolishing the minimum wage?
 
  • #263
Woopy said:
I see no reason why someone can't have a full time job. The problem is people won't do what it takes to survive if they know the government will bail them out. If they were thrown onto the streets with nothing but what they carry on their back (like my friend), things would be a lot different.
Yeah, most would die. You seem to have forgotten the elderly and those too ill to work.
 
  • #264
Evo said:
Woopy said:
I see no reason why someone can't have a full time job. The problem is people won't do what it takes to survive if they know the government will bail them out. If they were thrown onto the streets with nothing but what they carry on their back (like my friend), things would be a lot different.
Yeah, most would die. You seem to have forgotten the elderly and those too ill to work.
Not to mention the millions who have been made unemployed thanks to the current economic climate even though they are *highly* qualified. In the UK at the moment there are only several hundred thousand jobs (registered at jobcentreplus, the government employment organisation) yet millions of unemployed people. To assume that being poor or unemployed is the fault of the poor/unemployed individual is fallacious, to not think it was a virtue for society to take care of these people is callous.
 
  • #265
Evo said:
Yeah, most would die. You seem to have forgotten the elderly and those too ill to work.

Call me a darwinist, but the weak and unfit would die.
 
  • #266
Char. Limit said:
I'd hardly call an argument based on two unprovable anecdotes a "strong" argument. Is there any data that indicates that unemployment would go down (and that poverty wouldn't rise sharply) from abolishing the minimum wage?

Uh. Illegal immigrants that have jobs exist? At least in the U.S. its a problem. When someone has a $3/hr job to fill (i.e. sweeping floors) it's illegal to hire a U.S. citizen to do it so they're forced to (a) hire someone illegally, (b) lose money, or (c) just leave the position empty.

Generally goods and services are priced based on value. The only exception is price-fixing (when the price of a good or service is artificially raised or lowered). What's the point of hiring someone at $7/hr to do a job that is only valued at $3/hr?

I'm always surprised when I see someone who has not made the connection between sub-minimum wage jobs and illegals working in the U.S. There is a 1:1 correlation.

EDIT: My housekeeper is grateful for the $5/hr I pay her. VERY grateful. I told her that's how much I would pay her to clean, and she was happy to accept it. It's totally mind-blitheringly illegal... but we both agreed to the terms. Both of us. She wanted work. I was hiring. I told her ahead of time. She knew ahead of time. There was no lying. I didn't deceive her. She's happy for the extra money. She likes having the extra money. She uses it to buy food and clothes and to participate in the economy.

But, yes, it's illegal.

DOUBLE EDIT: To be clear, I would not have hired ANYONE at minimum wage. The job wouldn't exist. This is a real-life example of job creation by avoiding the minimum wage. I have personally created a job. I'm a job creator. If I was forced to pay her $8/hr, I would have to fire her and should wouldn't get any money from me at all.
 
Last edited:
  • #267
Woopy said:
Call me a darwinist, but the weak and unfit would die.

::FACEPALM::

Okay, not all libertarians feel that way! Please don't lump libertarian ideology with anarchism. They are fundamentally different.
 
  • #268
Woopy said:
Call me a darwinist, but the weak and unfit would die.
Clearly you have no understanding of evolution, especially the significance of social cooperation in the success of species survival. This is becoming off topic, I suggest the topic returns to a discussion of Ron Paul's candidacy only.
 
  • #269
Ryan_m_b said:
Clearly you have no understanding of evolution, especially the significance of social cooperation in the success of species survival. This is becoming off topic, I suggest the topic returns to a discussion of Ron Paul's candidacy only.
That would be nice.
 
  • #270
And return to OP:

At this point in the race, I'd like to see Jon Huntsman win the candidacy; I'll be voting for him. I think it would be important for him to pick a more "fringe" running-mate, though. Ron Paul would be an interesting Vice President, don't you think? You'd have two sides of the same ideological coin, a social and economic moderate Republican president and a libertarian vice president.

If nothing else, they'd generate a lot of ideas as a team.
 
  • #271
FlexGunship said:
::FACEPALM::

Okay, not all libertarians feel that way! Please don't lump libertarian ideology with anarchism. They are fundamentally different.

