|
It's unfortunately easy to understand how money has turned elections into an Oligarchy free-for-all, with politicians and their election campaigns being regarded as a line-item investments for international mega-corporations. How does that happen for the Supreme Court though? They're not elected and they're in for life, yet every few months we get another 'Gee aren't mega-corporations swell guys? We should give them THIS legal protection' ruling.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
SumYungGui posted:It's unfortunately easy to understand how money has turned elections into an Oligarchy free-for-all, with politicians and their election campaigns being regarded as a line-item investments for international mega-corporations. How does that happen for the Supreme Court though? They're not elected and they're in for life, yet every few months we get another 'Gee aren't mega-corporations swell guys? We should give them THIS legal protection' ruling. Well, some of them have family members who are major industry lobbyists. Mostly though I think it's just raw privilege. You don't get to be on the Supreme Court without "impeccable" credentials, i.e., odds are you have spent your entire life up to that point as part of an incredibly sheltered elite. Past that, for better or worse the current court has mostly been picked by Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:It's unfortunately easy to understand how money has turned elections into an Oligarchy free-for-all, with politicians and their election campaigns being regarded as a line-item investments for international mega-corporations. How does that happen for the Supreme Court though? They're not elected and they're in for life, yet every few months we get another 'Gee aren't mega-corporations swell guys? We should give them THIS legal protection' ruling. If an oligarchy controls elections, and those elected decide who sits on the court, then it's only natural that people thought to have beliefs in sync with the oligarchy would be chosen for the bench.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Gyges posted:If an oligarchy controls elections, and those elected decide who sits on the court, then it's only natural that people thought to have beliefs in sync with the oligarchy would be chosen for the bench. I kinda understand that so I, sadly, understand where a lot of the more social rulings going along ideological lines come from. Stuff like 'welp no racism in this country, better get rid of the protections!' It just seems that there's the same kind of direct we-own-you-do-what-we-say behavior when it comes to many of the rulings related to business. That kind of activity has become par for the course for bought and sold elected politicians and it's pretty easy to trace lines along 'Pass the laws we give you and we pay for your election'. Just seems a much more tenuous relationship for Justices. 'Make the rulings we want and we'll have our guys choose you once years ago and then you're set for life.'
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:I kinda understand that so I, sadly, understand where a lot of the more social rulings going along ideological lines come from. Stuff like 'welp no racism in this country, better get rid of the protections!' It just seems that there's the same kind of direct we-own-you-do-what-we-say behavior when it comes to many of the rulings related to business. That kind of activity has become par for the course for bought and sold elected politicians and it's pretty easy to trace lines along 'Pass the laws we give you and we pay for your election'. Just seems a much more tenuous relationship for Justices. 'Make the rulings we want and we'll have our guys choose you once years ago and then you're set for life.' Most of the Court's business-related rulings are rulings that interpret laws made by Congress. If you assume Congress is controlled by business, then why would you assume they're writing laws the Court can interpret not to be friendly to business? (Your entire analysis of Congress/elections as "bought" is simplistic and wrong, but I'm done having that argument on these forums.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
That they're appointed for life might insulate them from current politics, but it does not insulate them from politics at the time of their appointment. It's why avoiding a Republican POTUS is rather important, if only because of SCOTUS appointments
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Most of the Court's business-related rulings are rulings that interpret laws made by Congress. If you assume Congress is controlled by business, then why would you assume they're writing laws the Court can interpret not to be friendly to business? Ah, I didn't know they were clarifying rulings made by congress. I thought all the cases that came to them were through lower courts. I can see how ruling on cases coming from institutions like that would cause that sort of outcome. The more you know! I can personally promise to not get hot and bothered about the argument as I'm much more of a lurker to these threads than a poster. I'd dearly love to have some kind of belief that our elected officials are not treated as budgetary items for gigantic businesses. Where is my thought process wrong on that? It is one of the larger sources of frustration for me in even contemplating dealing with the political system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:Ah, I didn't know they were clarifying rulings made by congress. I thought all the cases that came to them were through lower courts. I can see how ruling on cases coming from institutions like that would cause that sort of outcome. The more you know! The cases are coming through lower courts... which interpret laws made by Congress. There's limits to what you can do with a corporate-friendly law. And what you're missing about the elected officials is that they get money (though less than you think, and not to them but to their campaigns) from lots of businesses which generally do not have unitary interests, but their staff do not. And staff make most of the decisions. What donations get you is an easier time getting a meeting with more senior staff; it's helpful, especially when there isn't a counter-interest speaking to the staff, but it's access, not influence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Gyges posted:If an oligarchy controls elections, and those elected decide who sits on the court, then it's only natural that people thought to have beliefs in sync with the oligarchy would be chosen for the bench. Bring on Justices Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders (replacing Alito and Scalia).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And what you're missing about the elected officials is that they get money (though less than you think, and not to them but to their campaigns) from lots of businesses which generally do not have unitary interests, but their staff do not. And staff make most of the decisions. What donations get you is an easier time getting a meeting with more senior staff; it's helpful, especially when there isn't a counter-interest speaking to the staff, but it's access, not influence. But access is influence? If one party gets to make their argument to the legislature and nobody else does, or one party gets a day and everyone else gets ten minutes . . .
