|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
VitalSigns posted:No you've got it all wrong. Of course I want to fix these problems and I believe we must do everything we can in order to accomplish it. Make you dig your own grave and then shoot you into it.
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 08:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No you've got it all wrong. Of course I want to fix these problems and I believe we must do everything we can in order to accomplish it. Legal weed.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK keeping all that in mind, now let's hear your plan, leftists.  I don't really know what's after that and I don't really care. It's rather likely capitalists have already permanently curtailed human potential via climate change anyway, so overflowing the streets with their blood seems cathartic, if nothing else, and if it doesn't accomplish much (or is counterproductive), perhaps that doesn't matter anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Make you dig your own grave and then shoot you into it. I somehow doubt he was being 100% sincere. Although, yes, when someone starts complaining about bilingualism in this country, it's time for let some air into that skull cavity.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:You don't believe in anything. The opposite is true. VitalSigns posted:This ~0.5% price increase we're worrying about is less than the central bank's annual inflation target, and the status quo loves spending billions to prop up asset prices with quantitative easing. This doesn't believe in anything since actually helping the poor means embracing an analysis of the numbers being mocked. VitalSigns posted:No you've got it all wrong. Of course I want to fix these problems and I believe we must do everything we can in order to accomplish it. Ironically this second comment mocks the emotionally charged "I just want it" ideology of the first since that fact-downplaying sentiment is exactly what leads to "tough on crime" policy which doesn't reduce crime, terrorism fighting policy that makes us less safe and climate denying policy that's economically self-defeating. Material comfort is a conservative force but ideological comfort may be more damaging.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Asdf32 is a waste
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This doesn't believe in anything since actually helping the poor means embracing an analysis of the numbers being mocked. Evidently not only do you not believe in numbers, you also don't believe in words. Try it again. It might be more helpful if you start from the core of your argument, "I personally am comfortable with the system that produced President Trump, so everyone else can gently caress off," and work from there.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
I think that's important. President Trump isn't some wacky thing that we accidentally stumbled into. A fascist Republican leader was an inevitability as cost of living increased, wages don't keep up, retirement, health care, and building a family become a "privilege" for a select few, and both political parties are either complicit in or not really willing to combat the extremist white supremacy that is taking rise in areas of the country (or never actually went away). Our current system created this monster and will make another if things just chug along after he's ousted without addressing anything and the next one won't be so stupid as to kick off his administration by starting a two front front war against the media and intelligence agencies. A Democrat that gets elected in 2020 and governs in the same way Obama did will not solve anything other than punting the can for four to eight years and someone that's really able to take advantage of our garbage system that appears to be designed to allow people to act illegally without consequences takes over.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Remember that the Democrats are instantly and presently willing to collaborate with the republicans rather than move left
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Remember that the Democrats are instantly and presently willing to collaborate with the republicans rather than move left No, you misunderstand. They are just saving up their ~political capital~
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Remember that the Democrats are instantly and presently willing to collaborate with the republicans rather than move left Well, thankfully that seems to be less the case right now. The Dems seem to be realizing that they have more to fear from their own base than from Republicans, which is the way things should be. I do hope leftists get behind progressive primary candidates challenging centrist incumbents for 2018, and scare the poo poo out of them.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
See the nice things about the discussions with people like asdf32 and JeffersonClay is that you learn very quickly that we are not the same thing. Political and material forces may have for some time have made us allies of convenience, for so long that we forget that there is a difference. But it is becoming more clear that what we want, in ideology, in material terms and what we are willing to sacrifice to get there are different things. For all the talk of unity, that is impossible unless we want the same the same thing. The splitting of the democratic party cannot come fast enough.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
White Rock posted:See the nice things about the discussions with people like asdf32 and JeffersonClay is that you learn very quickly that we are not the same thing. Turns out those assholes are just conservatives
