Political Thread 2012
-
DaveH;326391 wrote:
WTF, where did my other post from last night go?This one?
http://www.fargostreet.com/forums/showthread.php?21244-Political-Thread-2012&p=326381#post326381
I think the video Thrash posted pretty much nailed it. From what I can tell his intentions are to force his morals of his God on the rest of the country. Are there general "ideals" that religions bring forth that can be used for the good of all? Absolutely! I'm a Lutheran so Christianity shouldn't be an issue for ME. But not everyone's brand of Christianity is the same. I was raised Catholic and there is no way in hell that I'd want the Catholic church setting the rules of this country.
I guess the short version is that while I have moved significantly further right in the past 8 years I have moved further from authoritarian and closer to libertarian, it's the only party that really makes sense to me.
I don't care if anyone is gay/straight/transgendered/bi. I am all for letting people of the same sex get married (I am also in favor of the churches having the authority to not recognize/perform these marriages if they so choose). I have no problem with gays/lesbians adopting kids. I have no problem with Planned Parenthood (which passed under Nixon btw w/ major bipartisan support) continuing to be funded by the federal government (not very libertarian of me, I know). I have an issue with abortion in almost every scenario imaginable. I am pro-gun and pro-personal rights, yet I don't necessarily believe that all rights are absolute (you can't yell fire in a movie theater for example). I'm pro keeping the government out of my business. I'm pro tax reform, even if it means that I personally pay more taxes (I paid a lower percentage each time I moved up a bracket as I had more deductions...I'm not quite at Romney/Buffet levels, but I'm under 20%) I ok with some regulation of industry, but currently believe that there are too many restrictions. I am pro smaller military numbers but not necessarily in favor of cutting technology spending and special forces training. I'm in favor of shutting down most of our overseas bases as well, though we do need some for strategic reasons (Diego Garcia, Germany, Okinawa and a few others come to mind). I believe everyone has a right to health care regardless of income, but I don't necessarily think they should be required to have health insurance.
I guess to some I just explained why I am crazy more than why I think Santorum is... so here is a copy & paste of some of the things I think makes him absolutely crazy
Rick Santorum wrote:
Santorum said Obama is a snob for wanting all Americans to go to college. Meanwhile Santorum has a B.A. from Pennsylvania State University, a M.B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh and a J.D. from the Dickinson School of Law. "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob," Santorum said.Santorum said that President Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech pledging to keep Pope and politics separate “makes me want to throw up.”
Santorum said that the Supreme Court was wrong when it ruled in 1965 that married Americans have a right to privacy that includes the use of contraceptives.
Santorum said in his 2005 book, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good," that parents in two-income families aren't doing what's best for the kids, describing it as a sad situation created by "radical feminists" who undermined the traditional family by "convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness."
Santorum doesn't want women in combat because he says he worries that fighting men will be distracted by their "natural instinct" to protect women. He also says the differences in physical abilities between men and women aren't being taken into account.
Santorum wants to reinstate the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that banned openly gay service members. Saying they, (Gays) "Keep it to yourself whether you're a heterosexual or a homosexual."
Some of those are outlined in the video as well, but I thought that I'd point them out again.
-
Nope, I wrote one out about the "separation of church and state" and the first ammendment. I'm guessing I will still have it on my computer at home so I'll try to cut n paste it tonite.
Trafik Jamz;326393 wrote:
This one?http://www.fargostreet.com/forums/showthread.php?21244-Political-Thread-2012&p=326381#post326381
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Trafik Jamz;326393 wrote:
Some of those are outlined in the video as well, but I thought that I'd point them out again.Again, you guys are taking crap off the loonie left wing sites that try to make him look bad by taking small parts out of context. If you actually see the whole thing in context it usually makes a bit more sense. Like the "snob" comment. Here is the whole thing:
"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that (tries) to indoctrinate them."
Basically, he was sticking up for blue collar workers.
