Seattle Becomes First U.S. City to Let Uber Drivers Unionize

TheDemSocialist · Dec 16, 2015

soot said:
Right.

Uber doesn't hire either, you just sign up with them and go to work.

Yes they do. There is a background check and everything.

Uber doesn't provide drivers with vehicles or pay for gas, mileage, insurance, or maintenance.

That is correct.

But Uber drivers set their own hours, choose the days they work, select which neighborhoods they will or won't operate in, decide whether or not to accept a ping, have the discretion to accept or refuse passengers, and don't report in to a "boss" (other than their customers).

**

Big * here: Uber "can charge drivers a cancellation fee if they choose not to take a ride, prohibit drivers from picking up passengers not using the app and suspend or deactivate drivers' accounts."

You know why?

Because Uber drivers don't work for Uber - they work for themselves.

How can a company fire you if you dont work for them? How can a company set the fare rates if you dont work for them?

Uber simply provides a service by putting drivers and passengers together.

They do way more that just "simply" that.

If drivers collectivize and unionize and start demanding benefits they don't currently enjoy then you can pretty much rest assured that Uber management is going to begin to demand things from their drivers which they don't currently demand.

This is usually part of the bargaining process..

Uber will have hiring managers

Question, you claimed over and over again that the drivers "work for themselves" and dont have a "boss", who are these managers managing?

who decide whether or not a given driver is hired by Uber, they'll set days and hours and control scheduling, they'll instruct the drivers on which neighborhoods they work in and which fares they take and there will be no discretion on the part of the driver.

If they do this then so be it. But that would kinda ruin the appeal of the "flexibility" Uber likes to tout... But if they do this, then so be it.

And Uber will begin taking a much bigger cut of the fare; they'll probably go with the more-or-less flat standard of 33% taken by taxi services rather than to 20% an experienced Uber driver pays them for providing their service.

Again, if they do this then so be it.

And before long Uber will be become just another corporate livery service and part of the regular economy rather than an innovative part of the sharing economy

Well this is all your assumption.

This whole thing is like folks who make a living as full-time Ebay merchants organizing and unionizing and demanding that Ebay pay them sick leave and provide a 401(k).

:doh Not even close.
Does Ebay have sole discretion the rates you sell your items? No
Does Ebay enforce workplace standards? No

soot · Dec 16, 2015

TheDemSocialist said:
Are those claims not true?

I don't know.

Are they?

You're stating the lawyer's claim as though it's fact.

I'm pointing out that there are two sides to the story.

And again, having a flexible work schedule is not the end all be all to be classified as a independent contractor...

Agreed.

Actually, having a flexible work schedule isn't really a factor, specifically, in whether or not one is considered an independent contractor.

It can be part of it, but what sets and IC apart from an employee is whether or not an employer has the legal right to control the details of how services are performed.

For IRS purposes there's a three part common law test for determining whether or not a worker is considered an employee or an independent contractor:

1. Does a company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?

In Uber's case it can be argued that if the worker is choosing which days he or she will work, which hours during a given day, which location he or she will be working in, and how many and which fares the driver will accept, then the company (Uber) has very little or even no direct control what a driver does or how the driver does his or her job.

2. Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)

The IRS goes on to kind of itemize some of these issues:

a. An independent contractor often has a significant investment in the equipment he or she uses in working for someone else.

b. Independent contractors are more likely to have unreimbursed expenses than are employees.

c. The opportunity to make a profit or loss is another important factor. If a worker has a significant investment in the tools and equipment used and if the worker has unreimbursed expenses, the worker has a greater opportunity to lose money (i.e., their expenses will exceed their income from the work). Having the possibility of incurring a loss indicates that the worker is an independent contractor.

All of those factors argue pretty strongly toward Uber drivers being independent contractors.

3. Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

I don't believe that Uber drivers sign a contract, and we know that they don't receive benefits.

