Five Questions: An Interview with Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears
—
by
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
108 responses to “Five Questions: An Interview with Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears”
-
“They weren’t perfect, they didn’t do perfect things, but they left us
a document that helped us do different things today. Martin Luther King
Jr. pointed to the Declaration, and it was there… You tell us about the past, but you don’t say we will rise from that? We will overcome our human failings? Our children will? Our grandchildren will?…So where are the leaders of all colors and stripes to say America
must continue? We must acknowledge the wickedness that was done to black people, but at the same time acknowledge as MLK Jr. during his speech to Barat High School in Philadelphia, that doors are opening to you that were never opened to your parents.I put it to you that those doors have opened, they opened when my dad
came to America in 1963 when there were real dog whistles and real fire
hoses. Those doors have opened. That’s why on my challenge coin on the
reverse the doors have opened. When are we going to acknowledge that?”Powerful speech from someone with standing.
-
Sears vs Filler-Corn for governor?
-
I hope the Democrats have more sense than that.
-
No offense, but I hope they don’t.
-
-
-
I actually think Sears is infinitely more interesting a politician than Gov. Youngkin. To me, she seems much more authentic and matter-of-fact. And I think she has really strong political instincts. If she steers clear of the Trump train wreck, she’ll be a star.
-
Interesting enough to have backpedaled on a few earlier statements.
-
Like I said, talented.
-
I’m sure there’s one out there someplace because Joe Biden has been around too long not to have taken the obligatory “hunting photo” for Democrat candidates. Even Obama’s campaign released a skeet shooting photo (suitable substitute for someone who has never worn blaze orange).
But the Republican candidates who thought those “Rambo with AR-15” photos would ever advance their national campaigns will find themselves wishing them gone.
She’ll have fun walking that one back.
-
What makes you think she will “walk it back”? She had a few pictures taken holding a semi-automatic rifle. What’s the big deal?
-
She may not. And, to far less than half of the population that is appealing.
-
I guess that’s why education is so important. Quick quiz: Which of these rifles is more deadly?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/92f9c91f564fdf804e79c59ce910791be5d9f8380d82fe70095b95d29e643a73.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2699664ef443b5563382a559f8c07a3755ffdc455ae9fa0e4e5fcecf6863e97f.jpg -
To be honest, it’s the round.
-
Right. So, .223 AR-15 vs. .30-06 Remington Woodsmaster. Which of them is more deadly?
-
They’ll both do the job, but the .223 will make more venison burgers.
-
Only if you want to violate one of Virginia’s firearm hunting laws.
-
The deadliest round is the one you can shoot the most of. The .223 is lighter. Lighter means more rounds per pound. I doubt anyone will likely ever be a judge of which “hurts” more, but the .223 is the more devastating of the two.
-
“The deadliest round is the one you can shoot the most of. The .223 is lighter. Lighter means more rounds per pound. I doubt anyone will likely ever be a judge of which “hurts” more, but the .223 is the more devastating of the two.”
That is not a correct statement. The 223 is not more devastating than a 308 or 30-06.
The US Armed Forces adopted the 5.56 because of combat loads/combat effectiveness, that is not what a hunter uses. A hunter isn’t going out with 120+ rounds and full kit.
As a matter of fact the Army is changing to the 6.8mm SPC (277 SIG Fury).
5.56×45 1,796 joules of energy on impact.
7.62×39 2,070 joules of energy on impact.
-
-
-
-
-
Which is why Americans should only be permitted to own bolt, pump, or lever loading. Or better still, muzzle.
-
Which is why Americans should only be permitted to own bolt, pump, or lever loading.
Says who?
Also, you said it is “the round” that determines how deadly a firearm is. But now it’s the action? Perhaps you should take some time to decide exactly what, I mean who, it is that makes guns so deadly.
Or, let’s apply your logic to the 1st Amendment… …which is why Americans should only be able to own a typewriter and a mimeograph machine, or better yet a Guttenberg printing press…
-
Either produces a pamphlet. One will produce more pamphlets per second.
-
Precisely.
-
Smooth, a Remington 7400. Those fetch a pretty price now adays.
