|
Epic High Five posted:I always thought it was funny that Liberty University hosts politicians from all sides of the spectrum, but the students are only allowed to vote for Republicans For some in the Evangelical camp: No LGBTQ rights at any cost. (To them, more or less.)
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
The press loves a Death Watch as much as a horse race, but I doubt they're ready to switch over to that mode yet. It's funny how unprepared Trump was for the press to switch from "whatever the last thing Trump said is what Trump thinks" to "whatever the worst thing Trump has said is what Trump thinks" though, despite the whole world warning him that it would happen once he left the primaries
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
My mom was a lifelong single issue(pro-life) Republican voter up until 2008. She was nearly in tears one morning at the prospect of Trump becoming president. The idea that a classy man like Obama could be replaced by some rude as hell fear monger scared her more than any actual positions. I suspect a lot of low information voters are getting that feeling, they just want to feel good about the future, not crippling fear. The rest of my family falls into the old "you're Irish, you're catholic, and you vote democrat" mode.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I always thought it was funny that Liberty University hosts politicians from all sides of the spectrum, but the students are only allowed to vote for Republicans How does that work exactly? How would the school even know?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Read the whole thing, it's not long and it's great. TLDR: we already know what the solution is to this problem, and it's not smashing the machines so we can all be gainfully employed churning our own butter. It's a good read, but I feel like they definitely oversimplify and overlook some important things. Let's first take a look at the line "If the ordinary wage-earner worked four hours a day, there would be enough for everybody and no unemployment -- assuming a certain very moderate amount of sensible organization" since there are actually a few issues with this line in particular. They avoid going into detail on just how there would be no unemployment and enough wealth to go around for everyone, and I suspect that part of why they avoid expanding upon it here is that it doesn't make much sense in any reasonable scenario. If people are only working half as long as they normally would yet there is still "enough for everybody" it must mean that they are making just as much (or close to as much) as they would if they were working eight hours, but the sentence goes on to say that this four hour workday would somehow also result in "no unemployment". But how can that be possible? Why, they must be getting rid of unemployment by hiring twice as many people so that you have two groups of people working in four hour shifts or one very large group working together in a four hour shift. Except, if there is still "enough for everybody" that means that second group of people must also be getting paid as much for working four hours as they would have gotten for working eight hours. This is a conundrum because this means that either: A) you have a company which just has so much extra money to go around that it can double its number of employees while still paying every single one of them eight hours worth of wages for four hours of work B) You have a company which doesn't need extra people and decides to pay its employees as much as it always has while slashing their work time in half because the remaining hours were just excess (this doesn't take care of the unemployment factor) C) You have a company which does have eight hours worth of work and it decides to hire twice as many people while paying each of them four hours worth of wages for four hours of work (this doesn't take care of having enough to go around) D) The workers were already making so much money that they can afford to have their wages cut in half along with their work hours while the company hires twice as many people (this is about as likely as A). If there is a remaining alternative as to how these four hour work days can both provide enough for everyone while also eliminating unemployment I just don't see it and it doesn't seem to be addressed in the article. The other issue at play here is that he focuses entirely on manual labor while largely writing off any other sort of work as something people can and will do for the sheer joy of it in their leisure time. While the increasing march of technology means that many jobs probably could function with a shorter work day, many can't. For example, it would be unreasonable to assume that anyone who is any sort of specialist, whether they are a surgeon or an actor, could actually function with a four hour work day. Some things which don't rely on manufacturing really do simply take a good amount of time to make and rely on a specific person to make them happen (ex: an actor in a movie) and no amount of technological advancement is going to make that go faster. In other cases, such as in the case of a skilled surgeon, it really is worth it to have a person around and on-call for a large portion of the day even if there is no immediate need for them. You can't slash work time in half for every single job, some jobs require a specific person or very specialized/experienced type of person to function, and, if there really are eight hours worth of work to be done, doubling up on people to reduce unemployment and cut work hours in half (presumably along with wages) only goes so far before it becomes a chaotic mess. I also have no idea as to how the economy would possibly balance things out. If it was balanced with four-hour workers in mind then everyone who must work or decides to work eight hours has significantly more wealth and at that point extra work would actually take on more value in the minds of much of the population and many people would seek out secondary jobs to make twice as much profit anyway (at which point such a large percentage of the population would