|
Srice posted:There are more ways to engage with politics than just going to the voting booth every few years to push a button, simple as that. This is a perfect example, did I say there wasn't or that people shouldn't be active in other ways or did you go out of your way to pretend I was making a different point then I was in order to stifle discussion.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
I don't think that the people having a discussion with you are trying to stifle discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
I come here for the informed effort posts, as well as people's general attitudes and ideas on a way forward. The disagreements (debate!?!?!) are important too and I don't understand why they are often treated as thread dysfunction. I've seen several good posts about talking past each other, I see people correcting misinformation. Maybe people are just taking their SA posting identities too seriously? Hell I still have this red tag and av even though they were given 100% without cause or context. I don't personally care what online strangers think of me as long as I can gain knowledge and perspective from the discourse, am I doing this wrong? Actually considering my redtxt literally advocates ignoring me I guess that is detrimental to discussion, as folks might (foolishly) comply. They've already dressed me in their enemies clothes. I urge you to redtxt/ignore me on the actual merits of my bad posting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:This is a perfect example, did I say there wasn't or that people shouldn't be active in other ways or did you go out of your way to pretend I was making a different point then I was in order to stifle discussion. It was clearly responsive. You did the same thing, bolded below, and then cry out for mod intervention ( when srice shifts the topic back. socialsecurity posted:If you don't think it's worth discussing politics because it doesn't matter or whatever why even post here? Srice never said this. Srice posted:There are more ways to engage with politics than ju going to the voting booth every few years to push a button, simple as that. Srice wants to discuss politics ,even though they don't believe in electoralism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:This is a perfect example, did I say there wasn't or that people shouldn't be active in other ways or did you go out of your way to pretend I was making a different point then I was in order to stifle discussion. What was your point then? By asking this I am clearly not trying to stifle discussion!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't really see why a court order justifies the supposedly environmentalist party selling more of the Gulf for oil extraction, when it's perfectly legal for them to pass legislation to appoint more justices at any time to reverse the order, or if that's too impolite just pass legislation to end the sales. The government doesn't have to sell any oil rights to anyone. It doesn't mean that the Biden administration supports more leasing - the evidence for that is that they stopped them, completely on their own, for almost a year. It means that Congress sucks, which we already know. The administration is appealing the ruling that said they had to continue the leases. They're not secretly happy that they get to do this evil thing; they are actively trying to stop it. VitalSigns posted:We just saw Biden and Pelosi pull out every trick in the book to whip the CPC to agree to give up on climate change legislation and the rest of the BBB, everything up to forcing them to vote on a moment's notice with a big media spotlight and all Biden's surrogates out demonizing them for "blocking the president's agenda", so I don't really buy that there's nothing he can do to stop the sales, they can be stopped by legislation at any time and he obviously has the power to whip votes for legislation that he wants. BRJohnson posted:I come here for the informed effort posts, as well as people's general attitudes and ideas on a way forward. The disagreements (debate!?!?!) are important too and I don't understand why they are often treated as thread dysfunction. I've seen several good posts about talking past each other, I see people correcting misinformation. Maybe people are just taking their SA posting identities too seriously?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
I mean I was one of the people being responded to there and I dont feel attacked. It's probably the most common response to when people find out I dont vote actually, and in my experience if anybody intends to be malicious about it they dont play nice after the subject is broached
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:It doesn't mean that the Biden administration supports more leasing False. The Biden admin can ignore the court order. Who cares other than pearl clutchers and vile people who support killing the planet for personal gain. Defending Biden over this is disgusting. Bad rulings can be ignored. It’s not like the courts are legitimate or have any real authority. “B-b-but they’ll call Biden a tyrant and a dictator!” I hear folks say anytime I bring this topic up. What is so different than what the right says now? virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:False. The Biden admin can ignore the court order. Who cares other than pearl clutchers and vile people who support killing the planet for personal gain. People who think the rule of law is important? People who think that it would, in fact, be extremely bad if Republicans came into power with literally no controls in government? It is possible to think things are bad and hosed up while thinking "hey things are hosed up, let's cheer for things to be EVEN MORE hosed UP" is worse!