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
No no access isn't influence. You see the only way money from big donors can exert influence on a politician is if they mutually sign an agreement saying "This $1 million is given in exchange for an aye vote on HR XYZ" Now if you'll excuse me, rational argumentation has convinced me that we need to give another $100 billion to the biggest corn farmers while slashing food stamps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
I am dying at "access != influence". And he seems very serious about it...
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:I kinda understand that so I, sadly, understand where a lot of the more social rulings going along ideological lines come from. Stuff like 'welp no racism in this country, better get rid of the protections!' It just seems that there's the same kind of direct we-own-you-do-what-we-say behavior when it comes to many of the rulings related to business. That kind of activity has become par for the course for bought and sold elected politicians and it's pretty easy to trace lines along 'Pass the laws we give you and we pay for your election'. Just seems a much more tenuous relationship for Justices. 'Make the rulings we want and we'll have our guys choose you once years ago and then you're set for life.' You don't make some sort of agreement with the person you choose as a justice. You choose someone who you are pretty sure actually agrees with you. This is easier when the vast majority of the pool you're choosing from has background and status that makes them demographically more likely to agree with you even before you start vetting. So when President A Subsidiary of Koch Inc. nominates someone, they makes sure and nominate a fellow traveler. Kalman posted:The cases are coming through lower courts... which interpret laws made by Congress. There's limits to what you can do with a corporate-friendly law. I would assume that any amalgam of businesses with non unitary interests still agree on a great deal of things. Pro corporate instead of pro worker policies for example. Also very few of their non overlapping interests will be contradictory. Though I guess businesses could be in the habit of just tossing money at politicians with no expectation of return.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, some of them have family members who are major industry lobbyists. Is there some primer on what it's like to actually live in a bubble where your family members are lobbyists, but you don't think unlimited campaign contributions would significantly influence elections? I can only make that work if I include mind blowing amounts of cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Is there some primer on what it's like to actually live in a bubble where your family members are lobbyists, but you don't think unlimited campaign contributions would significantly influence elections? I can only make that work if I include mind blowing amounts of cognitive dissonance. Isn't it precious? "We make a living influencing the government. But, the government cannot be influenced, so we're going to make it easier to make a living influencing the government." It's right up there with "racism no longer exists, so we'd like to welcome you to the post-racial society in which we make it easier to be racist."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:But access is influence? If one party gets to make their argument to the legislature and nobody else does, or one party gets a day and everyone else gets ten minutes . . . There's plenty of literature out there on how access rarely equals influence on the issues people care about enough that there's significant discussion; where access is influence is on issues where only one side cares enough to speak, so there's no counter-information to be had. Access is a predicate for influence (though access isn't predicated on money). That said, no matter how much money Comcast gives Al Franken, he's not going to vote for their mergers, and no matter how much money GLAAD gives John Cornyn, he's not going to embrace gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
quote:Former lobbyist Jack Abramoff disagrees with the Supreme Court's April 2 ruling on campaign finance limits, which knocked down the limit donors can give to a political candidate. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/jack-abramoff-supreme-court-campaign-finance_n_5169510.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&ir=Politics
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Kalman posted:There's plenty of literature out there on how access rarely equals influence on the issues people care about enough that there's significant discussion; where access is influence is on issues where only one side cares enough to speak, so there's no counter-information to be had. This is somewhat true where by "people" you mean "people who can donate large amounts of money." Unfortunately, a more accurate definition of "people" probably includes those who cannot afford to donate to political campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is somewhat true where by "people" you mean "people who can donate large amounts of money." Unfortunately, a more accurate definition of "people" probably includes those who cannot afford to donate to political campaigns. No, it means people such as interest groups like the ACLU, EFF, and similar as well as large companies. Lobbyists aren't restricted to corporations - interest groups employ lobbying as well, and often to greater effect. And actually individuals do sometimes lobby, though they tend not to be able to donate large amounts of time which is the real prerequisite to effective lobbying, not large amounts of money. (And if you ask a lobbyist what's effective, the money or the time they spend talking, they will tell you the time, every time. Even Abramoff admits that if you read the details, he's just a loudmouth who likes to dress it up.