As far as that last, relationship, aspect is concerned the IRS goes in to some detail discussing how the "permanence" (or lack thereof) of the relationship is a key factor:

a. If you hire a worker with the expectation that the relationship will continue indefinitely, rather than for a specific project or period, this is generally considered evidence that the intent was to create an employer-employee relationship.

Uber doesn't actually hire any of the drivers, so we can pretty safely end discussion of this point right there.

bg85 · Dec 16, 2015

soot said:
I don't know.

Are they?

You're stating the lawyer's claim as though it's fact.

I'm pointing out that there are two sides to the story.

Agreed.

Actually, having a flexible work schedule isn't really a factor, specifically, in whether or not one is considered an independent contractor.

It can be part of it, but what sets and IC apart from an employee is whether or not an employer has the legal right to control the details of how services are performed.

For IRS purposes there's a three part common law test for determining whether or not a worker is considered an employee or an independent contractor:

1. Does a company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?

In Uber's case it can be argued that if the worker is choosing which days he or she will work, which hours during a given day, which location he or she will be working in, and how many and which fares the driver will accept, then the company (Uber) has very little or even no direct control what a driver does or how the driver does his or her job.

2. Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)

The IRS goes on to kind of itemize some of these issues:

a. An independent contractor often has a significant investment in the equipment he or she uses in working for someone else.

b. Independent contractors are more likely to have unreimbursed expenses than are employees.

c. The opportunity to make a profit or loss is another important factor. If a worker has a significant investment in the tools and equipment used and if the worker has unreimbursed expenses, the worker has a greater opportunity to lose money (i.e., their expenses will exceed their income from the work). Having the possibility of incurring a loss indicates that the worker is an independent contractor.

All of those factors argue pretty strongly toward Uber drivers being independent contractors.

3. Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

I don't believe that Uber drivers sign a contract, and we know that they don't receive benefits.

As far as that last, relationship, aspect is concerned the IRS goes in to some detail discussing how the "permanence" (or lack thereof) of the relationship is a key factor:

a. If you hire a worker with the expectation that the relationship will continue indefinitely, rather than for a specific project or period, this is generally considered evidence that the intent was to create an employer-employee relationship.

Uber doesn't actually hire any of the drivers, so we can pretty safely end discussion of this point right there.

I agree with you that these are most likely contractors and not employees, but the IRS does not make the legal determination of who is an employee. they make the determination for their own purposes so they know who/how to tax and how much. the Department of Labor has its own "test" http://www.dol.gov/whd/workers/Misclassification/AI-2015_1.pdf determining whether a worker is an employee, and it is the courts who would make the final determination if there is a dispute between employer and worker.

Thrilla · Dec 16, 2015

bg85 said:
actually...that determination is made by the courts...the IRS can have their opinion on whatever they want and tax you based on that opinion, but the courts have the ultimate, final say over who is and who is not an employee based on the Fair Labor Standards Act.

after a bit a digging... it seems we are both right.

the laws are such that a person can be determined to be an employee by one agency, according to one law... but also determined to be a independent contractor, simultaneously, by another agency according to another law.

TheDemSocialist · Dec 16, 2015

soot said:
I don't kno
Are they?

I think its pretty clear they are not. No one is disputing the information they are presenting, they are disputing the conclusions they reach by the information presented.

I'm pointing out that there are two sides to the story.

This is kinda obvious, after-all we are debating right now a lawsuit...

1. Does a company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?

In Uber's case it can be argued that if the worker is choosing which days he or she will work, which hours during a given day, which location he or she will be working in, and how many and which fares the driver will accept, then the company (Uber) has very little or even no direct control what a driver does or how the driver does his or her job.

But you see this is also only half the truth.
To answer directly to the bolded question and will also indireclty answer many of the points (Ubers argument) you presented:
"But yes: "Uber can fire its drivers, compel them to accept a certain portion of rides, and enforce workplace standards"
https://news.vice.com/article/that-...igger-and-could-take-down-the-sharing-economy

2. Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)

The IRS goes on to kind of itemize some of these issues:

An independent contractor often has a significant investment in the equipment he or she uses in working for someone else.

bIndependent contractors are more likely to have unreimbursed expenses than are employees.

c. The opportunity to make a profit or loss is another important factor. If a worker has a significant investment in the tools and equipment used and if the worker has unreimbursed expenses, the worker has a greater opportunity to lose money (i.e., their expenses will exceed their income from the work). Having the possibility of incurring a loss indicates that the worker is an independent contractor.

