US Politics Thread

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
18,166
Reactions
8,156
Points
113
A bud is arguing the woman brought it on herself driving "at the agent!" I can't even watch! I'm sure both sides are complicit at this point! ICE shouldn't be allowed to terrorize a city regardless of their motives or who's giving them their directives! :astonished-face::angry-face::fearful-face::anxious-face-with-sweat:
Then you should watch. She drive straight at the agent, she was at that stage a wanted criminal who had committed two crimes already and was committing two more. She wasn’t an innocent child, she was a rent-a-cause “activist”.

Both sides are not complicit. What is it with the left, always drawing false equivalences so they can try to justify supporting the people who are doing something wrong?

And ICE aren’t terrifying a city, they’re doing their job, which you didn’t complain about when Barack Obama was their boss.

Make it make sense..
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
18,166
Reactions
8,156
Points
113
This is from the BBC, left wing, legacy media, not from SubStack or Instagram, defining the scope of ICE agents activities.

What is ICE and what powers do its agents have to use force?

Quote:

They can detain US citizens in limited circumstances, such as if a person interferes with an arrest, assaults an officer, or ICE suspect the person of being in the US illegally.

Quote:

ICE's use of force actions are governed by a combination of the US Constitution, US law and the Department of Homeland Security's own policy guidelines.

Under the US constitution, law enforcement "can only use deadly force if the person poses a serious danger to them or other people, or the person has committed a violent crime", said Chris Slobogin, director of the criminal justice programme at Vanderbilt University Law School.

But the US Supreme Court has historically granted broad leniency to officers making in-the-moment decisions without the benefit of hindsight.

A DHS policy memo from 2023 states that federal officers "may use deadly force only when necessary" when they have "a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury" to themself or another person.

And guess what, their work is a success:

Border Crossings Once Again at a Record Low in November 2025

 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
16,681
Reactions
6,497
Points
113
Interesting perspective. In my view the ICE agent was a bit reckless with the shooting. But my point is folks shouldn't be messing with them, these guys aren't trained to de-escalate, mess with them at your own risk!

 
  • Like
Reactions: Kieran

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
16,681
Reactions
6,497
Points
113
lol! Couldn't resist posting this... I guess these are the rabbit holes identity politics lead people into. Logical sink holes:face-with-tears-of-joy:

 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kieran and mrzz

mrzz

Hater
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,768
Reactions
3,794
Points
113
I did post the existing policy above.
Now we are starting to have a meaningful conversation, but I mentioned protocol, which is broader than the policy that you posted, and I read.

There are interesting points here, but it is hard to follow when people insert some obvious falsehoods in their arguments. But the point that the officer should not have been in front of the vehicle is a good one. That is why I asked about protocols, as I was guessing those officers did not follow them properly. By not following those protocols, they might have contributed to the person being killed. I say "might", because things are not so clear cut. There are other people involved, the situation was quickly escalating, etc. And all that happened because of the actions of the person that was killed and the ones with her. With all the videos that emerged, there is zero doubt they are the root causes of everything.

This is from a writer on Substack, which @britbox and @Federberg have said they prefer as news sources to MSM. I don't know where this guy got this interview, but it's interesting, if true. I find no "Kramer Hammy" by googling him. Only posts of this statement on FB and Insta. To me, it sounds like a made up name. LOL.