-
100%, the AR15 thing is bad. And to be perfectly clear, I don’t like her politics for the most part.
-
Why do you think “the AR15 thing is bad”?
-
Because, IMO, the politics around firearms is changing toward gun control pretty significantly. And it leaves her vulnerable for anyone on the center or left to pillory. She’ll have to explain it if she runs for Gov.
-
Thank you for your opinion.
Regarding “the politics around firearms is changing toward gun control pretty significantly”, are you aware that 26 out of the 50 states are now “constitutional carry” (no permit required for concealed carry)?
Are you also aware that 13 of those states became constitutional carry states in just the last 5 years?
That hardly seems like a significant shift towards more gun control to me.
Also, more non whites and women are purchasing firearms than ever before in this country – a positive trend, in my opinion, as long as they are taking the time to become trained in their safe and proficient use.
Respectfully, I think you are mistaken.
-
“26 out of the 50 states.” Apples and oranges. As you know, the population of states vary. It can both be true that 2/3s of Americans believe in tougher gun laws, while a majority of *states*, especially red ones, have instituted wacky policies at variance with the vast majority of Americans.
-
I wouldn’t discount the power of the media and the left to spin and promote their own narrative, no matter what the event.
Within two weeks of the Covenant School shooting, we have almost forgotten about the victims. don’t talk about what motivated the shooter, and the heroes are the attention grabbing Democrats who disrupted the capital to impose their will and are now basking in the limelight.
Additionally, the shooter has become a victim, and hatred is directed at anyone who supports the Bill of Rights.
Lest we forget completely, these are the actual victims of the Covenant School shooting.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/28/us/victims-covenant-school-shooting-nashville/index.html
-
I wouldn’t discount the power of the media and the left to spin and promote their own narrative, no matter what the event.
Yes, they have been doing that for a long time – and yet still more than half the states have constitutional carry. Imagine how many more might have it if the media was not in the pockets of the anti-gun crowd.
-
I wouldn’t discount the power of the media and the left to spin and promote their own narrative, no matter what the event.
Yes, they have been doing that for a long time – and yet still more than half the states have constitutional carry. Imagine how many more might have it if the media was not in the pockets of the anti-gun crowd.
-
“…the politics around firearms is changing toward gun control pretty significantly.”
It’s called Stockholm syndrome. Escape from the bubble and the world looks very different.
-
About 2/3s of Americans support stricter gun laws. Stockholm Syndrome indeed.
-
“About 2/3s of Americans support stricter gun laws. Stockholm Syndrome indeed.”
That’s exactly my point. There are a lot of people who believe whatever they are told.
Ask those very people what the current gun laws are that they find deficient, and they don’t know.
Ask them what want, and they will parrot something they have heard.
And to demonstrate the above, WayneS can’t get strait answers to his very simple questions which a very much on point to the gun control debate.
-
Don’t forget that half the items they will list as wanting, are in fact already law. They just aren’t aware of it, because their politicos don’t know the laws on the books.
-
I mean, you’re saying something that’s essentially true about every issue, which is that the average American voter doesn’t know the details. What Americans do intuitively know that is someone with mental issues should be allowed to buy a gun willy nilly. And that there’s probably very little need for an AR-type of weapon, expanded magazines, etc. The constitution isn’t a suicide pact, and no right is absolute.
-
People can’t buy a gun “willy nilly.” Facts are important.
A few years ago, a reporter wanted to buy a gun to show how easy it was. He went to a gun store and his application was rejected.
In most cases, it’s not intuition that’s prompting the push for more gun laws, it’s propaganda from politicians who want power.
If you believe “AR-type” firearms should be banned, then you should be able to explain why.
In a free country, my intuition shouldn’t be an excuse to take away your rights or property, and your intuitions should be sufficient to take away mine.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/30/us/nashville-shooting-guns-used/index.html Like I said, no rights are absolute. You’ll have to accept some basic limits on your ability to purchase certain fire arms in order to prevent the mass shooting crisis in our country.
-
With all due respect, you continue to parrot back talking points, not facts or solutions. Let’s examine them.
“Like I said, no rights are absolute.”