All of those factors argue pretty strongly toward Uber drivers being independent contractors.

Your right that they have to provide their own vehicles and your right that they are unreimbursed costs, but several huge factors are missing. Pay, who decides the pay, etc.
"Yes: "drivers don't have a say in rate changes" (OP Link)
"" Uber has sole discretion over fares, and can charge drivers a cancellation fee if they choose not to take a ride, prohibit drivers from picking up passengers not using the app and suspend or deactivate drivers' accounts." http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-independent-contractors-or-employee-2015-9

3. Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

I don't believe that Uber drivers sign a contract, and we know that they don't receive benefits.

No written contracts just an agreement, and background check before you are hired. And also no beenfits but according to the IRS, "However, the lack of these types of benefits does not necessarily mean the worker is an independent contractor."

As far as that last, relationship, aspect is concerned the IRS goes in to some detail discussing how the "permanence" (or lack thereof) of the relationship is a key factor:

a. If you hire a worker with the expectation that the relationship will continue indefinitely, rather than for a specific project or period, this is generally considered evidence that the intent was to create an employer-employee relationship.

Uber is hiring people for them to only fulfill their contract for "x amount of time"? Uber itself isnt even making that argument.

Uber doesn't actually hire any of the drivers, so we can pretty safely end discussion of this point right there.

Yes they do. There is even a process to it including background checks etc.

But I think they key point you are missing from the 3rd point is if they work performed is a key aspect of the business. The IRS defines this as, "Services Provided as Key Activity of the Business. If a worker provides services that are a key aspect of the business, it is more likely that the business will have the right to direct and control his or her activities. For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney’s work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work. This would indicate an employer-employee relationship."

I think its pretty clear that Uber Drivers are THE key activity of the business.

justabubba · Dec 16, 2015

wouldn't this association of independent contractors be much the same as a craft guild

will be curious how seattle will enforce this relationship between uber/lyft and the contractors
might have to have a staff that administers contractor-subcontractor relationships ... which was previously the venue of the courts
doubt seattle has the expertise to enforce the monster it has created

ludin · Dec 16, 2015

bg85 said:
well that's the question the courts need to answer, isn't it?

there are two wrong answers to that questions: yes and no. it is much more gray than any of the ideologues would care to admit and the current laws on the issue support me in that belief, I think.

in the end it doesn't matter. federal law trumps local laws and this law runs amuck on federal labor laws.
that is why it is going to court and will be shot down.

AliHajiSheik · Dec 17, 2015

Not sure there is anything keeping the drivers from forming a guild.

ttwtt78640 · Dec 17, 2015

TheDemSocialist said:
[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=ProximaNovaRegular, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Read more @: [/FONT]Seattle Becomes First U.S. City to Let Uber Drivers Unionize

[FONT=ProximaNovaRegular, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]So Uber drivers in Seattle can now vote on if they would like to be represented by a union in bargaining [/FONT]:applaud[FONT=ProximaNovaRegular, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]. This is pretty big news because Uber drivers are considered independent contractors and are not covered under the NLRA. This vote in Seattle can possibly pave the way to union organizing. However, this bill may be headed straight to court. [/FONT]

These folks are considered to be independent contractors because they are. The entire idea of considering only some independent contractors as being employees and letting them be represented only by ctiy approved organizations is nonsense. Subcontractors, whether indviduals or not, are not employees of the general contractor. If your pay is not subject to a W-2 then you are not an employee no matter what city you happen to live (or work) in - I expect a court to say so.

ttwtt78640 · Dec 17, 2015

TheDemSocialist said:
Working conditions does not simply just mean your car. It can also mean hours, benefits, treatment, breaks, how business is conducted, etc.