Tom Hoefling1d
Tom Hoefling

Former law enforcement officer, Kramer Hammy:
"It is clear that US citizens' ignorance of federal laws and law enforcement duties, procedures, and limits of authority is getting to the point where it is deadly. I spent probably 3 hours watching and re-watching, and finding every single video and angle I could of the situation in Minnesota yesterday and came to one immovable conclusion based off of what I saw and what I know from a professional standpoint. This is long, but please give it a read.
"As a former officer, let me make something clear: ICE agents ARE NOT police officers, deputy sheriffs, or troopers. They are not local/state law enforcement. They are not federal criminal law enforcement. They have an INCREDIBLY limited scope of authority, and that scope of authority exists in detaining and arresting with probable cause and/or SIGNED WARRANTS those investigated and suspected of being in the US illegally.
"They cannot just pull anyone over for a traffic violation or because their car is in a place they don't want it. They have NO authority to pull people over for ANYTHING other than immigration enforcement- and even then that involves probable cause, such as a known vehicle of someone they have been tracking, or a warrant. On very rare occasions they have the legal authority to pull someone over if they are threatening the lives of others, but that was not happening in this case. They do not have the training nor the authority to pull ANYONE else over. They cannot arrest legal citizens. They cannot detain legal citizens without probable cause to believe they might not be legal. They have ZERO authority to be attempting to force entry into a vehicle- without even identifying themselves, without a warrant, without exigent circumstances such as a life being directly threatened- that is trying to drive down the street without probable cause in relation to IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.
"This ENTIRE situation in Minnesota was outside of the scope of legal authority from the get go. None of it was done within the scope of authority of ICE. Every single behavior those agents made was procedurally incorrect, done without proper authority, and was based off of intimidation and the assumption that people do not understand the law and their rights in regards to interactions with ICE.
"On no planet should an officer, agent, or any human being ever step in front of a car in 'drive' that is actively trying to leave and use their body as a shield to prevent a person from LEGALLY LEAVING a situation in which they are not legally being detained. It takes maybe a week of any kind of actual law enforcement training to understand that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES do you ever place yourself in front of a vehicle in 'drive.' That agent had every single opportunity to simply take two steps to the right and not be standing directly in front of a vehicle attempting to conduct their legal right to drive away.
"You can see the wheels are turned, [Renee] backed up and turned them to the right, moved forward a bit to leave, couldn't because an agent was standing in front of her, and continued to try to leave by TURNING HER WHEELS TO THE RIGHT and moving forward. He continually chose to stand there and not allow her to legally leave as she had every single right to do.
The officer pulling on her door and banging on her window and swearing at her had ZERO authority to order her out of her vehicle or attempt to make entry into her vehicle. NONE. A single day of actual training of the legal scope of authority and the LAW would've prevented that from happening.
"You now have a frightened citizen being blockaded by immigration agents (with another person in her vehicle) who had zero obligation to follow legally invalid orders from that agent, being blocked in and having a fully grown, masked man attempting to make entry into her car. If this were reversed, every single person would immediately feel she had every reasonable expectation to fear for her safety. It doesn't matter if she knew it was ICE because the agents weren't even acting in their scope of authority anyway.
"Whether or not she made the right decision by very CLEARLY- based off of how hard her wheels were turned and how low and to the driver corner windshield that shot was fired- trying to drive to the left of that agent is IRRELEVANT in the picture as a whole.
None of this would have happened if those agents had done even one single thing correctly. Not just correctly, but within their legal scope of authority. Every single moment of that interaction was escalated by untrained, unprofessional, procedurally inept "agents" who not only had zero control of themselves but everything around them. And not because they are helpless, but because their actions that did not fall under their scope of power CAUSED this. Their tempers, lack of training, and the knowledge that they can get away with violating their own scope of authority caused this.
"I will always be the first to defend law enforcement when lethal force very clearly is required. But this was not even remotely the case, and as an actual TRAINED professional in that field with experience and understanding of both the law and procedures, there is no justification for this- and it would benefit EVERYONE to actually read up on the laws, scope of authority, and use a single shred of common sense to see that this situation was started, escalated, and caused by the ICE agents involved. I have zero respect for those in power who are ignorant of the scope of their authority and abuse it at the cost of lives around them."


Some interesting arguments here, but again some lose arguments inside which are clearly false undermine the broader point. I will get to that, but first, the important thing is that this leads to a important and needed discussion: what can ICE agents do when people actively try to stop them? The author of the quoted text above basically says "nothing", while the officer in a video posted by @Kieran says otherwise. It is a legal discussion, that is needed, and we probably will not have it here.