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Turns out those assholes are just conservatives Well I would say most are really liberals, and are showing the limits of liberalism. Liberalism would be fine with a world with injustice if the injustice is accomplished through grounds that are not explicitly authoritarian, or racist, or that explicetley are done based on birth rite. As long as the injustice is done for the sake of advancing property they are fine with it. No matter how horrible. Also the violation of property that wasn't just the result of recent conquest for most liberals is far worse then the previous injustices. That is why we are seeing this breakdown now. To thse liberals us wanting to resolve the problems of property is a great crime.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes that's how math works. Giving money to a small number of people and spreading it to a larger number of people makes it look small. You could give me a 3 million dollars and it would only cost you a penny! The thing you seem to keep ignoring is the fact that there's not a 1:1 ratio of money put towards increased minimum wage and increased costs. A non-zero amount of costs (probably a pretty significant percent, especially in certain industries) would not get passed on to consumers. This means that a minimum wage increase would, ultimately, represent a wealth transfer from the wealthy (in the form of owners, higher paid employees, and wealthier consumers) to the working class (literally everyone who would be affected by the minimum wage increase to begin with). Your argument only makes sense if you both assume that 1. all minimum wage increases will be paid for by increased prices and 2. all consumers are also working class. Because even if you did assume the former, those cost increases would be absorbed by Americans of all income levels, meaning that - in the end - the working class still comes out ahead. So I guess what I'm saying here is that you're not exactly in a place to be criticizing others for having poor math skills. asdf32 posted:Taking money from the rich is a really good idea that absolutely won't make the economy fall apart. Minimum wage is not really the thing to do that though. You have a point in the sense that there are better ways to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, but that doesn't change the fact that a higher minimum wage is still a positive change from the status quo. Yeah, it would be better to straight-up increase taxes on the wealthy and pass that wealth to the poor (both employed and unemployed), but that clearly isn't happening any time soon (at least to an extent that would make a significant difference). Phi230 posted:Centrism is literally the belief in nothing and that sentence alone makes you retarded. I think centrism is more accurately described as a belief that the status quo is more or less ideal (or close to it). Centrists may see some room for improvement, but they ultimately believe that the risks from significant change outweigh the benefits. This is why most ideological centrists tend to be financially secure. They have a lot more to lose from change than they have to gain, and so they end up strongly biased against any ideas that would necessitate significant change. As I've mentioned before, they tend to heavily overvalue potential future suffering relative to present suffering, because they aren't affected by the latter (but have a non-zero chance of being affected by the former). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:38 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
White Rock posted:See the nice things about the discussions with people like asdf32 and JeffersonClay is that you learn very quickly that we are not the same thing. The problem is it comes against the hard face of American electoral politics and its two party controlled FPTP system, which is the whole reason they have so much influence in the first place. I don't see it changing either since both parties have a massive amount of funding, and control ballot access at the state level. One reason they are so confident is that the entire system is arranged in their favor, and there are few to zero legal ways around it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The problem is it comes against the hard face of American electoral politics and its two party controlled FPTP system, which is the whole reason they have so much influence in the first place. I don't see it changing either since both parties have a massive amount of funding, and control ballot access at the state level. Guillotines solve many problems
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Guillotines solve many problems I think if we continue working we can begin to pruge county parties of sub human filth like them, and then in another four to six have so purged the party that they'll either vote GOP or not at all.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:liberal democratic capitalism gave you what is in the white house right now Yeah, that's the funny thing. Trump is in office right now largely because of our free, profit-driven press.* This isn't to say that I know of an alternative that would have avoided Trump, but it's sort of inherently funny to refer to Trump as something somehow different from liberal capitalism. *Not that there's much of a better alternative, though I do think that state press alongside free press is probably optimal. Apoplexy posted:Dumb question, but what do you LOSE when you accede to the demands of the left and give gay people, women, minorities, and the poor more protections or even equal rights? The status quo is loving abysmal for hundreds of millions of Americans. I believe that he is saying that, under the status quo, minorities and other oppressed groups will continue to see their conditions improve. I think that many relatively well-off liberals tend to heavily overstate how much progress we've made in this regard, probably because they don't have to see how abysmal conditions remain for poor minorities in our country, who continue to live in de facto segregated cities, attend de facto segregated schools, etc. These problems can only be solved through far more large-scale policy than is palatable to your average centrist liberal. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The problem is it comes against the hard face of American electoral politics and its two party controlled FPTP system, which is the whole reason they have so much influence in the first place. I don't see it changing either since both parties have a massive amount of funding, and control ballot access at the state level. The problem is that we're rapidly approaching a point where we functionally no longer have a democratic system. Republican policies are entirely unacceptable to Democratic voters and Democratic policies are entirely unacceptable to Republican voters. There may be compromises that are acceptable to the moderate wings of both parties, but those compromises are unacceptable to the remaining constituencies and probably horrifying to the far-left and far-right wings of both parties. Hell, the only reason we're hanging on to a thread of basic federal social services is because Republicans are too incompetent to gut them when they have total control of the government. The Democrats would be completely powerless to stop them if they could actually get their poo poo together. So where does that leave us? Most voters are effectively living in a one party state since voting for the other team is always the lesser of two evils, no matter how much you dislike or disagree with the person that your team puts up. We paper over this kind of extreme partisanship with a thin veneer of horse race narratives and debates and stories about "undecided" voters, but that's only going to hold up for so long when the underlying reality is that our country is divided by irreconcilable political differences that aren't split cleanly across geographic lines.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