have a high amount of money that market prices would likely start to go up since you'd have more people willing to spend more and at that point things would become more difficult for four-hour workers unless they also start to seek out extra work which defeats the entire purpose of the thing). You could maybe try to fix the whole thing with new laws like 'every job is a salaried position so jobs which demand twice as many hours don't lead to twice as much pay' and 'you aren't allowed to have more than one source of employment (self-employment excluded) because there must be enough jobs for everyone', but now you have a government which is actively refusing to let people do extra work even if they want to and you still either have people who are unhappy because they must work longer for the same or similar pay as others or you have a severe lack of people applying for jobs which demand longer hours because the only people who would do so are those who want to take on the jobs for the sheer pleasure of it. In other words, I appreciate and agree with the article's main point that we shouldn't praise work for the sake of it and that we should be happy if we can have leisure rather than feel some odd sense of disdain over not working for the sake of working. I also think it's certainly possible that the average amount of work a large portion of the population needs to perform and the amount of time they need to spend doing it will decline over time without many, if any, negative repercussions. However, the apparent solution offered of 'just cut work hours in half and that fixes unemployment while keeping everyone happy' is absolutely nonsensical, grossly oversimplified fluff which the article deliberately dances around by speaking of the virtues and benefits which would come from such a thing rather than taking a moment to seriously explain the mechanics of how this could be executed in a realistic fashion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:How does that work exactly? How would the school even know? They can't know, know, obviously. I mean they probably actually can because they pretty much run Lynchberg at this point, but OFFICIALLY they can't know. But be certain that if you let it slip to a single person that you didn't vote for the Republican, or even seem like you weren't totally enthusiastic about them, you'll be ratted out by somebody looking to brown nose. I doubt there's trials, so that's all it would take for demerits or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:What would happen if Paul Ryan spent the next two years sending bills that *weren't* "Defund Obamacare and also Hillary Clinton has smelly feet Act of 2017"? This one actually has me a bit nervous...Especially in a narrow house, there's going to be a push to move away from the Hastert Rule (for... many reasons...). If Democrats take back the Senate, he'd be in a position to take personal credit for every bill that went through without a Republican majority. The last 8 years of "Paul Ryan is the smartest, handsomest, wonkiest boy in Washington. Oh yes he is. Oh yes he is" has shown that he has an innate ability to force the media to cover him how he wants, facts be damned. 4 years of Paul Ryan, The Great Negotiator giving up things that the Chamber is okay with (minimum wage, infrastructure stimulus) in exchange for things that Democrats are fine with (TPP, extended suspension of medical device tax) and he'll be the nominee in 2020, the commonsense candidate who will reach across the aisle to unite us, unlike that ultraliberal Clinton. It'll be ten years after he rose to national prominence, and we still won't have an actual budget from the GOP's Budgetary Whiz Kid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Is this the first fuckin' day we've gone since the DNC where Trump hasn't stuffed both feet directly in his own mouth? fake e; oh no wait, he's talking about that Iran $400mil tape that doesn't exist or whatever. It's just that there is so much to wade through we can't keep up with it all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:This one actually has me a bit nervous...Especially in a narrow house, there's going to be a push to move away from the Hastert Rule (for... many reasons...). If Democrats take back the Senate, he'd be in a position to take personal credit for every bill that went through without a Republican majority. The last 8 years of "Paul Ryan is the smartest, handsomest, wonkiest boy in Washington. Oh yes he is. Oh yes he is" has shown that he has an innate ability to force the media to cover him how he wants, facts be damned. Isn't this what Newt did?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:* I know none of these are really likely, but that the Clinton campaign could realistically take a look at the map and say "Okay, we're taking some of our money and spending it in SC and Montana, we might not win but we'll make the other guys have to defend in those places, and who knows, maybe we WILL win!" is complete insanity. Georgia has only gone D once since 1980, Montana only once since the 70s, story's even more extreme with the Dakotas and Utah. Both of Wyoming's residents appear to be devoted Trumpees though. Again, I'm not predicting Clinton will sweep these states or even take more than maybe one, and even that is optimistic, but that they are even potentially places she can attack to make Trump spend resources on defense is totally bugfuck insane. Also Love Me's a bit of a wild card with Utah and who knows what happens there?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