One screaming falsehood in the text above is "
On no planet should an officer, agent, or any human being ever step in front of a car in 'drive' that is actively trying to leave and use their body as a shield to prevent a person from LEGALLY LEAVING a situation in which they are not legally being detained
"

That is the point, that person was not trying to leave the situation. She was there because she wanted, for hours the agents were asking her to leave. She was intentionally blocking the road. To say that the agent was in front of the car to stop her from leaving is absurd. He should not be there, probably not. But up to that second there was no reason to believe that she would leave the scene. And this is important: if there is someone in front of your car, it does not matter if you want to leave. If you accelerate in their direction, you are willing to harm that person.

If you are willing to convince me that the agents could have done a better job, you don't need to. I got this from the very first time I have seen the video. They were unable to deal with the situation. They are the professionals. Does this change the fact that this all happened because one group of people was actively seeking confrontation and putting themselves and others in danger? No.

It is a political blame game, that by the way, in the end, nobody wins. Looking ahead, the worst case scenario is if the full blame falls on the officers. If that happens, it will be the wild west of "protesters" blocking immigration officers. A lot more people will die, because the federal government will not back down, as it shouldn't. If it was me running the show, I would make a monumental effort to keep doing my job and protect the (recklessly childish) public that is trying to stop it.


From now on I will make a monumental effort myself to keep out of this discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kieran

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
18,166
Reactions
8,156
Points
113
lol! Couldn't resist posting this... I guess these are the rabbit holes identity politics lead people into. Logical sink holes:face-with-tears-of-joy:


There’s no getting through to the terminally indoctrinated… :face-with-head-bandage:
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
45,357
Reactions
16,051
Points
113
One screaming falsehood in the text above is "

"

That is the point, that person was not trying to leave the situation. She was there because she wanted, for hours the agents were asking her to leave. She was intentionally blocking the road. To say that the agent was in front of the car to stop her from leaving is absurd. He should not be there, probably not. But up to that second there was no reason to believe that she would leave the scene. And this is important: if there is someone in front of your car, it does not matter if you want to leave. If you accelerate in their direction, you are willing to harm that person.
Here, I have to disagree, again, and some of it is just wrong. I believe, as several who have done the analyses of the videos, as posted above, DO believe that she was trying to leave the scene. Many note that she had turned the wheels to the right. In fact, she did what everyone does when they're going to turn: she reverses, then turns the wheels towards the right. In fact, I think there is logical proof that she was turning away from the officer: he shoots her in the head, and most likely she had no control of the car, basically from where she was stopped. And yet, the car turns right and continues down the road when it is stopped by striking another car. If she had been aiming for the agent, then car would have continued straight, onto the grass or into the home, or the fence of the home, which seems to be in its direct path. So, don't accuse others of falsehood, when you are probably wrong.

Also, she wasn't there for "hours," as you say, but mere minutes. This video says the whole thing took about 4 minutes, including her driving into the place where you see her when she's shot. There's reason to believe she was going to turn left from there, and had no intention of just sitting there. Note that she was blocking NO ONE. Cars are seen to pass behind and in front of her vehicle. Just get it right.

I do agree that the officer was not in front of her vehicle to stop it from moving. He was there to film her. But do remember that you agreed above that it is possible that she was so engaged with Officer A, at her driver's side window, that she may have not seen Officer B, who came around from the far side of the car, and landed, not in front of it, but off to the left, and closer to Officer A, He was barely in the direct path of the car. If he hadn't been so intent on shooting her, he might have merely stepped out of her way.
From now on I will make a monumental effort myself to keep out of this discussion.
:face-with-tears-of-joy:
 

mrzz

Hater
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,768
Reactions
3,794
Points
113
Here, I have to disagree, again, and some of it is just wrong. I believe, as several who have done the analyses of the videos, as posted above, DO believe that she was trying to leave the scene. Many note that she had turned the wheels to the right. In fact, she did what everyone does when they're going to turn: she reverses, then turns the wheels towards the right. In fact, I think there is logical proof that she was turning away from the officer: he shoots her in the head, and most likely she had no control of the car, basically from where she was stopped. And yet, the car turns right and continues down the road when it is stopped by striking another car. If she had been aiming for the agent, then car would have continued straight, onto the grass or into the home, or the fence of the home, which seems to be in its direct path. So, don't accuse others of falsehood, when you are probably wrong.