Check out the so called "quotes" above a little deeper and see what he really said and not what some left wing douche says that he said.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;326391 wrote:
WTF, where did my other post from last night go?I'm not a big fan of Santorum, I just wanted Chuck to explain to me why he is "crazy"
I had a written response to you as well lol, not going to re-write it but I agreed with a few of your points. I misinterpreted the hate crime statement, and I agree, there shouldn't be harsher penalties...they should be charged with assault or Murder 1, 2, 3 or whatever they committed. I thought he was more or less questioning the fact of hate crimes as a motive for said crimes. That's why I thought it was a little radical. And I'll admit, I hadn't heard that until I read that quick article on that site. I also wanted to point out that I merely did a quick google search for this quotes as I had heard them on mainstream media as video/voice clips previously. I don't frequent any of those crazy sites(or any political ones for that matter really), and I didn't read any other content other than the quotes I was looking to get at that time. I know its easy to spin something, but when it's a direct quote, not an excerpt, you can't really spin that so easily.
I wasn't about to touch the religion one as quite frankly I have pretty pointed views on the subject as a whole. I pretty much don't speak of religion with my family for this reason.
-
DaveH;326395 wrote:
Again, you guys are taking crap off the loonie left wing sites that try to make him look bad by taking small parts out of context. If you actually see the whole thing in context it usually makes a bit more sense. Like the "snob" comment. Here is the whole thing:"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that (tries) to indoctrinate them."
Basically, he was sticking up for blue collar workers.
Check out the so called "quotes" above a little deeper and see what he really said and not what some left wing douche says that he said.
Even in full context I don't think that Obama was being a snob in what he stated. He wants everyone to go to college. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't find it snobbish. I also realize that not everyone will go to college. What's crazy is that Obama (to the best of my research) never actually said that. The closest I can find is this when he asked "every American to commit to at least one more year of higher education or career training"
I've heard the entire speech where Kennedy made him want to throw up. Santorum has the same affect on me....
The 1965 Supreme Court opinion that he has (even if it is slightly out of context in the quote) is enough to make me want to move if that idiot is elected president. Seriously, give me a 3rd world country with Palin as president... it would be better somehow.
I disagree with him on the 2 income family statement as well. Is there an advantage, especially until a child is school age for one parent to stay home? In some cases yes, but daycare does have it's advantages as well, especially when it comes to how social kids are when they enter the school system.
I blatantly disagree with him about women in combat as well. Soldiers are trained to protect each other, regardless of sex.
Same for gays in the military. Who cares? If two soldiers get caught fornicating behind the barracks (whether is in a hetero or homosexual engagement) they should face the same disciplinary action.
-
DaveH;326389 wrote:
I should have added "please no cut n paste from the loonie left wing web sites". I'd prefer a vid of it coming out of his mouth.Maybe I'm crazy too... I don't believe in hate crimes either. If you beat someone up because you don't like the color of their skin, or their ethinic background, their religious preference, etc, I could care less. You beat someone else up and you do the time for beating someone up. Your reasoning for beating someone up doesn't make a bit of difference, and shouldn't have any weigh in deciding the penalty IMO.
It's hard to tell what people consider loonie left wing websites these days... I'm guessing anything that isn't Fox News or Drudge?
Basically I read sites like politifact and factcheck daily (or at least every couple days) and it seems like the vast majority of his statements are at best half true. In fact of the 41 statements that they have reviewed only 9 of them were mostly true or true. 11 were half-true, 3 were mostly false, 11 were false and 3 were pants on fire. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rick-santorum/
Perhaps crazy was the wrong word. I should have used full of shit.
I agree with you about hate crimes. Punishment should be the same regardless. If I were to kill/maim someone intentionally, there is a pretty damn good chance I hate that person. Just saying.
-
Trafik Jamz;326400 wrote:
It's hard to tell what people consider loonie left wing websites these days... I'm guessing anything that isn't Fox News or Drudge?Basically I read sites like politifact.
Politifact was where I got the information to complete your quote and put it in context
Trafik Jamz;326400 wrote:
Perhaps crazy was the wrong word. I should have used full of shit.Fair enough
Trafik Jamz;326400 wrote:
I agree with you about hate crimes. Punishment should be the same regardless. If I were to kill/maim someone intentionally, there is a pretty damn good chance I hate that person. Just saying. DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Its not always possible to agree with every view a candidate has. Santorum seems to want to bring values and virtues back to american society. Something that some of society has lost. You may not agree with how he wants to do it, but it might be better than letting the country go to hell.
You can say he wants to go to war with Iran. Whats the alternatives? You let them do what they want and next thing you know they have a nuke or some other weapon and their country is not stable. You vote Ron paul in and we get nuked, what will he do. Nothing. If you dont stop them before they gain these weapons then you have something like 9/11 happen again. Then what. On a larger scale.