If they were paid by the hour and received a W-2 then I would agree that they are employees. Since they are paid by the trip (fare?) and receive a 1099 then they are not employees. If one is paid a fixed amount to take a client from location X to location Y then the time required to get that done is not relevant.

TheDemSocialist · Dec 17, 2015

ttwtt78640 said:
These folks are considered to be independent contractors because they are. The entire idea of considering only some independent contractors as being employees and letting them be represented only by ctiy approved organizations is nonsense. Subcontractors, whether indviduals or not, are not employees of the general contractor. If your pay is not subject to a W-2 then you are not an employee no matter what city you happen to live (or work) in - I expect a court to say so.

We are debating if they are independent contractors. See post #55, #29, #26.

ttwtt78640 said:
If they were paid by the hour and received a W-2 then I would agree that they are employees. Since they are paid by the trip (fare?) and receive a 1099 then they are not employees. If one is paid a fixed amount to take a client from location X to location Y then the time required to get that done is not relevant.

Being paid based off a fare has almost nothing to do with if they are an independent contractor or not....

EMNofSeattle · Dec 17, 2015

TheDemSocialist said:
Working conditions does not simply just mean your car. It can also mean hours, benefits, treatment, breaks, how business is conducted, etc.

If you're running for uber you can go off duty anytime you want

EMNofSeattle · Dec 17, 2015

Glen Contrarian said:
Good! Hopefully, by the time this reaches SCOTUS, Hillary will have been elected and had an opportunity to choose a better (more liberal) judge to replace either Thomas or Scalia...because it's about doggone time that we had some pushback against the conservative war on unions that has torn away at our middle class since the 1970's.

Doubtful. This law is to appease activists. Hillary's hypothetical judges don't even factor. I doubt it will survive the Superior Court of King County. Subcontractors are not employees. This is not even a union issue. The city is authorizing drivers to join a city approved orginization and not organize under a union.

Case in point, if these drivers were employees, they would already have a right to organize under federal and state law. seattle can't "grant" that right it already exists. But not for independent business people. You can't unionize to negotiate with your
Self

ludin · Dec 18, 2015

TheDemSocialist said:
We are debating if they are independent contractors. See post #55, #29, #26.

Being paid based off a fare has almost nothing to do with if they are an independent contractor or not....

The fact is that according to current discriptions of these guys they are technically independent contractors.

1. They drive their own car not a company purchased car. (lyft might have an issue since they brand cars with that pink mustache).
2. they are responsible for their own insurance and maintenance.
3. They set their own schedules and are not required to work a set amount of hours.
4. they can work for multiple companies and are not tied to one car company.

so a driver working for uber can work for lyft as well.

all of these factors fit in that their drivers are not employee's regardless of what CA liberal nonsense court says.

however the seattle law still runs foul of federal law which is why it will get shot down.

TheDemSocialist · Dec 18, 2015

ludin said:
The fact is that according to current discriptions of these guys they are technically independent contractors.

1. They drive their own car not a company purchased car. (lyft might have an issue since they brand cars with that pink mustache).
2. they are responsible for their own insurance and maintenance.
3. They set their own schedules and are not required to work a set amount of hours.
4. they can work for multiple companies and are not tied to one car company.

so a driver working for uber can work for lyft as well.

all of these factors fit in that their drivers are not employee's regardless of what CA liberal nonsense court says.

however the seattle law still runs foul of federal law which is why it will get shot down.

But as pointed out in earlier posts:
-"Uber can fire its drivers, compel them to accept a certain portion of rides, and enforce workplace standards"
-" Uber has sole discretion over fares, and can charge drivers a cancellation fee if they choose not to take a ride, prohibit drivers from picking up passengers not using the app and suspend or deactivate drivers' accounts."
-"Services Provided as Key Activity of the Business. According to the IRS, "If a worker provides services that are a key aspect of the business, it is more likely that the business will have the right to direct and control his or her activities. For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney’s work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work." This would indicate an employer-employee relationship." I think its pretty clear that Uber Drivers are THE key activity of the business.

ludin · Dec 18, 2015

TheDemSocialist said:
But as pointed out in earlier posts:
-"Uber can fire its drivers, compel them to accept a certain portion of rides, and enforce workplace standards"

that can happen to any independent contractor to whom they are contracted to.