Before we get back on topic, let me just say I'm glad that you find this guy as loopy as I do.
 
  • #272
FlexGunship said:
::FACEPALM::

Okay, not all libertarians feel that way! Please don't lump libertarian ideology with anarchism. They are fundamentally different.

Ideally I'm an anarchist, so I just do libertarian because it's the smallest government
 
  • #273
Woopy said:
Ideally I'm an anarchist, so I just do libertarian because it's the smallest government
Get back to the topic or please stop posting.
 
  • #274
One little wrinkle in Paul's campaign. Many of his most ardent supporters/canvassers are actually too young to vote or participate in the caucuses. At least I'm assuming that you have to be a registered voter, as is the case in Maine.
 
  • #275
turbo said:
One little wrinkle in Paul's campaign. Many of his most ardent supporters/canvassers are actually too young to vote or participate in the caucuses. At least I'm assuming that you have to be a registered voter, as is the case in Maine.

Yeah, it's odd that he has so many young supporters. I'm sure a lot of what he says appeals to a certain naivete on the surface, but that's not to be confused with the way his ideas can appeal more completely to a sound economic thinker.

Paul's push to reduce reliance on the Federal Reserve is a genuinely good idea. He wants to abolish it entirely, and that might be a little too far, but it's clear that the Federal Reserve has an anti-market tendency because its an enabler of the "bust" part of boom-and-bust cycles by cyclically devaluing the money in circulation.
 
  • #276
ThomasT said:
Does any of this constitute a conflict of interest?
No, not at all. My point was his investment ideas are ... unusual in the extreme.
 
  • #277
Ryan_m_b said:
... To assume that being poor or unemployed is the fault of the poor/unemployed individual is fallacious,
It is not the fault of the poor/unemployed, it is the fault of the bloated state and the people that created it.
to not think it was a virtue for society to take care of these people is callous.
'society' does not have virtue, society does not take care of people. Individuals, people take care of people.
 
  • #278
mheslep said:
It is not the fault of the poor/unemployed, it is the fault of the bloated state and the people that created it.
'society' does not have virtue, society does not take care of people. Individuals, people take care of people.
And since there are not enough individuals to care for the multitude of citizens that need help? Consider that many of these were working, contributing citizens before they fell on hard times.
 
Last edited:
  • #280
  • #281
Evo said:
It states that it's an ad.

But is it authentic?

Respectfully,
Steve
 
  • #282
Dotini said:
But is it authentic?

Respectfully,
Steve
How often are ads authentic?
 
  • #283
Evo said:
How often are ads authentic?

I'm not always sure.

Yours,
Steve
 
  • #284
Dotini said:
But is it authentic?
Political ads are fiction and spin.

Paul's past newsletters are homophobic, conspiracy-theory diatribes, laced with racism. He has said that 95% of the black males in DC are either criminals or semi-criminal. That is not a claim that a thoughtful, decent person would make.

IMO, the next move is for Paul to come out with an ad that says that he really doesn't think that the US government conspired with gays to down-play the AIDs epidemic. The guy is quite a nut-case, and his past will come back to haunt him over and over again even if he does OK in Iowa.
 
  • #285
Evo said:
And since there are not enough individuals to care for the multitude of citizens that need help? ...
There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?
 
  • #286
mheslep said:
There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?
How many individuals would help if it was 100% voluntary? What would they do, pay my rent, my doctor and hospital bills, my food, clothing, etc...?
 
  • #287
mheslep said:
There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?
Let's get back on track, WRT to Ron Paul. Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent? Demolishing social safety nets would result in sickness, death, and suffering among the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. The idea that taxation=theft has some traction with right-wingers, but it doesn't fly with average people.

We all pay taxes in the form of sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc... These are all quite regressive, since poorer people pay a large portion of their incomes in those taxes. "Libertarians" like Paul are dangerous, IMO. We can't afford to abolish the Fed, for instance, like he wants to do, but we should be able to keep the Fed from ruining the interest rates of people who save by shoveling free money at Wall Street.

Paul is a slash and burn kind of guy. Not the kind of person we need in the WH.
 