That’s a dishonest talking point that adds nothing to search for a solution.
Have I, or anyone else, purposed doing away with all laws and regulations related to firearms? Firearms are already one of the most regulated products in the country. There are thousands of laws and regulations.
“You’ll have to accept some basic limits on your ability to purchase certain fire arms in order to prevent the mass shooting crisis in our country.”
Another talking point with no substance.
I have accepted limits. If you seek to impose more, then you state specifically what they, are and why they would work.
-
“That’s a dishonest talking point that adds nothing to search for a solution.”
How is that dishonest? You seem to imply on an earlier post that stricter gun laws are an infringement on your rights. Then you freely admit that you don’t want to do away with “all gun laws and regulations.” Well, what is the right that you’re protecting? Is it to protect your home? Own an AR? If there were a ban on ARs, expanded magazines, increased red flag laws and confiscation criteria, would it infringe on your rights? Why or why not?
“Have I, or anyone else, purposed doing away with all laws and regulations related to firearms? Firearms are already one of the most regulated products in the country. There are thousands of laws and regulations.”
There’s a post on here about how certain states are loosening regulations, so yes, there is an effort to move the other direction in many states. Will they get rid of all gun laws, no. Will they make it more dangerous to live in those states, certainly.
“I have accepted limits. If you seek to impose more, then you state specifically what they, are and why they would work.”
I would ban AR-type weapons, high-capacity magazines, have mandatory training courses and licensing, strict red flag criteria (which wasn’t present in TN), and expanded confiscation criteria, including spousal assault, documented psychiatric issues, violent crime, etc. I would also open manufacturers up to civil liability, along with gun shop owners who skirt the rules. These types of modest reforms would reduce gun violence because they’re the types of requirements that prevent mass shootings from happening in every other modern country at the rate they happen in this country. There are solutions out there.
-
How is it dishonest to parrot back “no rights are absolute”? It’s dishonest to suggest that gun owners don’t already know that no right is absolute, or that they aren’t already restricted in many ways. It’s largely those who are suggesting the need for more laws who are unaware of existing laws and restrictions.
What do I need?
The Bill of Rights is foundational to our system of government. The burden of proof is not on those who enjoy liberty to defend why they “need” it, it’s upon those who seek to take it away. How much First Amendment do you “need.”
“…certain states are loosening regulations…”
What specific “loosening” bothers you, and where is the evidence that it is harmful?
“I would ban AR-type weapons…”
Define AR-type weapons and document how this would solve the problem.
I own firearms, none say “AR” on them.
“high-capacity magazines”
None of my magazines say “high capacity” on them.
“These types of modest reforms …”
The laundry list of “modest” reforms you suggest would make gun ownership nearly impossible for all but the very rich, at the time when crime is rising and district attorneys are more concerned reducing prison rates than reducing crime rates.
-
You need to first figure out what right it is you’re defending, rather than put up a bunch of reasons why certain regulations can’t work and imply that they somehow infringe on some amorphous right. The BOR is not exactly clear on that point, and apart from the Heller ruling, neither is the SCOTUS. Much more substantial gun regulations are coming in the future.
-
“You need to first figure out what right it is you’re defending…”
I understand what I am defending, but you can’t define what you are banning, nor can you document that it would work.
“documented psychiatric issues” for example is far too vague to be of any value. It would be helpful to first understand the laws already in place and what specifically you would change.
-
…imply that they somehow infringe on some amorphous right. The BOR is not
exactly clear on that point, and apart from the Heller ruling, neither
is the SCOTUS.Actually, the BoR is clear. The right is inherent, and hardly “amorphous”. The amendment explicitly limits government’s latitude to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
Heller has been followed by rulings that clarify and, more importantly, expand it. Specifically the ruling last term that struck New York’s restrictions. There will likely be another this term.
-
I disagree. I actually think the 2A is one of the most difficult to parse provisions of the Const. And Heller established a core right, for sure, but didn’t define the outer limits, which leaves things like regulation of types of firearms completely open for interpretation.