-" Uber has sole discretion over fares, and can charge drivers a cancellation fee if they choose not to take a ride, prohibit drivers from picking up passengers not using the app and suspend or deactivate drivers' accounts."

that is usually how independent contractors work. you are offered a rate of pay.

-"Services Provided as Key Activity of the Business. According to the IRS, "If a worker provides services that are a key aspect of the business, it is more likely that the business will have the right to direct and control his or her activities. For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney’s work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work." This would indicate an employer-employee relationship." I think its pretty clear that Uber Drivers are THE key activity of the business.

distort it however you want to. uber is the service. you can choose to be an uber driver or a lyft driver or both.
you agree to their contract price or you don't.

neither company supplies any other tools.
and usually with contract work there are stipulations.

TheDemSocialist · Dec 18, 2015

ludin said:
that can happen to any independent contractor to whom they are contracted to.

Nope. See the IRS standards here: https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Smal...ependent-Contractor-Self-Employed-or-Employee

that is usually how independent contractors work. you are offered a rate of pay.

Nope. See the IRS standrads: https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Smal...ependent-Contractor-Self-Employed-or-Employee

distort it however you want to. uber is the service. you can choose to be an uber driver or a lyft driver or both.
you agree to their contract price or you don't.

This is literally the IRS standards for if someone is classified an employee or independent contractor, and I literally answered point to point for their standards in several posts here

iliveonramen · Dec 18, 2015

Nilly said:
Not sure I support this. I'm a big fan of where the 'sharing economy' was going and this is going to scupper that. I think part of what makes uber special is that the drivers are not employees of uber, they just use uber in order to provide their own service.

Can see this being a big stumbling block for sharing companies going forward, and I honestly think such companies (uber, airbnb) represent a paradigm shift in how we conduct business.

Uber exercises a lot of control over their drivers. The shift is, your new employer tells you how to dress, what to drive, how to conduct your business...basically everything that a regular employer does, but you have none of the protections of even at will employees.

Oozlefinch · Jan 4, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
But as pointed out in earlier posts:
-"Uber can fire its drivers, compel them to accept a certain portion of rides, and enforce workplace standards"
-" Uber has sole discretion over fares, and can charge drivers a cancellation fee if they choose not to take a ride, prohibit drivers from picking up passengers not using the app and suspend or deactivate drivers' accounts."
-"Services Provided as Key Activity of the Business. According to the IRS, "If a worker provides services that are a key aspect of the business, it is more likely that the business will have the right to direct and control his or her activities. For example, if a law firm hires an attorney, it is likely that it will present the attorney’s work as its own and would have the right to control or direct that work." This would indicate an employer-employee relationship." I think its pretty clear that Uber Drivers are THE key activity of the business.

And what is your problem with any of these issues?

Fire it's drivers. Yea, I got no problem with that. Although it is not firing, it is simply removing them from the app so they can no longer request fares. Not much different from somebody in here who is a complete douchebag who is banned from the forum. If somebody is an arseclown driver, they probably should be fired.

Accept a portion of rides, and? Or do you like the idea of some drivers being able to monopolize the fares, and not allow other drivers to get rides as well? I mean, is not that very issue (as well as require all drivers to occasionally go into poorer neighborhoods if they want to or not) part of the very things that Socialists claim they will get in their perfect society? Seems you are arguing against your own stance here.

And enforce workplace standards. Yea, like having a safe car, in clean condition and insurance. I guess you think that somebody in a 40 year old Tijuanna Taxi with no seatbelts and smelling like neither the driver nor car had been cleaned since Burning Man 2012 is acceptable, Uber does not.