iospace posted:You have to remember a non-trivial amount of these people believe that government helping others out is taking away from their ability to help others, and thus lessening them in the eyes of god.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Have Some Flowers! posted:The media demands a horse race because it's good for business. So is a historical loss. You'll get a horse race every 4 years and everyone knows it. You might never get a Trump again in your lifetime. It's entirely profitable for them to completely poo poo on him from a great height and never pretend he can win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:So is a historical loss. You'll get a horse race every 4 years and everyone knows it. You might never get a Trump again in your lifetime. It's entirely profitable for them to completely poo poo on him from a great height and never pretend he can win. This. If you ever for a second doubt that the media would shy away from covering the Trump campaign as an unmitigated failure-disaster then I have a Malaysian plane to sell you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
I really hope Hillary finds a way to make this a national "vote for Democrats" campaign. Three months is a long, long time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
That and the media has hated Trump for at least 20, if not 30 years. The dude's been a villain of the media for longer than Hillary, showing up as a bad guy in Bloom County, Back to the Future II, and Sesame Street. This as as close to a good vs. evil narrative that the media can ever pull off for a US presidential election and they are going to milk it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The Trump campaign is incapable of "playing defense". If she did these things she would do it unopposed while Trump holds rally after rally in NY and CA. The effect on the downticket could make it worthwhile, though. Yeah you're not wrong (though I have to assume someone in the Trump camp is desperately trying to funnel any funding they can to the actual battlegrounds  ), but you have to wonder whether she might in that case do it just to strengthen her mandate and hammer the Republicans even harder. I mean how the gently caress's it gonna look on November 9th if she not only wipes Trump out with a 2008 Obama-style 360+ EC vote but also managed to grab one or two safe Republican states along the way? If she does want to flip something then Georgia is a more plausible prize and Texas a much bigger one anyway but the thing is the voters to win are already there in several states if the total apathy for Trump remains a constant, the question is the GOTV effort. Trump has little to no support from shitloads of downticket GOP folks and his campaign's ground game looks to be pretty loving atrocious as well. Like I said and will reiterate again, I'm not saying this is likely, nor am I saying this is Clinton's best route, I'm just voicing some bewildered bemusement that it's even something that wouldn't be a shock if it happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The Trump campaign is incapable of "playing defense". If she did these things she would do it unopposed while Trump holds rally after rally in NY and CA. The effect on the downticket could make it worthwhile, though. Downballot is huge this race and it seems the GOP has lost sight of it. Trump definitely has, and the convention reflected that. Kilroy posted:Theoretical ability or actual ability? How many of these people actually volunteer or give to charity or do gently caress all other than screech at their TV and into my Facebook feed about all the people and things they hate? Theoretical, really. Most evangelicals to me do just what you said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Seeric posted:It's a good read, but I feel like they definitely oversimplify and overlook some important things. [...] Out of curiosity, how familiar are you with the work of Bertrand Russell? I ask because this seems like a strange way to respond to a philosophical essay, and I think we're both getting very different things from the text.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
iospace posted:Downballot is huge this race and it seems the GOP has lost sight of it. Trump definitely has, and the convention reflected that. It's also one of the things that sunk Bernie. He didn't play ball with endorsements and suffered for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
For all the doom and glooming the Republican Party has been doing about the economy growing slowly, one sector continues to do well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:This. If you ever for a second doubt that the media would shy away from covering the Trump campaign as an unmitigated failure-disaster then I have a Malaysian plane to sell you. Oh they loving can, the question is if the media has the balls to step away from their Truth is In the Middle bubble to take that initiative. And I'm afraid I have no faith in them doing it. It's too dangerous to go after and say an active republican candidate is a failure because that means Republicanism failed by picking a giant loving failure. And that's too great of a sacrifice for RWM, CNN, or most of this country to publicly make.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:Oh they loving can, the question is if the media has the balls to step away from their Truth is In the Middle bubble to take that initiative. And I'm afraid I have no faith in them doing it. It's too dangerous to go after and say an active republican candidate is a failure because that means Republicanism failed by picking a giant loving failure. And that's too great of a sacrifice for RWM, CNN, or most of this country to publicly make. Unless the paint Trump as antithetical and hostile to mainstream republicans which is exactly the narrative that's been going on today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:4 years of Paul Ryan, The Great Negotiator giving up things that the Chamber is okay with (minimum wage, infrastructure stimulus) in exchange for things that Democrats are fine with (TPP, extended suspension of medical device tax) and he'll be the nominee in 2020, the commonsense candidate who will reach across the aisle to unite us, unlike that ultraliberal Clinton. It'll be ten years after he rose to national prominence, and we still won't have an actual budget from the GOP's Budgetary Whiz Kid. The problem with that idea is that making any kind of compromise would wreck his chances of winning the GOP primary, and I don't think the GOP still has the institutional experience or ability to commit to a long term plan like that. With a narrow majority it would only take a few Tea party assholes to torpedo any bill, and he's going to be dealing with at least thirty to forty of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