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:False. The Biden admin can ignore the court order. Who cares other than pearl clutchers and vile people who support killing the planet for personal gain. In the universe where we have leadership we trust to enact the levels of change needed, they would really have to nail it with their overreach very quickly. Just because of the electoral ramifications (or the ramifications of dismissing, well, the law). It would have to help people very quickly and that's going to be difficult if we're actually serious about climate change at the same time. It would have to be so popular, so concrete that it couldn't be immediately undone by the backlash from the system or Americans at large. How much of that could one president get away with or accomplish? Serious question. Also I definitely don't feel the need to defend biden I believed the several statements he's made telling me to go gently caress myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:People who think the rule of law is important? People who think that it would, in fact, be extremely bad if Republicans came into power with literally no controls in government? There's legitimate arguments against the Biden admin just going rogue but not this lol. There's pretty much nothing Biden could do to abuse the power he has (or Dems in the legislature for that matter) that Republicans haven't either done already or would do anyway regardless of decorum the instant they had a chance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:People who think the rule of law is important? People who think that it would, in fact, be extremely bad if Republicans came into power with literally no controls in government? What if the Republicans never come into power?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
The rule of law is dogshit, and leads to things like judges forcing government to sell land for drilling, and Kyle Rittenhouse walking free, and trump getting off scott free for everything. It's not something to be respected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
I kinda laugh when anyone suggests Biden is a tyrant or dictator. I see him far more as someone enjoying their career victory lap as self-congratulations on what he sees as a job well-done. Too bad what was needed was a bulldog, ready to call the previous regime out for their crimes. This will of course, never happen, but it might mean future Democratic Presidents would be locked up for their crimes. On the subject of America's Left: There is absolutely no left wing party. There's barely any left-wing people. You have a Fascist, Fundementalist party; and a very old, very timid Oligarchial party with far too much power invested into reps who should probably be screened monthly for dementia. To whit: Republicans are receiving death threats for voting fora "bi-partisan" deal that benefits almost no one but corporate America. These deeply thought through calls cycle through 7 words, most of them pejorative, with the occasional "communist" and "traitor" thrown in, because... 'Murrica. Trump has elatedly pointed these individuals out to his people, and others have doxxed their numbers. Within their own party. AOC had a lovely mock video made this week, wherein Paul Gosar "killed" her. While... impossibly dumb, this would have gotten him fired from almost every other job in America. Congress? Eh. Just another death threat. And AOC is not the radical she's made out to be. In Canada, she'd be maybe... maybe in our left-wing party, or in the leftmost part of our centrist party. This should have started a removal process, and finally freed us from the dimmest bulbs in both chambers. But no. Not in this country. And it's very much a calculated choice, be it through the eyes of a strategist, or the infantile mind of a MTG, or a Boebert: a) She's a young woman of colour in Congress; and how DARE she have opinions (And I think that sentiment is strong on both sides. One just started saying it out loud) b) She receives no back up from her side. She's been stalked, was a target during 1/6, and has mock death scenes made, and... no punishments have been meted out. Simply put, she's the highest profile that meets the "acceptable criteria" that both sides silently (and not so silently) agree upon. There is hope, though. In an election where: The President tried pre-emptively call the results fraudulent; Trump appointed a rival of the USPS to the position of headmaster to kill the post office and stop write-in voting, to benefit himself; Trump had three propaganda news networks singing his praises; and two more giving him more publicity than any other candidate ever; COVID ravaged the land; Every red state had jerks with guns, threatening to rush the polls; encouraged by the president; POC were sabotaged at every turn, and continue to have their voting right attacked; Despite all of those bullshit factors, record numbers of people voted for the non-fascist choice. He lost. Again. By MILLIONS. Imagine what it would have been without COVID, and the post office? So yeah. Things suck. They might get worse. But holy crap, please don't give up, and put the mob boss back in office.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
Pamela Springstein posted:The rule of law is dogshit, and leads to things like judges forcing government to sell land for drilling, and Kyle Rittenhouse walking free, and trump getting off scott free for everything. It's not something to be respected. What would you prefer instead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
How are u posted:What would you prefer instead? Chemo. Aggressive chemotherapy. America is diseased and rotten to its very core.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:What if the Republicans never come into power? That would be nice!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