Also, she wasn't there for "hours," as you say, but mere minutes. This video says the whole thing took about 4 minutes, including her driving into the place where you see her when she's shot. There's reason to believe she was going to turn left from there, and had no intention of just sitting there. Note that she was blocking NO ONE. Cars are seen to pass behind and in front of her vehicle. Just get it right.

I do agree that the officer was not in front of her vehicle to stop it from moving. He was there to film her. But do remember that you agreed above that it is possible that she was so engaged with Officer A, at her driver's side window, that she may have not seen Officer B, who came around from the far side of the car, and landed, not in front of it, but off to the left, and closer to Officer A, He was barely in the direct path of the car. If he hadn't been so intent on shooting her, he might have merely stepped out of her way.

:face-with-tears-of-joy:
I disagree with everything you posted above, apart from the emoji. And I could reply, with evidence, but it will be just another cycle....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kieran

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
18,166
Reactions
8,156
Points
113
Some interesting arguments here, but again some lose arguments inside which are clearly false undermine the broader point. I will get to that, but first, the important thing is that this leads to a important and needed discussion: what can ICE agents do when people actively try to stop them? The author of the quoted text above basically says "nothing", while the officer in a video posted by @Kieran says otherwise. It is a legal discussion, that is needed, and we probably will not have it here.

One screaming falsehood in the text above is "

"

That is the point, that person was not trying to leave the situation. She was there because she wanted, for hours the agents were asking her to leave. She was intentionally blocking the road. To say that the agent was in front of the car to stop her from leaving is absurd. He should not be there, probably not. But up to that second there was no reason to believe that she would leave the scene. And this is important: if there is someone in front of your car, it does not matter if you want to leave. If you accelerate in their direction, you are willing to harm that person.

If you are willing to convince me that the agents could have done a better job, you don't need to. I got this from the very first time I have seen the video. They were unable to deal with the situation. They are the professionals. Does this change the fact that this all happened because one group of people was actively seeking confrontation and putting themselves and others in danger? No.

It's hard to know if the agents could have done better, given that they were being blocked in, in real time, and had to try get rid of these insurgents so they could actually get on with the job they came to do. . Actually, they showed great restraint, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying there. These people caused the trouble, and of course, they're not held to any high standards at all. Instead, they set their own standards for disruption and destruction, and the harder they make the humble cop's life, the better they've succeeded. This is a definition of a society in mortal decline. It's a sign of malfunctioning society, of moral decadence.

I agree with you as well about the video of Supt Snelling from Chicago. He's quite clear, if you box in law enforcement officers then it's "reasonable for them to believe that they are being ambushed, and that this could end in a deadly situation...do not box in any law enforcement officer, you are putting yourself in danger..."

Just think, if we legal had standards for how people "protest", this wouldn't have happened. It's ironic that her partner was sneering at and bugging the ICE agents for wearing masks - which common sense dictates they should since there are people who dox them and want them dead - and yet every single protest we've seen across the usual fetish spectrum is populated by cowardly "protesters" who wear masks because know they're doing something wrong, but that's likely why they still want to do it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrzz

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
18,166
Reactions
8,156
Points
113
Here, I have to disagree, again, and some of it is just wrong. I believe, as several who have done the analyses of the videos, as posted above, DO believe that she was trying to leave the scene. Many note that she had turned the wheels to the right. In fact, she did what everyone does when they're going to turn: she reverses, then turns the wheels towards the right. In fact, I think there is logical proof that she was turning away from the officer: he shoots her in the head, and most likely she had no control of the car, basically from where she was stopped. And yet, the car turns right and continues down the road when it is stopped by striking another car. If she had been aiming for the agent, then car would have continued straight, onto the grass or into the home, or the fence of the home, which seems to be in its direct path. So, don't accuse others of falsehood, when you are probably wrong.