The charge of the cancellation fee is to deter drivers from either gaming the system, trying to monopolize traffic in their area, and to deter drivers from inconviencing the passengers. If I put in I needed a ride and agreed to a driver who would arrive in 5 minutes, only to wait 30 and he or she never shows up, I would be rather pissed. And such drivers should be charged a fee, so they will not do things like that which make the service look bad.

And yea Uber sets fees. They should, so everybody pretty much gets the same fees for the same trips. Do you think it would be right for drivers to charge their own fees? Take one trip and a driver only asks $5. Take the same trip a day later and another driver then wants $10. If drivers want to charge their own fees, then they are more then welcome to drop from Uber and operate their own Gypsy Cab.

TheDemSocialist · Jan 4, 2016

Oozlefinch said:
And what is your problem with any of these issues?
.

That then the drivers are being misclassified as independent contractors and are actually employees of the company.

Oozlefinch · Jan 4, 2016

TheDemSocialist said:
That then the drivers are being misclassified as independent contractors and are actually employees of the company.

How is that?

I am a contractor. I work for a set rate, I have to follow set conditions in order to maintain my employment.

Yes, I do have some leeway, because of the kind of employment I have. But I am still a contractor, and nothing changes that.

Of course, it does not surprise me that a Socialist would want to see everybody considered an employee. Because contractors can not unionize, only employees can.

Which is further ironic in my eyes, since one of the first things Socialists do when they are able to take charge of a government, is ban all of the Unions.

TheDemSocialist · Jan 4, 2016

Oozlefinch said:
How is that?

I am a contractor. I work for a set rate, I have to follow set conditions in order to maintain my employment.

Yes, I do have some leeway, because of the kind of employment I have. But I am still a contractor, and nothing changes that.

Of course, it does not surprise me that a Socialist would want to see everybody considered an employee. Because contractors can not unionize, only employees can.

Which is further ironic in my eyes, since one of the first things Socialists do when they are able to take charge of a government, is ban all of the Unions.

Well one is the quote you just quoted here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/west/...t-uber-drivers-unionize-7.html#post1065373273

And also see posts #55, #29, #26

jet57 · Jan 4, 2016

Nilly said:
Not sure I support this. I'm a big fan of where the 'sharing economy' was going and this is going to scupper that. I think part of what makes uber special is that the drivers are not employees of uber, they just use uber in order to provide their own service.

Can see this being a big stumbling block for sharing companies going forward, and I honestly think such companies (uber, airbnb) represent a paradigm shift in how we conduct business.

The drivers are employees Another Uber Driver in California Ruled an Employee, Not Contractor - Digits - WSJ

It takes two to make a bargaining unit. One person cannot be organized.

Nilly · Jan 4, 2016

jet57 said:
The drivers are employees Another Uber Driver in California Ruled an Employee, Not Contractor - Digits - WSJ

It takes two to make a bargaining unit. One person cannot be organized.

I can't argue against a court ruling but if they continue to rule drivers as employees rather than independent contractors then I'm of the opinion that uber should work to reduce its rules and regulations on drivers rather than go along with what's being proposed by the uber 'unions'. Personally, I would rather see the future of uber as a service that 'small businesses' use (think square or quickbooks) than just another company that employees lots of drivers, essentially a (very large) private chauffeur service. That way it still paves the way towards the sharing economy which I think will be beneficial in the long term.

Neomalthusian · Jan 4, 2016

To "let" someone unionize? Everyone in the private sector should be able to unionize.

But:
1) no employee should be forced to be in a union as a contingency of taking or keeping a job, i.e. no union should be able to monopolize a position regardless of who's in it
3) no union should be required to provide anything to someone who isn't paying them dues
4) none of a CBAs provisions should remain in effect after its expiration if another agreement hasn't been established

Seattle Becomes First U.S. City to Let Uber Drivers Unionize

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

soot

bg85

Thrilla

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

justabubba

long standing member

ludin

AliHajiSheik

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable

ludin

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

ludin

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

iliveonramen

Pontificator

Oozlefinch

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

Oozlefinch

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

jet57

Nilly

stb

Neomalthusian