How are u posted:What would you prefer instead? Ignore unjust laws, which is called civil disobedience. There's a whole book about it. I think this thread would largely agree rule of law does not exist for a huge amount of people in the US, especially POC. I'm not sure why we must conditionally respect it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:That would be nice! What if I told you that could happen by providing good things to people, and saving the environment?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:False. The Biden admin can ignore the court order. Who cares other than pearl clutchers and vile people who support killing the planet for personal gain. Pamela Springstein posted:The rule of law is dogshit, and leads to things like judges forcing government to sell land for drilling, and Kyle Rittenhouse walking free, and trump getting off scott free for everything. It's not something to be respected. Are we really at the point where there's disagreement about the basic premise that the rule of law is a good thing? There are bad laws. Bad laws should be disobeyed, and should be changed. That's not what you're saying. Having any real discussion is pretty much impossible if "the rule of law is dogshit" is the standard. Call me a liberal if you like, but tell me how aj leftist government functions without the rule of law. Karl Barks posted:Ignore unjust laws, which is called civil disobedience. There's a whole book about it. I'll bite. Where are the huge amounts of people in the US who live without the rule of law? Do these people buy things with US dollars? Do they have any regulated utilities (however inadequate)? No interaction with the rule of law at all? DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Are we really at the point where there's disagreement about the basic premise that the rule of law is a good thing? Bare minimum, I would say anyone living in poverty does not live with the rule of law. America is at 11% poverty, which is about 37 million people. There's other examples, anyone murdered by the police, the homeless, undocumented, etc I think it's going to be relative to your politics, and which laws you view as just or unjust. A leftist government of course does function with the rule of law, but its priorities are different. I could make a joke about authoritarianism here. I would add that I truly view climate change as an existential crisis, and possibly within my life time. The timeline sure does seem to keep moving up. As things get worse, having the procedural reason why the courts will destroy Earth explained to me isn't very helpful, and I start to doubt electoralism is going to help me. Karl Barks fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:People who think the rule of law is important? People who think that it would, in fact, be extremely bad if Republicans came into power with literally no controls in government? I think Scalia had a relevant quote here. quote:Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached Choosing to follow broken rules that lead you to doing monstrous things is not admirable, the rule of law should not be an end unto itself. I really doubt "but at least we followed The Rules" will be a compelling narrative to sell to voters either. It seems like Republicans ignore both laws and procedural norms when they are in power, while Democrats are terribly tied down by those same procedural restrictions. The rule of law is only valuable as long as those laws produce good outcomes, and are enforced somewhat equally on everyone. If the Republicans ignores the rules when they want something done, and the Democrats refuse to punish them for rulebreaking, why does it have value that the Democrats choose to be bound by those rules, when it leads them to doing bad things? If we're playing a game and I cheat constantly, I am clearly a bad guy for cheating, but you're a sucker if you continue to play in good faith. DeadlyMuffin posted:Bad laws should be disobeyed, and should be changed. That's not what you're saying. I think what people are getting at is that America's laws are unjust and produce bad outcomes, and also the laws clearly don't apply to everyone, so the rule of law does not have value unless the laws were changed and then enforced more equally. What people have been saying here is what you're suggesting: Biden's administration should disobey the court (the bad law) here, either directly or by doing malicious compliance, while they also work to change that law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:"Procedural reasons" prevented Trump from doing a lot of heinous bullshit, so it cuts both ways. That only applies if there is an enforcement mechanism to stop people doing breaking the procedural reasons or punish them if they do so, and if enforcement actually happens. The Republican cult was and is perfectly fine with evil happening when it's done by a Republican and has no interest in using the enforcement mechanisms to stop Republicans from doing evil. The end result is that evil gets done much faster than good. The Mattybee posted:People who think the rule of law is important? People who think that it would, in fact, be extremely bad if Republicans came into power with literally no controls in government? Trump broke a lot of rules and laws while in office. He was protected and cheered on by those who were obligated by oaths to be the guardians of those laws and see them enforced. Trump was voted out, tried to have a coup based on a blatant lie of election fraud, and the cult members still in office are punishing colleagues who refuse to support the coup-starting-lie. None of them are likely to be punished at all. The law seems to be completely toothless, which makes the "rule of law" argument weak. Esran posted:It seems like Republicans ignore both laws and procedural norms when they are in power, while Democrats are terribly tied down by those same procedural restrictions. The rule of law is only valuable as long as those laws produce good outcomes, and are enforced somewhat equally on everyone. If the Republicans ignores the rules when they want something done, and the Democrats refuse to punish them for rulebreaking, why does it have value that the Democrats choose to be bound by those rules, when it leads them to doing bad things? This, exactly. **** Additionally, laws care an order of magnitude more about protecting capital than they do about protecting against the effects of climate change, so using the rule of law as the guidepost means protecting the rights of big corporations to murder the planet in exchange for a few more pieces of ink-stained paper. That does not mean outright discarding the rule of law is the right thing to do. It just means that following the "rule of law" is hardly a golden bullet which will save the United States, and there's no guarantee that the rule of law will persist even in its current weaker form if the Republicans gain control of the White House again. There is no good fix for the United States. The problems were built in from the start and baked into the Constitution and the political climate won't allow for fixing the changes with a constitutional convention. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:It’s not like the courts are legitimate or have any real authority. I wonder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Bare minimum, I would say anyone living in poverty does not live with the rule of law. America is at 11% poverty, which is about 37 million people. There's other examples, anyone murdered by the police, etc I don't think it's relative. You're listing groups that are negatively affected by laws, or the current societal structure. I don't argue that the laws are all just, but surely these people are governed by them. If anything I think it is the extremely wealthy who live without the rule of law. The people that the law protects but does not bind. Stabbey_the_Clown posted:That does not mean outright discarding the rule of law is the right thing to do. It just means that following the "rule of law" is hardly a golden bullet which will save the United States, and there's no guarantee that the rule of law will persist even in its current weaker form if the Republicans gain control of the White House again. This is well said, and I think exactly right DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Nov 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
I also agree that many laws are unjust and need to be reformed. That's a pretty mainstream view, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
I personally think pulling out the Nuremberg defense on behalf of the US federal executive is questionable
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
I'm not sure how we went from talking specifically about advocating the Biden administration ignore the court order to sell land to oil companies to "all laws are bad".
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
People are probably dismissive of "The Rule of Law" because the concept is only invoked to explain why we have to set the Gulf on fire, or let Nazis operate freely in the government, or throw Mexicans into camps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:People are probably dismissive of "The Rule of Law" because the concept is only invoked to explain why we have to set the Gulf on fire, or let Nazis operate freely in the government, or throw Mexicans into camps. May as well add slavery of the incarcerated, civil-forfeiture laws, the death penalty, and medical bankruptcies to the list. All are legal; all are immoral; and most are violations of international human-rights standards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:People are probably dismissive of "The Rule of Law" because the concept is only invoked to explain why we have to set the Gulf on fire, or let Nazis operate freely in the government, or throw Mexicans into camps. Hey now, let's not sell the Biden admin short. There's probably plenty of Hondurans and Venezuelans in the camps, too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:You know that the reason is that an insufficent number Democrats in Congress would vote for such legislation, even before you take into account the necessity of ending the filibuster. Everybody else posting here knows that. There's really no need to do this playing dumb thing. We all know the situation, you don't have to do this "skillfully a laying rhetorical trap" thing, Jesus. Mellow Seas posted:It doesn't mean that the Biden administration supports more leasing - the evidence for that is that they stopped them, completely on their own, for almost a year. It means that Congress sucks, which we already know. The administration is appealing the ruling that said they had to continue the leases. They're not secretly happy that they get to do this evil thing; they are actively trying to stop it. They could pass legislation to stop the sales, but they'd have to stop taking oil and gas money, they'd have to do something about the filibuster, and the filibuster is their excuse for killing stuff like a health insurance public option that their donors oppose. Mellow Seas posted:Do you really think that Manchin and Sinema haven't likewise been "demonized for blocking the President's agenda" with a "big media spotlight"? If somebody's not going to change their vote, they're not going to change it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Hey now, let's not sell the Biden admin short. There's probably plenty of Hondurans and Venezuelans in the camps, too! And Afghan children.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:People are probably dismissive of "The Rule of Law" because the concept is only invoked to explain why we have to set the Gulf on fire, or let Nazis operate freely in the government, or throw Mexicans into camps. Mexicans actually don't get thrown into camps. Mexicans and Canadians can be immediately deported back to Mexico and Canada, it's migrants from countries further away that are processed in the soft sided structures at the CBP stations (they are officially instructed not to use the word "tent" as it's considered demeaning to the detainees).