  • #288
Just listen to Ron Paul talk man. During debates or whenever he is on TV, he speaks his mind and stays on topic with whatever he believes will help the country. I know he would never succumb to lobbyists, unlike the rest of the candidates. That alone would be enough for me to vote for him.

Evo and others, since you guys feel the need to help people so much, why aren't you out there doing it? Go work at a soup kitchen, give a homeless man lunch, something. Just please don't force your will upon the rest of us. If I want to help a man down on his luck, I will do it on my own damn accord.
 
  • #289
turbo said:
Let's get back on track, WRT to Ron Paul. Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent? Demolishing social safety nets would result in sickness, death, and suffering among the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. The idea that taxation=theft has some traction with right-wingers, but it doesn't fly with average people.

We all pay taxes in the form of sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc... These are all quite regressive, since poorer people pay a large portion of their incomes in those taxes. "Libertarians" like Paul are dangerous, IMO. We can't afford to abolish the Fed, for instance, like he wants to do, but we should be able to keep the Fed from ruining the interest rates of people who save by shoveling free money at Wall Street.

Paul is a slash and burn kind of guy. Not the kind of person we need in the WH.
What do you hope to accomplish with this list of unfounded assertions and strawmen, assuming to speak for all average people? Should I respond "collectivists like Obama are dangerous, IMO", so there?

Paul does not want to completely eliminate the social safety net, he wants (as a start) to reduce it to levels that are fiscally sound, which the current system is not. It is the current federal entitlement system that will inevitably demolish itself if left to business as usual. He also focuses only on the limitations of the federal government. I read opinions forgetting that the federal government is not the only government in these United States.
 
  • #290
Woopy said:
Evo and others, since you guys feel the need to help people so much, why aren't you out there doing it? Go work at a soup kitchen, give a homeless man lunch, something. Just please don't force your will upon the rest of us. If I want to help a man down on his luck, I will do it on my own damn accord.
We pay taxes that go to helping those in need. You're in high school, right?
 
  • #291
Evo said:
We pay taxes that go to helping those in need. You're in high school, right?

Absolutely not, and I was gone for a few hours because I had to go do manual labor to feed myself and keep gas in my car, among the other myriad of expenses I have. And I don't want you to give me anything either. Once I get through the college hoop and get a career, I won't be having to work with my hands anymore. But in the mean time, please don't assist me, I'm doing fine by myself.

When you rely on the government to take care of you, you become reliant on them instead of reliant on yourself. You are truly free when you can rely on yourself.
 
  • #292
Don't try to reach the clueless, Evo. Most of the people railing against "taxing the rich" will never get to the income level at which they could ever be affected. Right-wing radio is pernicious.

I paid the max SS tax for many of my years of employment, and when I was self-employed, I paid both the employer and employee portions of that tax. I don't begrudge any of that. I doubt that many of the right-wingers posting here have ever gotten into that income range. Lots of posers.

Such posers are probably the foundation for Paul's ground-troops in Iowa. Why? If you break into the Bill Gates income level, you can hire enough lawyers and accountant to protect yourself from all taxation=theft scenarios.
 
  • #293
turbo said:
Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent?
I get the impression that Paul thinks the needy can be taken care of by religious and secular charitable organizations, and state and local governments. But, afaik, history doesn't support that position. Hence, it seems necessary for the federal government to maintain an array of at least basic social services and aid for those who, for whatever reasons, can't provide it for themselves.

Paul's being against that sort of federal involvement is, for me, one of the main reasons to not vote for him.
 
  • #294
turbo said:
Don't try to reach the clueless, Evo. Most of the people railing against "taxing the rich" will never get to the income level at which they could ever be affected. Right-wing radio is pernicious.

I paid the max SS tax for many of my years of employment, and when I was self-employed, I paid both the employer and employee portions of that tax. I don't begrudge any of that. I doubt that many of the right-wingers posting here have ever gotten into that income range. Lots of posers.

Such posers are probably the foundation for Paul's ground-troops in Iowa. Why? If you break into the Bill Gates income level, you can hire enough lawyers and accountant to protect yourself from all taxation=theft scenarios.

I'm not rich, and I may never be. That doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to be rich.