-
Each subsequent ruling has expanded and further defined Heller. As noted elsewhere in this thread the court has limited restrictions on firearms in common use. While that does not mean no regulation, it is far from “regulation… completely open”.
-
Sure, but that’s not what we’re talking about in terms of the types of restrictions that gun control advocates are looking for. Gun safety laws, access restrictions, background checks have all been upheld by lower courts. Gun control advocates are looking to expand those types of laws. Heller left all of that open for states and the fed govt. to decide.
-
Gun safety laws, access restrictions, background checks have all been upheld by lower courts.
With all of those restrictions in place, what more do you want?
-
Expanded confiscation criteria, red flag laws with immediate consequences, bans on purchases with history of mental disorders and violence, bans on certain classes of firearms and accessories, increased penalties for parents, increased liability for gun manufacturers, mandatory licensing and training.
-
Confiscation of firearms is absolutely an infringement on our (all of our) rights. It would require an ex post facto law in order to initiate such a plan, and those are supposed to be illegal in this country.
-
I’m not talking about an ex post facto law, I’m talking about expanding current laws on the books or instituting them where there aren’t any.
-
That’s funny.
-
You have also failed to clarify “documented psychiatric issues.”
Mental illnesses are common in the United States. It is estimated that more than one in five U.S. adults live with a mental illness (57.8 million in 2021). Mental illnesses include many different conditions that vary in degree of severity, ranging from mild to moderate to severe.
Then address the legal and constitutional issues related to taking rights away from everyone with “documented psychiatric issues.”
Virginia already has mechanisms in place, so I am assuming you wish to go further.
-
I would also open manufacturers up to civil liability, along with gun shop owners who skirt the rules.
You should research this stuff for yourself. Gun manufacturers and gun stores who skirt the rules already are and always have been fully subject to both criminal and civil liability. Despite the media’s and the democrat party’s continual and perpetual mischaracterization of the law, the protection of lawful commerce act did nothing to change that.
Seriously, read it for yourself. Read a real legal analysis of it.
Then perhaps you should ask yourself: If they will deceive me so blatantly about that, what other gun issues are they lying about?
-
You need to reconsider who’s been duped here. Gun manufacturers cannot be held liable for use of their weapons in crime. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/can-us-gunmakers-be-liable-mass-shooting-2022-05-25/
-
All rifles, (which includes the black scary looking ones that Democrats hyperventilate about) account for fewer murders than blunt objects like bats.
It’s inherently unjust to hold manufacterers and retailers of a legal products responsible for criminal use of them.
-
And it’s inherently unjust that we have mass shootings on a weekly basis because we don’t do anything about guns in this country. I’ll get over the injustice of holding manufacturers liable.
-
I know exactly what I am talking about. Your comment referred to gun manufacturers and gun stores that skirt the rules.
Instead of addressing my response, you have changed the subject.
But now that you have, please explain why you think any manufacturer of anything should be held responsible for the criminal misuse of their product?
-
It is a similar recitation of a talking point, much like the “gun show loophole”.
-
You misread what I said. Manufacturers of firearms should be open to civil liability via statute, the DOJ, or states attorneys general. Their general liability shield should be repealed.
-
Okay.
Now, please explain why you think a manufacturer of a product should be held liable for the actions of third parties who criminally misuse that manufacturer’s product?
-
“Now, please explain why you think a manufacturer of a product should be held liable for the actions of third parties who criminally misuse that manufacturer’s product?”
And apply the same standard to alcohol.
“95,000 Americans die from alcohol-related causes annually; 68,000 of them are men.”
Deaths are the tip of the iceberg. Alcohol is also a major contributor to assaults, rape, child abuse, broken homes, etc.
We punish the abusers. Prohibition didn’t work.
-
What Americans do intuitively know that is someone with mental issues should be allowed to buy a gun willy nilly.
I don’t think that at all. In fact, I don’t think people with serious mental issues should be able to buy guns “willy-nilly”.
-
Right, typo.
-
My apologies. It was a cheap shot and I knew it when I posted it.
However, My snark aside, I really do think we need to find legal and constitutional means to make it harder for mentally ill people to obtain firearms. But I do not think we should infringe on the rights of those who are not mentally ill to do it.