He doesnt want women in direct combat roles. I am sure he has spoken with the military and thats what THEY want. Part of whats wrong with america is everyone trying to make everything FAIR in life. Life isnt always fair. Gays in the military gets complicated. But if you have never served in the military or in combat you probably wouldnt understand the issues that these two subjects impose. Civillians voting and making decsions for military doctrine is not the right way to do things. Next people will say let mentally handicapped people serve. Because that will be a great idea, but its FAIR.
The thing I support about paul is his wants for making federal government smaller. But I dont think its going to happen in my lifetime at this rate.
But at this point I think Santorum or Paul would be better presidents than Mitt Romney. When it comes down to the ballet for president and you have romney vs. obama it will be hard to support either for me. -
DaveH;326395 wrote:
Again, you guys are taking crap off the loonie left wing sites that try to make him look bad by taking small parts out of context. If you actually see the whole thing in context it usually makes a bit more sense. Like the "snob" comment. Here is the whole thing:"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college, what a snob. There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor that (tries) to indoctrinate them."
Basically, he was sticking up for blue collar workers.
Check out the so called "quotes" above a little deeper and see what he really said and not what some left wing douche says that he said.
The president’s actual call, made in his first address to Congress in February 2009, was: “tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.”
Phew, thank goodness Rick came to the rescue. I am proud he had the gall to stand up for those disparaging remarks made by our current president.
Do some research dave instead of just listening to what some right wing douche has to say : D
-
Rexwagon;326404 wrote:
Its not always possible to agree with every view a candidate has. Santorum seems to want to bring values and virtues back to american society. Something that some of society has lost. You may not agree with how he wants to do it, but it might be better than letting the country go to hell.No, I don't want him imposing his version of Christianity on me.
You can say he wants to go to war with Iran. Whats the alternatives? You let them do what they want and next thing you know they have a nuke or some other weapon and their country is not stable.
N Korea has a nuke, got it under the former administration. Why aren't we worried about them? Where was the preemptive strike?
You vote Ron paul in and we get nuked, what will he do. Nothing. If you dont stop them before they gain these weapons then you have something like 9/11 happen again. Then what. On a larger scale.
See N Korea. The only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon on another country is the one that we live in. Fact. What if they already have a weapon (for all we know they might)? Do we take the chance that they will unload it on us if we go into Iran?
He doesnt want women in direct combat roles. I am sure he has spoken with the military and thats what THEY want. Part of whats wrong with america is everyone trying to make everything FAIR in life. Life isnt always fair. Gays in the military gets complicated. But if you have never served in the military or in combat you probably wouldnt understand the issues that these two subjects impose. Civillians voting and making decsions for military doctrine is not the right way to do things. Next people will say let mentally handicapped people serve. Because that will be a great idea, but its FAIR.
I didn't serve (had an injury that prevented me from fulfilling my delayed entry obligations). Had I gone, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care if the person providing cover for me was gay/straight/woman/shemale as long as we were working together. When have we voted to make decisions for military doctrine? As for mentally handicapped people serving... depends on their role. If they are savant smart and can crack codes in seconds that computers take hours to do, then yes, let's bring them on board in a non-combat role. If someone can pass the mental and physical demands/tests of the military, who am I to tell them that they are not good enough to serve.
The thing I support about paul is his wants for making federal government smaller. But I dont think its going to happen in my lifetime at this rate.
Define smaller. Does smaller mean less people working for the Fed from one year to the next or does smaller mean a lower percentage of American's working for the government as a whole. If you mean less people (including US Postal Service workers) we have less now than in 1994 when Clinton took office, but slightly more in 2010 than in 2002 under GWB. Now, if you are looking at percentage of population working for the federal government we are at the lowest point in modern history @ 8.4%
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html
(sorry dave, I know the post is a left wing newspaper, I'm going to dig into it deeper and find a non-biased source as well)But at this point I think Santorum or Paul would be better presidents than Mitt Romney. When it comes down to the ballet for president and you have romney vs. obama it will be hard to support either for me.