It's fine that you're rich. Just don't buy my government.
 
  • #295
Woopy said:
Absolutely not, and I was gone for a few hours because I had to go do manual labor to feed myself and keep gas in my car, among the other myriad of expenses I have. And I don't want you to give me anything either. Once I get through the college hoop and get a career, I won't be having to work with my hands anymore. But in the mean time, please don't assist me, I'm doing fine by myself.
Thanks, I was told to give you a break because you were just a kid.

When you rely on the government to take care of you, you become reliant on them instead of reliant on yourself. You are truly free when you can rely on yourself.
People have paid fortunes in Social Security and Medicare taxes, they are then entitiled to receive money back when they can no longer work.
 
Last edited:
  • #296
Well I would hate to go off-topic as per your rules. But, Ron Paul would get rid of social security in a heartbeat if he could.

Why would you need to pay into social security. I want to know, when you put money in, how is it expected that you will get back more than you put in? Where does this money come from, and how is it going to work on a large scale?

If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway. And yes I know it's not a libertarian society, but atleast ron paul wouldn't have the gall to invade another country to force upon other regions of the world to have the same government as us, unlike previous presidents.
 
  • #297
mheslep said:
Paul does not want to completely eliminate the social safety net ...
From reading a list of his positions on various issues I got the impression that that is what he, eventually, would like to see happen.

mheslep said:
... he wants (as a start) to reduce it to levels that are fiscally sound ...
That's how anybody wanting to abolish the federal social safety net would have to start.

mheslep said:
... which the current system is not. It is the current federal entitlement system that will inevitably demolish itself if left to business as usual.
I agree with you that lots of changes can and should be made. What I fear from an extreme libertarian like Paul is that, imo, his ultimate goal would be to abolish the federal aid system(s) altogether. Which, imo, would do much more harm than good.
 
  • #298
All this "government is bad, government is bad, government is bad" rhetoric suggests something to me: anarchism.

If government is bad, then it should not be trusted to command military and police forces. People would then defend themselves, instead of being lazy about their self-defense and begging the government to defend them with the help of other people's money.

Then, of course, there's states' rights. Some states' rights' advocates seem to love statism when it's the states doing it. If the Federal Government is so evil, then why not dissolve it outright and create 50+ separate nations? Like what happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.

That seems to me like a recipe for economic and political weakness. Would these new nations become dominated by meddlesome foreign powers? Would they end up undoing much of their disunion by forming some regional blocs?

Returning to Ron Paul, he is very willing to be very statist about at least one issue. Abortion. Santorum, Paul Compete To Prove Pro-Life Credentials | Fox News
He authored the 2003 federal partial-birth abortion ban. He supported another federal law to give legal rights to infants born alive after failed abortions, and one that acknowledged unborn children as victims if they are hurt or killed in a violent crime.
So much for less government. He hasn't exactly had a position of "I don't want the Federal Government to take sides about abortion. That's why I want to leave it to the states. If that leads to abortion tourism, then that's just too bad."
 
  • #299
What do you mean statist on one issue? He's a statist on most issues.

Edit: why does fox new's motto say ''Fair and Balanced''?
 
  • #300
I think the idea is that if you tax rich people, then they won't invest in new companies and the end result will be fewer jobs. If I'm right about that, then the obvious solution to our country's woes is to give all of the money to a single individual. That should create the most jobs.
 

Similar threads

News Is Mitt Romney the Right Choice for the GOP in 2024?
15
Replies
735
Views
70K
News Vote Republican: Support Senator Ron Paul!
4
Replies
176
Views
28K
News The Missing Six Minutes with Ron Paul
Replies
5
Views
2K
News Should Police Use of Drones Be Permitted?
2
Replies
85
Views
13K
News Battle for Delegates: Romney vs. Santorum vs. Gingrich vs. Paul
Replies
32
Views
6K
News Does libertarianism just shift tyranny from the government to individuals?
2
Replies
91
Views
15K
Sad adieu to Botanic Man, David Bellamy
Replies
2
Views
2K
Are you a kind, benevolent Master?
Replies
24
Views
2K
News How Did James Garner's Roles Influence His Political Activism?
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top