-
Right, I agree. But it matters what you mean by infringement. As I asked Nathan, I think it’s important to understand what the 2A actually embodies and what we want to protect. The BOR and SCOTUS have not been all that helpful in defining that. Is a thorough background check on sale or transfer an infringement? What about banning certain categories of arms?
-
“Is a thorough background check on sale or transfer an infringement?”
It’s a monetary barrier for low income people, and no barrier at all for criminals. If you are planning to commit a crime with a gun, you don’t want that gun to be traceable back to you.
I am not trying to be contrary here, but I honestly don’t understand why this issue (or several others) is important to you. We have a comprehensive background check law in Virginia.
-
RE: Is banning certain categories of arms an infringement?
When the “category” of firearm being banned is the single most popular and best-selling rifle in the history of the United States, then yes, that is an infringement.
-
Ah, so popularity determines policy in your view. How did we ever get tobacco under control, I wonder. Anyway, good luck with that.
-
Where firearms in common use are concerned, it is not me saying it, it is the supreme court.
he Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.
-
Where firearms in common use are concerned, it is not me saying it, it is the supreme court.
…the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.
How can you possibly argue that the best-selling rifle of all time is not in common use and/or is not typically possessed?
-
How often are AR15s used for self defense? It’s the weapon of choice for mass killings, and alternatives exist. Heller basically says you have a right to protect your home with a handgun. The rest hasn’t been litigated…but it will be.
-
“Heller basically says you have a right to protect your home with a handgun.”
You have been mislead. I suggest you read Heller for yourself.
Not every case can be heard by the Supreme Court. That’s why rulings like Heller include principles for lower courts to follow that are broader than the specific case before them.
-
Right, thanks for the legal guidance;-).
-
Heller basically says you have a right to protect your home with a handgun.
Heller held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
It’s not limited to handguns.
-
How often are AR15s used for self defense?
I don’t know for certain because the “progressive” media rarely covers defensive uses of firearms, but I’ll bet it’s a good bit more often than they are used in mass shootings.
Georgetown University political economist William English recently (2021) commissioned a nationwide firearms-related survey and provided the results of his analyses. He estimates that there are about 1.67 million incidents per year in the United States in which a firearm is used defensively by its owner.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of the owners of this very popular rifle cited “home defense” as the main reason for purchasing the weapon. But, even if just one-half of one percent of defensive uses of firearms involve an AR-15, that still comes to about 8,350 defensive uses of AR-15s each year. That is far more than the number of mass shootings in which they are used.
Also: [The AR-15 is] the weapon of choice for mass killings…
Wrong. Handguns are used quite a bit more often in mass killings/shootings than are all types of rifles combined.
-
M. Purdy
The Second Amendment covers firearms “in common use for lawful purposes.”
I believe you referenced Heller earlier, but it seems you haven’t read it.
The right to keep and consume tobacco is not included in the Bill of Rights.
-
No, they do not.
-
Ah, the classic AP poll…
-
“it leaves her vulnerable for anyone on the center or left to pillory. She’ll have to explain it if she runs for Gov.”
Has anyone ever really pilloried a Marine for a picture of one holding a rifle? Seems if they try that she wraps herself in the flag, service, duty, country and apple pie while the Marine Hymn plays in the background.
-
She’s a Marine (retired). She’s allowed to have various firearms.
-
Yep, we all are. Even crazy people in Tennessee and other “no red flag” states, but selling the AR-15 family Christmas cards to the other 70% is an uphill struggle.
-
What specifically is so bad about the AR-15 rifle?
-
You won’t get an answer.
“Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford.”
“So, here, captured in the lab, seems to be the source for the saying that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. And if you look around yourself, you may start to think that everyone from advertisers to politicians are taking advantage of this foible of human psychology.”
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161026-how-liars-create-the-illusion-of-truth
I went to Farmville, Va to hear candidates speak in the early season of the Republican race before the ranked choice voting. At the time I was intrigued by Merle Rutledge. But it was Winsome Sears that stole the show. Very impressive. What I saw then (November 2020) was what you see now. I wonder what Merle is doing now?