I couldn't support Obama/Romney/Newt/Santorum outright. Paul is the only one whose views most closely match mine (and his most radical stuff will never pass congress anyway... let's be honest, Presidents don't write laws, they sign them and at best influence them). However, I will vote for Newt/Romney over Obama if it comes down to it. And I will write in Paul (or maybe whoever the Libertarian candidate is) if it is between Obama and Santorum.
-
I could really care less about the actual disagreement between Santorum and Obama. They are all politicians and they all twist what the other persons says to try to make their own points. My beef is with people posting part of someones quote, or taking it out of context, and trying to pass the quote off as the truth.
24valvenotak;326406 wrote:
The president’s actual call, made in his first address to Congress in February 2009, was: “tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.”Phew, thank goodness Rick came to the rescue. I am proud he had the gall to stand up for those disparaging remarks made by our current president.
Do some research dave instead of just listening to what some right wing douche has to say : D
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
24valvenotak;326406 wrote:
The president’s actual call, made in his first address to Congress in February 2009, was: “tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma.”Phew, thank goodness Rick came to the rescue. I am proud he had the gall to stand up for those disparaging remarks made by our current president.
Do some research dave instead of just listening to what some right wing douche has to say : D
Even funnier is this video of Santorum back tracking (on Fox News of all places):
[video]http://youtu.be/Anyhep7Ar5U[/video] -
Trafik Jamz;326407 wrote:
N Korea has a nuke, got it under the former administration. Why aren't we worried about them? Where was the preemptive strike?We need to worry about both of them, but N Korea to a lesser extent IMO.
Trafik Jamz;326407 wrote:
I didn't serve (had an injury that prevented me from fulfilling my delayed entry obligations). Had I gone, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care if the person providing cover for me was gay/straight/woman/shemale as long as we were working together. When have we voted to make decisions for military doctrine? As for mentally handicapped people serving... depends on their role. If they are savant smart and can crack codes in seconds that computers take hours to do, then yes, let's bring them on board in a non-combat role. If someone can pass the mental and physical demands/tests of the military, who am I to tell them that they are not good enough to serve.It's not your job to tell them they are or aren't good enough, thats the military's decision to make.
Trafik Jamz;326407 wrote:
Define smaller. Does smaller mean less people working for the Fed from one year to the next or does smaller mean a lower percentage of American's working for the government as a whole. If you mean less people (including US Postal Service workers) we have less now than in 1994 when Clinton took office, but slightly more in 2010 than in 2002 under GWB. Now, if you are looking at percentage of population working for the federal government we are at the lowest point in modern history @ 8.4% .The number of dollars the government spends is what I'm concerned with. If they drop the number of government employees to 1, and still spend $1.5 trillion more than they take in every year, they haven't reduced the size of government.
Trafik Jamz;326407 wrote:
I couldn't support Obama/Romney/Newt/Santorum outright. Paul is the only one whose views most closely match mine (and his most radical stuff will never pass congress anyway... let's be honest, Presidents don't write laws, they sign them and at best influence them). However, I will vote for Newt/Romney over Obama if it comes down to it. And I will write in Paul (or maybe whoever the Libertarian candidate is) if it is between Obama and Santorum.You won't have to worry about that, it will be Romney and Obama.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;326410 wrote:
We need to worry about both of them, but N Korea to a lesser extent IMO.Possibly, but they are a potential direct threat to our economy if they invade S Korea (who is going to make our shit then?)
It's not your job to tell them they are or aren't good enough, thats the military's decision to make.
I can agree with that to some extent I guess. I just wouldn't want to see someone with one overwhelming ability overlooked because of several glaring weaknesses.
The number of dollars the government spends is what I'm concerned with. If they drop the number of government employees to 1, and still spend $1.5 trillion more than they take in every year, they haven't reduced the size of government. This I can agree with as well. I'm fairly sure we disagree on how to reduce the gap however (flat $ amount vs flat %)
You won't have to worry about that, it will be Romney and Obama
-
The idea that Paul isn't going to fight back if Iran nukes us is ridiculous.
Unlike every other douchebag in the race, Paul actually got drafted and served during Vietnam. And he had 2 kids at home.
When 9/11 happened, Paul had legislation ready immediately to go after Bin Laden directly -- via letters of marque and reprisal -- the constitutional remedy that was used for us to stop piracy against American interests back in the 1700s. It was something the president could unilaterally do, it didn't commit the entire us Military. But instead of going with Paul's constitutional means of going over there and getting OBL, we telegraphed to the whole world for months that we were about to invade Afghanistan. Plenty of time for OBL to setup his Chateau in Pakistan.