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:I'm not sure how we went from talking specifically about advocating the Biden administration ignore the court order to sell land to oil companies to "all laws are bad". Willa Rogers posted:May as well add slavery of the incarcerated, civil-forfeiture laws, the death penalty, and medical bankruptcies to the list. All are legal; all are immoral; and most are violations of international human-rights standards. Byzantine posted:People are probably dismissive of "The Rule of Law" because the concept is only invoked to explain why we have to set the Gulf on fire, or let Nazis operate freely in the government, or throw Mexicans into camps. It's an interesting dynamic. DV et al. are absolutely correct that it's annoying and stupid for people to slam a misleading headline down without reading the article and blame the wrong people, but it also makes perfect sense for most people to care far more about outcome than process. It's not unreasonable for the response to horrible acts allowed via legal means to be "this is unacceptable and we just need to fix this by any means necessary." I do kind of like having my capitalist nuclear-armed institutions bound by legal frameworks and norms, so I don't really expect or want the Biden administration to just go out and tell all the courts "lol no" whenever a corporation wins a suit, but "gently caress you and your unjust laws" is sort of a bedrock of civil disobedience. The real problem, and the reason for increasing radicalism, is that there is no apparent mechanism by which any of these unjust rules actually change through the political process. Congress don't do poo poo. The courts are packed with fascists. So, it becomes ever more appealing to just go "gently caress laws, what have they ever done for me, anyway?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
It's a pretty distorted view to ask what's the point of laws on a post on the Internet, posted on a computer that is your property, etc. etc. This is well beyond 'we should improve society somewhat,' and denying laws and society are a net good is ignoring a *lot*. Civil disobedience to change an unjust law *requires* some faith in the framework of laws and norms. I think it's telling that posters don't really discuss the alternative society in which they've succeeded in tearing down all the laws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Pamela Springstein posted:The rule of law is dogshit, and leads to things like judges forcing government to sell land for drilling, and Kyle Rittenhouse walking free, and trump getting off scott free for everything. It's not something to be respected. It's dogshit because it doesn't apply to all people equally. What America actually has is the opposite of the rule of law. And it's not going to be reformed with this anemic poo poo (either from the left or center) so Democrats should use every dirty trick and strategy in the book.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
I'm an absolutist that social media should be banned so I suppose that makes me de facto opposed to anybody just posting a twitter or similar link. I'm fine with that, it causes me no mental upset.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:I think it's telling that posters don't really discuss the alternative society in which they've succeeded in tearing down all the laws. If you read the preceding discussion, you should have picked up that no one is asking for a society without laws.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
I don't think going full Andrew Jackson is good, or necessary, or even feasible. Three of the major things that kept Donald Trump from doing as much harm as he wanted to do were, in fact, a semi-functional court system, the eviller federal agencies believing the rule of law is a thing that more or less exists, and the better federal agencies jumping at any opportunity to go "sorry, Mr President, we'd love to rolls dice grind up black children for meat for sale in Walmart, but the courts said we can't, you know how it is". Two high-profile examples spring immediately to mind. When Trump took his first swing at imposing a Muslim ban, there were many concerns about what would happen if CBP and ICE just ignored court orders. Turns out they didn't. They didn't even get to the point of having armed standoffs with federal marshals, which would have been tremendous content. The bad agencies backed down immediately. As it happens i think the third? fourth? decision was wrongly decided, because by that point there should have been enough "this policy is arbitrary and malicious" evidence to override deference to executive discretion, but I'll come back to that in a sec. From the other end, when Trump tried to keep the Census Bureau from doing the things they wanted to do (a good job on the decadely census), the courts blew up at least two very visible attempts. When he tried to add the citizenship question on the fly and it was possibly-temporarily blocked, the bureau immediately rushed to the printers with a hearty "sorry Mr President, but now that we've done all the printing it's just not possible to change the questionnaire, real shame that". When he tried to end it prematurely, the bureau had all its paperwork and workforce and organization ready at the premature ending date, just in case it was extended by the courts, which it was. End result: despite the President and the Secretary being actively opposed to full enumeration of the American population, and a devastating pandemic putting a real damper on summertime work, everything I know points to this being a better census than previous decades. Rather a lot of Trump policies in the latter half of his presidency were also struck down on arbitrary-and-malicious or similar grounds, basically a "you keep ignoring the laws and regulations for no adequately explained reason so we're going to give you a slightly less preposterous amount of leeway than most executives". This, I suspect, is a big part of why the Biden administration has been small-c conservative about some of its executive actions. If you keep doing things Just Because - like terminating previously agreed upon oil leases - you run the risk of annoying the courts even when they're not statistically slanted towards the opposing party. I understand the excitement to make Joseph Robinette Biden the absolute, undisputable dictator of the United States, but sadly it just wouldn't stick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2021 21:13
|
|