Two observations:
1. The Lieutenant Governor has one duty: preside over the Senate and cast a vote in the case of a tie. That was what she was elected to do. Why does she have more staff than her immediate predecessors: Justin Fairfax and Ralph Northam?
2. She claims to be “second-in-command.” That is an exaggeration of her position. She has no authority over any agency heads nor over any function of government. Is she involved in the budget decisions? Traditionally, the unofficial second-in-command has been the Governor’s chief of staff. She is no more the second-in-command of Virginia government than Kamala Harris is the second-in-command of the U.S. government.
-
John Nance Garner is often quoted on the duties of the “second-in-command”. That’s assuming Al Haig isn’t around, then it’s even more nebulous.
-
Unlike Kamala, Winsome Sears has been an effective voice for conservative politics.
-
VP Harris IMO has never spoken in behalf of conservative viewpoints.
-
VP Kamala has been a lousy spokesperson for the Executive Branch. Wherever she goes it is a disaster. Now examine the Lt. Governor of Virginia. She is exceptional at representing the conservative brand. Surely you can recognize this?
-
-
-
And the AG is not the “chief law enforcement officer.” But in politics, perception is reality.
You forgot her second daily duty: call the mansion to see if the Governor made it through the night. 🙂 But in truth some LG’s can take on some power, and if the Senate gets to be 20-20….
-
“But in truth some LG’s can take on some power, and if the Senate gets to be 20-20….”
20-20 Really? Dollar bet? Chronic myopia.
-
I wish the upcoming election cycle would only cost me $1. 🙂 But sure, 20-20 is very possible. I’ve been doing this a long time…
-
Sorta like betting on green in roulette isn’t it? It doesn’t come up often, but it happens. He should give you pretty good odds on that buck.
-
-
-
“…the local school boards have their own authority, so it is really up to the parents of Virginia to change what needs to be changed.
This is a government elected by the people and working for the people…”
Good lord! I agree with her on something (more or less). Well said… and take heed, BR!
“It is rare to see a public figure so open about that.”
“Benjamin Franklin reminds us that if we aren’t willing to hang together then we shall surely hang separately.”
There is no good evidence that Franklin ever said this, btw…
-
To be fair, the interviewer did say “open”, not “openly hypocritical”.
-
When it comes to politicians and religion, those are pretty much synonymous…
-
Whatever you say.
-
-
-
Better tell the Smithsonian Magazine
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/benjamin-franklin-joins-the-revolution-87199988/-
I don’t have to, they caveated the claim by saying “According to the historian Jared Sparks, Franklin replied: “Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
From here:
“Alas, Franklin’s name didn’t get attached to the “we must all hang together” quote until 1840, when it appeared in a ten-volume compendium of Franklin’s writings by Jared Sparks. As is often the case, Sparks gave no source citation for this quote.”
-
“We take the bread out of one child’s mouth and give it to another, and it doesn’t work — we’ve tried that.”
Wow, this is a pretty interesting picture she painted here. Whose children are starving so we can feed others? Maybe a more accurate metaphor would be “we have taken the cake out of one child’s mouth so that others can have crusts of bread.”
As to whether it works…
-
Zero Sum. It’s a Conservative mindset, or rather, it is found more often on one side than the other.
Why, it’s been even been seen that when you show people you don’t believe it to be zero-sum, they think you’re a Communist, or something.
-
Zero Sum. It’s a Conservative mindset, or rather, it is found more often on one side than the other.
Why, it’s been even been seen that when you show people you don’t believe it to be zero-sum, they think you’re a Communist, or something.
-
The liberal delusion …
Maybe a more accurate metaphor would be “we have taken the cake out of one child’s mouth so that others can have crusts of bread.”
Reality …
https://www.baconsrebellion.com/poverty-does-not-mean-destitution/
-
“But that definition is meaningless as a characterization of how people actually live because it excludes massive transfer payments and social services programs designed to cushion “the poor” from deprivation.”
Which is exactly the “bread” both the LG and I are talking about. She seems to be advocating for not cushioning the poor from deprivation so as to cushion the rich from deprivation….
-
-
Well said, comrade.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.