Instead, we're trillions down the drain, loads of our precious children are dead, and zillions of more terrorists created in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
Let's say that Iran is working on a nuke. Let's say that they develop it. Do you think they plan on using it on US soil? They know that having 1 nuke and using if offensively is their death sentence. And despite what you think you know about Iran, it isn't full of dynamite vest wearing lunatics. The one thing about politicians is they love power. Amouasdfmasofkbad (president of Iran) loves power just as much as anyone else. Why would he possibly commit suicide and lose everything only to have his entire country glassed over? He's not one of the crazy mullahs.
Iran has a perfectly good reason for wanting a nuke-- the US leaves alone any country with nukes. Why do you think we haven't whacked north korea? Because they can park a nuke on South Korea in 5 minutes.
I honestly don't even think Iran wants to nuke Israel.
But suppose I'm wrong.
Suppose that Iran does get nukes, and gets crazy enough that they nuke Israel. 24 hours later, Iran doesn't exist. Problem solved. Suppose they set off a suitcase nuke in a sports stadium or something. President Paul isn't going to be like "shucks, they got us". He's going to figure out which bastards did it and ruin them.
But suppose I'm right about Iran not actually wanting to bomb us, and some jackball like Santorum gets elected. We're going to have a 5th war, and a shit ton of innocent people are going to die. For what? Would you pick up a rifle and head over to Iran right now and start shooting women and children?
How many Iranians do you guys who are so sprung for bombing Iran know? We had an Iranian guy on our team back during the crazy protests. Do you think he was supportive of the Iranian government? Do you think he wishes he was back there helping to crack down on the Iranians?
Iran came >< this close to having a political coup succeed. Everytime was antagonize Iran "the nation" and hurt "Iran, the people", we give power to their crazy Death To America mullahs and consolidate power under their president.
If we go with Pauls plan, yeah, there is a smalll chance that we could end up having 1 nuke go off somewhere. It would be bad. But we'd survive, we'd clean up the middle east, and come home fast.
But let's say we don't go with Pauls plan. Our economy is going to self destruct, and our world wide empire will crumble. Our soldiers all over hte world will increasingly become targets because they are in the enemy's back yards, and we will be powerless to respond beacuse we are going to be fucking broke. The world economy is precariously close to a total reset and not a single one of these guys except Paul has any fraction of the balls required to get things moving in the right direction, much less the brains to know what needs to change.
Basically, it comes down to this. If we elect Paul, there's a slight chance he's wrong about foreign policy -- even though he has a long history of being exactly right. But if we don't elect Paul, there's a MUCH bigger chance that he was right about domestic and monetary policy. At which point we are fucked deep in every hole, and what Iran is doing will be the least of our concerns.
-
DaveH;326408 wrote:
I could really care less about the actual disagreement between Santorum and Obama. They are all politicians and they all twist what the other persons says to try to make their own points. My beef is with people posting part of someones quote, or taking it out of context, and trying to pass the quote off as the truth.You posted a quote from Santorum in which he uses a partial Obama quote out of context and passed it off as the truth. You defended it by saying:
DaveH;326395 wrote:
Basically, he was sticking up for blue collar workers.Check out the so called "quotes" above a little deeper and see what he really said and not what some left wing douche says that he said.
He wasn't sticking up for blue collar workers, though. He was taking something Obama said out of context and edited it to make him sound like a snob. You didn't realize this because you found what you wanted to find and deemed it the truth. That is basically what you are encouraging all of us not to do. Chalk it up to me being hyper critical of your criticism, I suppose.
As far as Santorum actually wanting to make sodomy illegal...
SANTORUM: [I]f you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: Well, what would you do?
SANTORUM: What would I do with what?
AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe —
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions....
The fact that he associates consensual gay sex with polygamy, adultery, incest, and bigamy puts the nail in the coffin for me. Nine states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia) still ban heterosexual sodomy. Fun Fact: While most people understand the term “sodomy” to mean anal intercourse, most sodomy laws also include cunnilingus and fellatio in the description of prohibited acts. Yes oral sex, even within the sanctity of marriage, is a crime in Alabama. Go figure.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login