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, it means people such as interest groups like the ACLU, EFF, and similar as well as large companies. Lobbyists aren't restricted to corporations - interest groups employ lobbying as well, and often to greater effect. Yeah, I was including people who donate to ACLU, NRA, etc., as "people who can afford to donate to political campaigns." Even that is a luxury for many.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, it means people such as interest groups like the ACLU, EFF, and similar as well as large companies. Lobbyists aren't restricted to corporations - interest groups employ lobbying as well, and often to greater effect. I think saying "Congress is not ENTIRELY, in ALL THINGS, SOLELY the creature of the people who are paying for their campaigns" is pretty accurate, but I'd also say that most of them know who their real employers are. If you want to nitpick the popular image of some shadowy cabal, whatever I guess, but if campaign contributions aren't literally bribery they sure as gently caress do look like it, and I don't think this can be dismissed with some variation of "oh, well, of course it LOOKS like that... if you're IGNORANT," just since people haven't taken coursework in the fine details of the operations of a Congressional office.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Those interest groups can't make campaign contributions unless they have an affiliated PAC taking contributions from individuals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Those interest groups can't make campaign contributions unless they have an affiliated PAC taking contributions from individuals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So if it's just a question of time being effective, then, why don't all these big money hustlers just sponsor modest but loud lobbying groups to go bug people? Why would these people, who I will grant are reasonably intelligent if not all-consuming Promethean fonts of industry captaincy, blow such huge wads of money on political campaigns? If you're referring to people like Adelsson, it's because they're idiots. The smarter ones do, in fact, sponsor modest but loud lobbying groups to go bug people, or they do it themselves (the most effective lobbyist is your friend, and for better or worse, Congresspeople are friends with rich people.) Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Those interest groups can't make campaign contributions unless they have an affiliated PAC taking contributions from individuals. And yet they have no problem whatsoever getting access to and influencing Congress... almost like access and money aren't actually as effective as people think they are in comparison to effort and time spent talking and building relationships... Anyway, this is an argument I've had multiple times in this thread and it's predecessors and I'm not convincing anyone. I worked in the Senate, it doesn't work the way you think, you're not going to believe me no matter what I say, so I will drop it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Access is a predicate for influence (though access isn't predicated on money). That said, no matter how much money Comcast gives Al Franken, he's not going to vote for their mergers, and no matter how much money GLAAD gives John Cornyn, he's not going to embrace gay marriage. You seem to be conflating "influence" with "control". Influence obviously only effects the susceptible. Not everyone can be influenced to do everything, and not everyone is influenced in the same way. That's why a big part of corporate influence is making sure the people who WILL respond to your influence are the ones who get elected. Influence is not *guaranteed*, it is not all-powerful, it is not slavery, but it's blatantly wrong to argue it doesn't exist and that it doesn't play a big role in politics. It's not that you're arguments are wrong, it's that they are worthless, because what people are saying when they talk about influence seems to have nothing to do with what you describe as influence, since you've apparently redefined the term into meaninglessness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If you're referring to people like Adelsson, it's because they're idiots. The smarter ones do, in fact, sponsor modest but loud lobbying groups to go bug people, or they do it themselves (the most effective lobbyist is your friend, and for better or worse, Congresspeople are friends with rich people.) I imagine you have a lot of insights in the fine details of how things work, which I would welcome. I am even, myself, willing to tamp down on declaring regularly that the Congress is a racket, if it would make you more comfortable describing these things. However, I don't find what you're saying to be a persuasive indictment of the greater point, which is that money talks, and has only been getting louder over the course of my lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