White Rock posted:See the nice things about the discussions with people like asdf32 and JeffersonClay is that you learn very quickly that we are not the same thing. This is probably true. The spectrum I've always cared about is ideologty - more or less which is far more important than left or right. You have more in common with ideologically driven trump supporters than anyone else. The ideology vitalsigns put on display earlier hints at the same forces driving the right to focus on walls rather than reducing illegal immigration and Muslim bans rather than fighting terrorism - examples, again, of how ideology can be the opposite of "standing for something". This comment below could be lifted from a right leaning forum urging other to purge the rino's Majorian posted:Well, thankfully that seems to be less the case right now. The Dems seem to be realizing that they have more to fear from their own base than from Republicans, which is the way things should be. I do hope leftists get behind progressive primary candidates challenging centrist incumbents for 2018, and scare the poo poo out of them. So you're response to trump is basically "I want one too".
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Are we really? When one looks at polls,most people support center left to left wing policies? Is it really that there is no center?Or is it that we had the leadership of this country become completely disengaged from what the majority wanted?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah, that's the funny thing. Trump is in office right now largely because of our free, profit-driven press.* This isn't to say that I know of an alternative that would have avoided Trump, but it's sort of inherently funny to refer to Trump as something somehow different from liberal capitalism. That's only part of it, Trump is in office because the Democratic Party is no longer a party with anything to actually offer voters. They have no ideology, they are against policies that benefits their base, and they're disconnected from people to a degree that they're forcing voters away. Also, the current neoliberal economic system's decay has led people to fascism because the left has been neutered in this country by Democrat filth . Rats like JC or Asdf have a fundamental misunderstanding of what politics are because again, they are privileged enough to afford such a view. They think politics is a game, a profession to be handled by wonks. A person like Asdf sees millions of people losing healthcare as a victory for himself and his disgusting ideas. Voters no longer tolerate candidates with no integrity, no principles. Centrists, really. Phi230 fucked around with this message at 17:59 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
One thing I would go as far as suggesting as going Lenin on country organizations. Look up if the buildings and the party by laws allow people to bring weapons to the meetings, and the left should then turn up heavily armed. Intimidate the centrists.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
I laugh every time it's mentioned that Hillary loved Hamilton, because one of the themes of the show is that Aaron Burr never expresses genuine beliefs and it's bad but she just did the same thing
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Its also telling that Asdf is so retarded that he cannot distinguish the left from right, simply believing in something makes one a "Trump" Democrats believe in nothing, and only offer "not Trump."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The problem is that we're rapidly approaching a point where we functionally no longer have a democratic system. Republican policies are entirely unacceptable to Democratic voters and Democratic policies are entirely unacceptable to Republican voters. There may be compromises that are acceptable to the moderate wings of both parties, but those compromises are unacceptable to the remaining constituencies and probably horrifying to the far-left and far-right wings of both parties. Hell, the only reason we're hanging on to a thread of basic federal social services is because Republicans are too incompetent to gut them when they have total control of the government. The Democrats would be completely powerless to stop them if they could actually get their poo poo together. Yes which is another way to say that democracy doesn't function without a center. If people in a country of 300 million don't recognize both the practical necessity and inherent value of compromise then democracy is doomed.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes which is another way to say that democracy doesn't function without a center. If people in a country of 300 million don't recognize both the practical necessity and inherent value of compromise then democracy is doomed. The parties identical on economic issues. So we compromise on social issues then?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:This is probably true. The spectrum I've always cared about is ideologty - more or less which is far more important than left or right. You have more in common with ideologically driven trump supporters than anyone else. The ideology vitalsigns put on display earlier hints at the same forces driving the right to focus on walls rather than reducing illegal immigration and Muslim bans rather than fighting terrorism - examples, again, of how ideology can be the opposite of "standing for something". edit: Wait, I think I misread this with my initial reply. I'm still not sure what you're saying though. "left/right" is ultimately ideological, though it's kinda poorly defined in that regard. I think that you're using some strange interpretation of "ideology" as "are people emotional about stuff."