I've been keeping up as well as I can, but I'm begging anyone to give me a link to show people how utterly ridiculous trumps been since the 1st. I last checked yesterday afternoon and there's already 1k+ more posts now How does anyone actually possibly follow this thread 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
BlackWidowCult posted:Out of curiosity, how familiar are you with the work of Bertrand Russell? I ask because this seems like a strange way to respond to a philosophical essay, and I think we're both getting very different things from the text. I know absolutely nothing about him. From what I get out of the essay, it basically goes: the rich looked down on the poor and expected them to work because the rich couldn't imagine there being any benefit to the poor not constantly working. For much of human history the poor worked extremely hard to meet the bare minimum necessary to survive and even that wasn't always enough because the idle rich would still take what they had; the idleness and leisure of the rich was bad because it was founded upon the lower classes working a great deal for little gain. We should not praise work for the work in and of itself and should praise leisurely activities which make us happy (ex: we should be happy that we have a nice meal rather than praise the fact that someone had to work to make said meal). Modern advancements have made it so the lower and middle classes do not need to work extremely hard just to survive, but the mentality of 'idleness is bad and work is good and divine for the lower classes' hasn't been erased from the old days so people still work far more than they have to and much of that work amounts to wasted effort (ex: making twice as many pins as you could possibly need for the sake of working X hours). Reducing work hours to equal the amount of time needed to actually complete work rather than to equal the amount of time we feel we *should* have to spend on work results in everyone having more time for leisure, unemployment vanishing, and there still being enough resources to go around that nobody is literally starving in the streets. As people are happy they will be more inclined towards peace, at least 1% of the population will put this newfound sense of free time towards good and productive causes, and many will be able to partake in potentially useful activities like painting and writing without needing to worry about compromising their values for the sake of money. The issue here is that this philosophical idea assumes all of the following are true: 1) people in many jobs do not need to work as many hours nor as hard as they do to keep the economy 100% functional because much of the 'work' they do is in fact on creating excess waste 2) hours can be cut significantly while people still make enough to spend on things they need for survival and happiness 3) unemployment can be fixed by reducing hours 4) businesses and the economy at large will be able to adapt to a situation where many jobs are only four hours a day 5) people who only need to work four hours will either not seek out a second job to receive twice as much money, will not be able to work two jobs in eight hours for twice the profits, or will have no impact upon the market by doing so and 6) jobs which really do demand a longer work day will have no impact upon the economy and can be safely ignored. It's a paper which I can't particularly take seriously in the specific context of being "the solution to this problem" because it states that this reduction in work hours and this shift towards viewing leisure as a positive thing will solve the problem of unemployment while completely avoiding going into any sort of detail on how that could occur. At best you're either looking at a situation where life is made better for people who are already employed without solving the problem of other people needing jobs and without solving the problem of improvements in technology eventually completely eliminating certain forms of employment (reduced hours are good, not having a job with which to gain any sort of a profit is bad) or you have some sort of extremely idealized form of Communism which falls apart virtually the moment it leaves the bubble of philosophy because it assumes that people will be happy doing whatever needs to be done, people don't mind changing up and passing around jobs as needed, and nobody minds if they have to do a much more difficult task or a much more time-consuming task than those around them for the same pay and the painter will paint because that is what they enjoy (and the teacher will teach, the doctor will practice medicine, etc), the entire economy would be able to react to dramatic shifts in supply and demand just fine, and nobody would try to abuse power to turn the whole thing into a dictatorship.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:Unless the paint Trump as antithetical and hostile to mainstream republicans which is exactly the narrative that's been going on today. I doubt it will stick in the reptile brain of the public as that is again saying Republicanism did something bad or erred in even the slightest sense of Trump. You're trying to question outright faith for some people and I don't have any that they'll see the light nor really care to change and pull R anyway because Operant Conditioning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I've been keeping up as well as I can, but I'm begging anyone to give me a link to show people how utterly ridiculous trumps been since the 1st. I last checked yesterday afternoon and there's already 1k+ more posts now This article's got a nice summary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Crabtree posted:I doubt it will stick in the reptile brain of the public as that is again saying Republicanism did something bad or erred in even the slightest sense of Trump. You're trying to question outright faith for some people and I don't