My boss got our tea partier coal loving representative on board with a loving renewable energy project. All you have to do to get a rep behind something is: 1. Talk to the politician themselves directly. 2. Tell them how much money/jobs or whatever it will bring to his district. 3. Explain how it is in fact complementary to his previously held policy positions. The problem is number one, and that's access. You can in fact buy access. Past that you're good to go if you can put it in language that sounds good for their state/district or advancement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Explain to me how I get to spend time talking and building a relationship with a congressman or senator, or his or her staff, without having a. access and b. money - if nothing else the money to be in Washington DC and doing this for a living. Same advice I've given numerous times on these forums: call and ask. If it's your Senator or Rep, they will 100% have a state office, with staff, in your state. Probably listed on their website. Senators (depending on the state) may have anywhere from 2-8 offices (for example, Cornyn has a DC office and 7 Texas offices, while Sanders has 1 in DC and 2 in Vermont). Some Senators will list their contact numbers on their sites: for example, Bernie is http://www.sanders.senate.gov/contact/scheduling-requests Call them. Politely explain that you'd like to set up a meeting with a staffer and what you'd like to talk about. If they say state staff don't handle the issue, ask if they can set up a phone conference with the DC staff that do. Be polite but clear; like most people in Congress, schedulers are incredibly underpaid for how hard they work and they put up with a ton of bullshit. You'll get scheduled if you're nice to the scheduler and can explain what you want to talk about. Persistence helps. If you aren't a constituent (i.e. you want to talk to another Senator or Rep), it's harder, but you might still be able to set up a call with the DC staff. Try lying about being a donor if you really think it matters (again, I don't) - I've never heard of schedulers checking, though ours didn't care in the slightest, and staffers generally don't care if you donate or not. Note how nothing here requires money, and access is obtainable by asking? No requirement to be in DC? As a practical matter, if you can bring a signature sheet with you (bunch of constituents signed on to show that they care about the issue), it'll help with making them pay more attention to your issue, but even if it's just you, you can wield some influence on a staffer. And end of the day, that staffer (in conjunction with their state or DC counterpart) is the one who is going to tell the Senator what they think the truth of the matter is and how they should handle it. Now, if you do this regularly, are generally a good person to deal with, refrain from accusing them of being an establishment tool, and provide them with useful perspective (or even better, information), they'll start thinking of you as a friend, and your words will carry more weight. Congratulations - you're a lobbyist. Campaign finance is a smokescreen; the reason that campaign finance correlates to success legislatively is because people with money to spend on campaign finance also tend to be the people who can afford to/are in a position to lobby. (And if you want to try to set up a meeting with the politican themself without going to DC, it's harder, but possible - they're back in their state pretty much every weekend and for significant chunks of time throughout the year. Check the Senate/House calendars for "state work period" times.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Call them. quote:Politely explain that you'd like to set up a meeting with a staffer and what you'd like to talk about. If they say state staff don't handle the issue, ask if they can set up a phone conference with the DC staff that do. quote:Be polite but clear; like most people in Congress, schedulers are incredibly underpaid for how hard they work and they put up with a ton of bullshit. quote:If you aren't a constituent (i.e. you want to talk to another Senator or Rep), it's harder, but you might still be able to set up a call with the DC staff. Try lying about being a donor if you really think it matters (again, I don't) - I've never heard of schedulers checking, though ours didn't care in the slightest, and staffers generally don't care if you donate or not. quote:Now, if you do this regularly, are generally a good person to deal with, refrain from accusing them of being an establishment tool, and provide them with useful perspective (or even better, information), they'll start thinking of you as a friend, and your words will carry more weight. Congratulations - you're a lobbyist. quote:Campaign finance is a smokescreen; the reason that campaign finance correlates to success legislatively is because people with money to spend on campaign finance also tend to be the people who can afford to/are in a position to lobby. All of what you said is interesting - and good tactical advice! I am dubious on how well the cultivated impression you describe would last if, for instance, someone with a bunch of cash to swing around came in. The fact that people power can often counter or at least mitigate money power doesn't seem to be a argument that money power isn't real. What do you do, also, if you happen to live in a district represented by someone opposed to basically anything you'd want? I wrote lots of letters - even made some calls - to my House rep when I lived in Texas. I'm pretty left - he was John Culberson - how much of a poo poo do you think he gave? Nessus fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Yeah, for me, it's a simple matter of if campaign contributions/expensive lobbyists didn't get serious results versus doing it on the cheap, there would be no campaign contributions/expensive lobbyists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Campaign finance is a smokescreen; the reason that campaign finance correlates to success legislatively is because people with money to spend on campaign finance also tend to be the people who can afford to/are in a position to lobby. Oh okay great. If money is totally impotent in advancing your political agenda, then I guess it's not political speech after all and we can put whatever limits we want on campaign donations.  BRB calling John Roberts