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes which is another way to say that democracy doesn't function without a center. If people in a country of 300 million don't recognize both the practical necessity and inherent value of compromise then democracy is doomed. There is no definition of a political center that isn't in some way relative. I would argue that we're in this state because the American political center has shifted so far to the right that "centrist" policies now represent real and tangible losses for even the moderate left rather than acceptable compromise. This is especially true on social issues where the American right is unable to even agree that cops shooting unarmed black men is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Yes which is another way to say that democracy doesn't function without a center. If people in a country of 300 million don't recognize both the practical necessity and inherent value of compromise then democracy is doomed. Compromise and moderation have no value. It's a fantasy created in the past 20 years. You would rather sell out LGBT people, sell out poor people, sell out minorities in the name of a fantasy than improve their lives.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
It's a Chapoism, but it's 100% accurate: Donald Trump is an entirely predictable convergence of historical trends in liberal capitalism. God, we wanted to pretend otherwise, that it wasn't actually that fundamentally sick and broken, but it converges on this point. Ever since LBJ, both the Democrats and Republicans have done their level best to disassociate the idea of politics from something that actually affects the average voter. The Great Society could not be attacked on empirical grounds, so instead it was attacked from a far more abstract one: the idea that government was capable of doing things to the benefit of the population. Republicans championed it first, of course, but under Clinton the Democrats succumbed completely to that framing in the name of getting big donor money back. It was so much simpler to just parrot whatever idiot Friedmanite nonsense the donors wanted to say than to bother with any of those icky constituent types. This couldn't be an -ideology-, heavens no. Because if it was an ideology, it would be an unspeakably shallow and horrific one, Doctor Pangloss with a spit-shine. No, it could not be for ideological reasons we do these things, it is because it is Sensible, Reasonable, and above all else, Pragmatic that we tell the poor and the weak "sit down, shut up, and accept I will never lift a loving finger to help you. Also, vote for me!" And then some idiot showman, his brain blessedly free of anything beyond basic animal "if people cheer for me saying a thing, i should say it again" stimulus-response, driven by some stupid grudge, wanders into the primary of the party whose #brand, at least, includes "we give a poo poo about the little guy," after the Democrats spent thirty years running away from that label. The rest is history. If you take the bread out of the bread and circuses, don't be surprised when the clowns start running the show.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
I believe that what many people like this don't seem to realize is that, ultimately, they value the idea of being a calm, rational, pragmatic person making decisions based off of data or whatever, and this leads to some massive bias in the sense that they end up ignoring (or flat-out denying) the ideological underpinnings of their views. This leads to them often believing that their ideological opinions aren't really opinions, but are just facts of reality that are true independent of ideology.asdf32 posted:Yes which is another way to say that democracy doesn't function without a center. If people in a country of 300 million don't recognize both the practical necessity and inherent value of compromise then democracy is doomed. Recognizing the value of compromise doesn't mean believing from the beginning that the compromise position is ideal. Not to mention that, for many of the people posting here, stuff like $15/hr minimum wage is a compromise. There are a lot of actual socialists who are willing to compromise with social democratic positions. And as we've seen from a bunch of mainstream Democratic politicians recently, a lot of this stuff clearly isn't that radical or unpalatable anymore. There are a bunch of establishment politicians who have also been coming out in support of this stuff, primarily in response to support among Democratic voters. When it comes to ideology, it isn't the citizens'/voters' responsibility to compromise. The only time voters need to compromise is when they cast their vote (and I'm against not voting Democratic in potential swing states for this reason). But when talking about what they actually want and believe, there is zero purpose to seeking out some compromise position (unless you genuinely believe that the compromise is the best idea). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:22 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The thing you seem to keep ignoring is the fact that there's not a 1:1 ratio of money put towards increased minimum wage and increased costs. A non-zero amount of costs (probably a pretty significant percent, especially in certain industries) would not get passed on to consumers. This means that a minimum wage increase would, ultimately, represent a wealth transfer from the wealthy (in the form of owners, higher paid employees, and wealthier consumers) to the working class (literally everyone who would be affected by the minimum wage increase to begin with). Mind you that's not an argument against a minimum wage increase, it's an argument for murdering capitalists at industrial scale. But it does mean the consequences of a minimum wage increase in the short term might actually resemble what occurs in the fever dreams of pseudo-randian objectidroids, because to the extent they can shape reality to conform to that, they will. Stuff like this is why democratic socialism is more important to me than minimum wage or basic income: capitalism is suffocating our democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:edit: Wait, I think I misread this with my initial reply. I'm still not sure what you're saying though. "left/right" is ultimately ideological, though it's kinda poorly defined in that regard. The technocratic centrist has a very simple ideology, when you get right down to it: they are afraid any effort to build a more just world will end up hurting them. And so, the details of what people believe become irrelevant. The simple act of believing in something- anything- becomes morally suspect in their eyes. Let alone taking actions to bring those beliefs about! The centrist does not fear the radical because his beliefs are wrong. The centrist fears the radical because he believes at all.