Also, she wasn't there for "hours," as you say, but mere minutes. This video says the whole thing took about 4 minutes, including her driving into the place where you see her when she's shot. There's reason to believe she was going to turn left from there, and had no intention of just sitting there. Note that she was blocking NO ONE. Cars are seen to pass behind and in front of her vehicle. Just get it right.

I do agree that the officer was not in front of her vehicle to stop it from moving. He was there to film her. But do remember that you agreed above that it is possible that she was so engaged with Officer A, at her driver's side window, that she may have not seen Officer B, who came around from the far side of the car, and landed, not in front of it, but off to the left, and closer to Officer A, He was barely in the direct path of the car. If he hadn't been so intent on shooting her, he might have merely stepped out of her way.

More wayward presumption, and I'm certain you won't explain your conclusions, anymore than you explained why you thought the officer didn't fear for his life.

"He was there to film her......if he hadn't been so intent on shooting her...."

Shooting her with his camera, no doubt, since you said he was there to film her. Why did you then say he was "intent on shooting her?" Did he tell you this? No. You said this because you think the law enforcement agents are "kinda cowboys." Why do you think that?

Because the left have been pushing this dehumanising and demonising project regarding police for so long, you've internalised it.

But what about her? You clearly think she's blameless but i've pointed out FOUR crimes she committed which led up to her death. Do you see absolutely no fault on her part at all for this situation?

Clue: she'd be alive if she'd followed the law...
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrzz

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
16,681
Reactions
6,497
Points
113
1768157655599.jpeg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kieran

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
45,357
Reactions
16,051
Points
113
It's hard to know if the agents could have done better, given that they were being blocked in, in real time, and had to try get rid of these insurgents so they could actually get on with the job they came to do. .
It seems clear you haven't watched the videos. The ICE agents were NOT blocked in, as I mentioned above. You can see clearly that SUVs could get around behind, and in front of, her vehicle. And she'd only been there a few minutes. If they would actually just get on with their job, and ignore random vehicles, this would never have happened.
Actually, they showed great restraint,
Well, no, one cop was instantly yelling obscenities at the woman, and the other one drew a gun, then shot her 3 times. You call that "restraint?"
These people caused the trouble, and of course, they're not held to any high standards at all. Instead, they set their own standards for disruption and destruction, and the harder they make the humble cop's life, the better they've succeeded. This is a definition of a society in mortal decline. It's a sign of malfunctioning society, of moral decadence.
So much hyperbole!
I agree with you as well about the video of Supt Snelling from Chicago. He's quite clear, if you box in law enforcement officers then it's "reasonable for them to believe that they are being ambushed, and that this could end in a deadly situation...do not box in any law enforcement officer, you are putting yourself in danger..."

Just think, if we legal had standards for how people "protest", this wouldn't have happened. It's ironic that her partner was sneering at and bugging the ICE agents for wearing masks - which common sense dictates they should since there are people who dox them and want them dead - and yet every single protest we've seen across the usual fetish spectrum is populated by cowardly "protesters" who wear masks because know they're doing something wrong, but that's likely why they still want to do it...
Again, no one was boxed in. And there are standards for how people protest. They have to do so peacefully. And I'm not sure what protests you go to, but I rarely see people masked. Note, these women were not, and people blowing whistles likely aren't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
45,357
Reactions
16,051
Points
113
More wayward presumption, and I'm certain you won't explain your conclusions, anymore than you explained why you thought the officer didn't fear for his life.
But I have explained my theories, and I don't believe I've drawn any real conclusions. As I told Mrzz, we both tend towards certain things from what we see, but we're hoping there'll be a proper investigation.
"He was there to film her......if he hadn't been so intent on shooting her...."

Shooting her with his camera, no doubt, since you said he was there to film her. Why did you then say he was "intent on shooting her?" Did he tell you this? No. You said this because you think the law enforcement agents are "kinda cowboys." Why do you think that?
You know what I was saying. I said that he could easily have stepped back from the car, which was turning away from him. Instead, he stood his ground so he could shoot her. Many cops have said he should have stepped back.