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh okay great. If money is totally impotent in advancing your political agenda, then I guess it's not political speech after all and we can put whatever limits we want on campaign donations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Same advice I've given numerous times on these forums: call and ask. This comes down to the same reason why registration/voting restrictions are so effective: not everyone can go to place and take the time to speak with some uninterested junior flacky about policy that affects them (but probably [most likely] is a minor annoyance to the wealthy). Go ahead and call up your congresscritter about eliminating some business incentive that increases pollution in your back yard, and see how much influence you have over the rear end in a top hat's golfing buddy who gets that incentive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Nessus posted:When, during business hours? The same hours where I am quite likely working? Well, not quite so likely any more, but you get my point. My access/cash comment was more directed to your own reps - talking to someone who doesn't represent you is definitely harder if you aren't local to either DC or their state. You should almost certainly be able to set up something with your own person. Yeah, it requires time and the ability to get to their state office, but honestly, I'm not sure what you want at that point - how exactly are they supposed to be influenced by you if you can't spend any time to do it? I mean, even in an ideal system, you're going to need to spend some time (or money to an interest group to spend time on your behalf) to convey your desires, or else how are they supposed to know? Money is an advantage in that it allows people to pay people to spend time on their behalf, sure. I will 100% agree with that. But there are aggregator public interest groups who lobby on issues if you can't spend the time and want to contribute something. quote:So how come they put so much work and effort into making it easier and easier to do it, over the course of decades, then? Because it does help a bit in accessing people who aren't your own representatives and they have a lot of money to spare so why not? (Also because there are some rich idiots out there who think it works more effectively than it does in practice.) Again, the real way influence is wielded is in interpersonal relationships between lobbyists and representatives and their staffs. If you go to a 100% publicly financed campaign system, that won't change. Basically: Good luck banning knowing people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Kalman posted:My access/cash comment was more directed to your own reps - talking to someone who doesn't represent you is definitely harder if you aren't local to either DC or their state. You should almost certainly be able to set up something with your own person. As for how they're supposed to know, that's a good question. However, at what point does my lack of spare time, energy or money forfeit my right to a representative form of government? I would say we're well past that at the moment, though we might disagree on the fine details of the reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
What do congresspersons, especially ones in blue districts, have the power to do? I know they're not attaching riders to all that meaningful legislation leaving the House these days, but honestly there must be examples of things they do for the state that's not just earmarks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Kalman, what is your take on Chris Christie's slobbering blow job of Sheldon adelson? In particular, how Christie had to Back pedal like a madman after his comment that he flew over the 'occupied' Territories in Israel? Because it looks to me like a man who has several of the most high profile republicans personally fly out to meet with him has considerably more influence and access than any individual citizen by virtue of the amount of money he is capable of devoting to a campaign. He has enough influence that he can cause a state Governor and possible presidential candidate (if unlikely) to retract a statement he'd made only hours earlier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Funny that you should be talking about oligarchy today. Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy. There is a link to the study in that article. I haven't read the study yet but the news synopsis is interesting.quote:The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Caros posted:Kalman, what is your take on Chris Christie's slobbering blow job of Sheldon adelson? In particular, how Christie had to Back pedal like a madman after his comment that he flew over the 'occupied' Territories in Israel? Just going to throw out here that Adelson wasn't the only one making noise about using the word "occupied" and Christie retracted it because he didn't want the people who fundraise for him to be irritable. Also going to throw out there that retracting a statement is very different from changing policy - does anyone really think that Christie was going to back the PA over Israel and only decided not to because Adelson made noise? (That said, I know nothing more than anyone here does about presidential politics and the interaction of money and policy there. I know a decent amount about how it works in the Senate, and some about how it works in the House. There may be differences in the presidential, state, and local contexts.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Given that a presidential campaign now requires staying operational if not robust for about two years before anyone votes, presidential candidates would seem to have different incentives re: keeping donors happy and if Christie takes money from Wilbur "Uncle Sugar" Fuckcornington, those incentives might shift in January of 2016.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:18
|
|