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Compromise and moderation have no value. It's a fantasy created in the past 20 years. That's neo-liberalism 101
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:There is no definition of a political center that isn't in some way relative. I would argue that we're in this state because the American political center has shifted so far to the right that "centrist" policies now represent real and tangible losses for even the moderate left rather than acceptable compromise. This is especially true on social issues where the American right is unable to even agree that cops shooting unarmed black men is a bad thing. I misunderstood your original comment. Sorry about that. You are right. Although about the police shooting thing, I would argue that after the crime wave of the 80s the Police were preety much given carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. i remember there was this case in New York where police murdered a black man for getting out his wallet. No consequences whatsoever. All that is different now is that people have cameras on all their phones.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The technocratic centrist has a very simple ideology, when you get right down to it: they are afraid any effort to build a more just world will end up hurting them. Yeah, though I think the rationale they form to justify this is "you can't prove that (significant change to the status quo) won't cause harm." This is dumb for a few reasons (listed in bullet points because I like bullet points): - You obviously can't supply data proving that a dramatic change (like single-payer healthcare) would work well in the US. And they end up using this same argument even if you argue for smaller-scale implementations in order to gather said data, leading to a situation where acquiring the necessary proof is impossible. - It assumes that changes are irreversible, when in reality if an idea worked especially poorly it could be changed in the future - It undervalues suffering in the present, instead focusing solely on hypothetical future suffering (a point I've made several times before). Centrists, who are often financially/materially well-off themselves, tend to not understand the appropriate urgency to fix these problems, because they don't have to encounter the people who suffer and see their lives destroyed every year by the status quo.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I misunderstood your original comment. Sorry about that. You are right. Although about the police shooting thing, I would argue that after the crime wave of the 80s the Police were preety much given carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. i remember there was this case in New York where police murdered a black man for getting out his wallet. No consequences whatsoever. All that is different now is that people have cameras on all their phones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo quote:The officers testified that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers, but a witness, Schrrie Elliott, testified that they started shooting without any warnings.[6] Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". The porch lightbulb was out and Diallo was backlit by the inside vestibule light, showing only a silhouette. Diallo then reached into his jacket and withdrew his wallet. Seeing the man holding a small square object, Carroll yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. The officers opened fire on Diallo, claiming that they believed he was holding a gun. During the shooting, lead officer McMellon tripped backward off the front stairs, causing the other officers to believe he had been shot. The four officers fired 41 shots,[8] more than half of which went astray as Diallo was hit 19 times.[1][9] FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 18:38 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
If anything Democrats are managing to normalize Trump, suceeding in framing that the best practice the current opposition can do as a matter of it being a «waiting game». Progressives should extensively reject compromise with the centrist conservative democrats. Now is the time to own them every single time they call for 'compromise' as the conservative, corporate tools they are. Every single time! Liberals gotta feel the pain, they NEED to lose some seats to progressives, they need get owned bad, they loving lost the Presidency to Donald Trump and they still don't get it, and they won't get it until it hurts their bottom line in a way they can't ignore. They will never agree with the progressive viewpoint, because they aren't leftist, they don't want change, and they will only refrain from attacking progressive ideas at gunpoint. Fortunately their numbers are dwindling as economic inequality increases, so thei're days are numbered in a way, but leftists gotta make sure that if they won't gently caress off to the Republican party that they at least don't have the power to continue to strangle the left.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:50
|
|