I think they're kind of cowboys because they extend their actions well-beyond their proscribed duties. Interacting with citizens is not part of their job. They should try harder to avoid it than they do. The first cop told that woman to "get out of the fucking car!" and reached at her door and into her car. This is aggressive behavior and was uncalled for. The 2nd cop drew his gun. They are not allowed to shoot at people attempting to leave, merely to try to stop them. She was turning her wheel hard to the right, with the cop standing on the left, and this is recorded by HIS camera. He should have been able to see her intent. Instead, he shot her.
Because the left have been pushing this dehumanising and demonising project regarding police for so long, you've internalised it.

But what about her? You clearly think she's blameless but i've pointed out FOUR crimes she committed which led up to her death. Do you see absolutely no fault on her part at all for this situation?
You pointed out for things that I said, and they weren't crimes. Tell me which ones were crimes. She did graze the cop, most likely, who was standing toward the front of her vehicle. Which he shouldn't have done, according to the retired ICE cop in a video above. She did not block anyone in. She does not have to get out of her car when subjected to such abuse, and with no reason. ICE is not supposed to do the job of local police.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
16,681
Reactions
6,497
Points
113
Kidding aside, many fear that if the US violates Greenland and Denmark's sovereignty, this could be the end of NATO. You said when Trump was elected that was one of your big concerns.
I think Trump is being Trump and trying to negotiate. I don't believe he'll actually try to attack. It's completely unnecessary as I think the Danes would have been happy to entertain more US bases in Greenland. I think this is primarily domestic signalling and posturing for China and Russia because of Arctic security concerns. Justified concerns actually. But as usual Trump might be right with his concerns but appalling in the execution. Even presenting this possibility of an invasion has already been highly damaging to NATO. The reality as we all know is that whatever Trump even tried to do in Greenland would have to be ratified in Congress and there's zero chance of a two thirds majority in the Senate which I believe would be required for something like this
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kieran and Moxie

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
12,070
Reactions
2,787
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
A vid snuck thru to make me aware Republicans are revolting against Trump! As much as they've collectively tried to overturn the ACA since 2011, they went ahead to approve & extend funding! Such idiots! They truly are hurting themselves & their Red States more than anyone! It should be a bloodbath thru the next series of elections! They've already lost a few seats that were secure in deep conservative districts! It can only get worse, but I'm not sure it'll be enuf for the country to recover from this past year of utter insanity! :astonished-face::yawningface::fearful-face::anxious-face-with-sweat:
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
45,357
Reactions
16,051
Points
113
I think Trump is being Trump and trying to negotiate. I don't believe he'll actually try to attack. It's completely unnecessary as I think the Danes would have been happy to entertain more US bases in Greenland. I think this is primarily domestic signalling and posturing for China and Russia because of Arctic security concerns. Justified concerns actually. But as usual Trump might be right with his concerns but appalling in the execution. Even presenting this possibility of an invasion has already been highly damaging to NATO. The reality as we all know is that whatever Trump even tried to do in Greenland would have to be ratified in Congress and there's zero chance of a two thirds majority in the Senate which I believe would be required for something like this
I do like to think he's just blustering, but his two favorite parts of his job seem to be Commander in Chief, and redecorator in Chief. I agree that damage has been done to NATO, along with several other things he's done this past year. He has no respect for our allies in Europe, and no respect for our alliances, much less an understanding of why we need to keep them strong. I don't mind that he's woken them up a bit about the need to be more independent about defending themselves. That's a good thing.

But this saber-rattling over Greenland is pointless. We can have more bases if we want them. Greenland has said so, and I'm sure Denmark would agree. I don't see how we'd be in better shape if we "owned" it. I can tell you, though, we'd probably ruin it.

There goes his Nobel Peace Prize. Though Machado has offered to give him hers. It won't make him the recipient, but he'll put it with the bling on his Oval Office mantel, anyway.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
mrzz World Affairs 2693
T World Affairs 13
britbox World Affairs 89
britbox World Affairs 1129
britbox World Affairs 46