have any that they'll see the light nor really care to change and pull R anyway because Operant Conditioning. No I think we're in agreement. The media is painting the failure of Trump as separate from the Republican Party. The media narrative is that Trump is so far out the mainstream that this is an example of failing conservatism rather than conservatism failing. Way, rinse, repeat for Cruz in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Someone asked about this earlier but I didn't see a reply, has there been a snopes/politifact/similar article page explaining or disarming the bullshit that Republicans (and the people who took the bait) keep throwing at the Clintons? Something I can refer to when explaining that, no, the emails were not, in fact, prosecutable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:No I think we're in agreement. The media is painting the failure of Trump as separate from the Republican Party. The media narrative is that Trump is so far out the mainstream that this is an example of failing conservatism rather than conservatism failing. Way, rinse, repeat for Cruz in 2020. Only problem is the same tactics that Trump used in the primary could be inflicted on Cruz again because he's loving Zodiac Killer. So they'll be chastising a gigantic turd ahead of time, way before than after abandoning Romney after he lost and retreaded from the public/politics for a while, to set up game plans for maybe Cruz and no one else at this point 4 years down the line. Good luck hoping the Trumpeters will like this framework being said before he loses the election, RWM! EDIT: Mostly because Trump was already ahead of the game laying down his "THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED" contingency before the media finally started biting him for once. These two narratives cannot mix, especially when one makes the other look more accurate as the media actually dog piles on him gaffe after gaffe. Crabtree fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:I've been keeping up as well as I can, but I'm begging anyone to give me a link to show people how utterly ridiculous trumps been since the 1st. I last checked yesterday afternoon and there's already 1k+ more posts now Just skip to the end and make something up. Trump probably did it. Like the other day just skip 2000 posts and be all like, "wow I can't believe Trump yelled at a loving baby" and there ya go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Artificer posted:Someone asked about this earlier but I didn't see a reply, has there been a snopes/politifact/similar article page explaining or disarming the bullshit that Republicans (and the people who took the bait) keep throwing at the Clintons? For the emails here's a law review analysis of all comparable cases (without intention to do harm) which shows that nothing similar has been prosecuted in the last ~40 years. http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202737626175/Clintons-Email-Unwise-But-Likely-Not-Criminal Seeric posted:It's a good read, but I feel like they definitely oversimplify and overlook some important things. It's a philosopher working with perfect spheres, not a political engineer. Your criticisms fail to address how we went from 16 hour days to 8 hour days for most of the workforce though, which is the main point of his essay. He is talking about scaling amount of work with productivity in a sane way which doesn't create more unemployment, not solving existing unemployment. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Good to see that people are finally no longer talking about Trump being some kind of master puppeteer and seeing him for the obnoxious angry buffoon anybody with actual insight into him have always said he is. There is no pivot. There is no "private Trump". There is no plan. This is how Trump acted behind closed doors during business hours years before running for president entered the hairpiece that psychically controls the decrepit orange meat-thrall it uses for sustenance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Tom Clancy is Dead posted:For the emails here's a law review analysis of all comparable cases (without intention to do harm) which shows that nothing similar has been prosecuted in the last ~40 years. Neat, thanks! Anything else for the large variety of other stuff? Including stuff that actually (honestly) says if something actually is kind of sketch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFPTtCDLNcg
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:The press loves a Death Watch as much as a horse race, but I doubt they're ready to switch over to that mode yet. It's pretty clear that at some point someone gave the "fine go all-in on this fucker" order from up-high because the switch from horse-race to Look At This loving Guy was like instant and everywhere. Well except Hannity who's having a hilarious meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Oh god, I hope that this marks a shift in the way the media is approaching the Trump campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:It's pretty clear that at some point someone gave the "fine go all-in on this fucker" order from up-high because the switch from horse-race to Look At This loving Guy was like instant and everywhere. Because there are people that will hold the line because attacking Trump is attacking Conservatism. Especially when the results of Trump losing is President Hilldog. The Right has backed itself into a corner it seemingly can't get out without cutting something off. And that's either possibly a lot of Trumpist flesh to save Conservatism or the Masquerade of Conservatism Cannot Fail in standing by Trump until he fails/rage quits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Oh god, I hope that this marks a shift in the way the media is approaching the Trump campaign. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNA_IDX0qnM&t=128s
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Hahaha amazing. Even Fox drops the kayfabe and are like "are you loving serious"
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2016 09:27
|
|