|
Yeah Twitter allows for all sorts of naming shenanigans that an actual company that cared about user experience and preventing deception could easily take care of. But here we are.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
Gripweed posted:This story, and the upcoming Supreme Court case that could give total control over federal elections to the states has got me thinking. Republicans write election law to disenfranchise Democrat voters, making it much harder for Democrats to win. If that SCOTUS case does turn out how one would expect, then the Republicans can make it virtually impossible for Democrats to win in red states. As soon as Republicans take power in purple states they'll change the elections there too, turning purple states into red states. The Democratic plan is to take the Senate, overturn the filibuster, and implement federal voting rights legislation. The independent state legislature theory doesn't block this - that theory is based on Constitutional text which delegates election powers to state legislatures unless it conflicts with federal law passed by Congress, which overrides. It prevents state governors, state constitutions, and federal courts from intervening in election processes, but Congressional law would still override state law when it comes to federal elections. Even if that weren't the case, it's worth noting that gerrymandering isn't a magic wand that just banishes a party from any chance of victory forever. It's based on the idea that there's some groups that tend to be inclined to vote for one party, and other groups that tend to be inclined to vote to the other party. Gerrymandering works to diminish the influence of some demographics while boosting the influence of others. That's more effective nowadays due to political self-segregation, which causes geography to line up with political inclinations more and more, but even then it's not absolute unless it's paired with a powerful political machine of the kind we don't really hear about nowadays. So gerrymandering isn't necessarily an eternal defeat - it diminishes the influence of traditionally Democratic voters, but that just means the Dems have to broaden their appeal and pull in more voters that aren't traditionally Democratic. Relying entirely on the Dem base and writing off the rest hasn't been going well anyway, even before the GOP gerrymandered things to further marginalize them. A genuine mass progressive movement that could make real inroads with people who don't live in big cities would swiftly topple the GOP gerrymanders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
drawkcab si eman ym posted:Maybe Elon vs Twitter costs DeSantis the 2024 Republican Presidential Primary? Wait, why? The CNN quote you posted doesn't mention DeSantis or 2024, and there's no link to see if it's elsewhere in that story.  What does DeSantis have to do with Tiffany or Luis Vuitton?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Wait, why? The CNN quote you posted doesn't mention DeSantis or 2024, and there's no link to see if it's elsewhere in that story. "His support comes as DeSantis continues to sit." https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/15/elon-musk-ron-desantis-president-00039799 If precedence is any indication then maybe this merger still goes through but not at the $50 per share that they originally agreed to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 20:58
|
|
|
drawkcab si eman ym posted:"His support comes as DeSantis continues to sit." Elon's finances were shaky to begin with, relying heavily on Tesla stock, loans, and counting on hype to allow him to borrow at more favorable rates later. His financing plan has collapsed to the point where he probably can't afford Twitter at any reasonable price and now he should hope he can escape with only paying just the $1B fee. Tesla's value is down, he alienated all his progressive customers, and because he publicly poo poo on Twitter through all of this, they are probably going to go after him for as much in damages as they can. Rigel fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
drawkcab si eman ym posted:"His support comes as DeSantis continues to sit." So your point was that since Musk supports DeSantis, then DeSantis is somehow disgraced enough to not win the GOP nomination? (Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you; I'm having a hard time threading this particular needle.) That's sort of a huge stretch, given that I'm sure DeSantis has worse supporters, including DJT (whom I will continue to insist DeSantis will NOT run against, in spite of the liberal columnists & media outlets who keep fantasizing about a cage match between him & Trump). I mean, there've been rapists & other lowlifes whose endorsements didn't sway a race one way or another (including those running for office & winning themselves); I doubt that the Twitter deal gone bad & the deal's architect is going to do in DeSantis whenever he does decide to go for the presidency. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Yeah Twitter allows for all sorts of naming shenanigans that an actual company that cared about user experience and preventing deception could easily take care of. But here we are. I like how modern tech is either stupidly restrictive when it comes to input parameters, or "cute"/"cleaver" , like either way you end up with a fragile system that breaks with minor tiny things. Like I bought up in the tech nightmares thread how people with the last name Null or some dude that got the vanity car plate Null all have fun times in the modern age.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:So your point was that since Musk supports DeSantis, then DeSantis is somehow disgraced enough to not win the GOP nomination? (Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you; I'm having a hard time threading this particular needle.) I think Newsom and DeSantis both run. The deal won't cost as much in the New Hampshire 2024 Republican Primary I don't think, because polling there has Ron neck-and-neck with Don.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:I like how modern tech is either stupidly restrictive when it comes to input parameters, or "cute"/"cleaver" , like either way you end up with a fragile system that breaks with minor tiny things. That's just bad input scrubbing treating input as code instead of text allowing code injection. Not allowing that is security 101. Not allowing things like ambiguous characters or using an ambiguous casing requires some input analysis but it's not that hard to do. It is just a step farther than the minimum so most don't do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Democratic plan is to take the Senate, overturn the filibuster, and implement federal voting rights legislation. The independent state legislature theory doesn't block this - that theory is based on Constitutional text which delegates election powers to state legislatures unless it conflicts with federal law passed by Congress, which overrides. It prevents state governors, state constitutions, and federal courts from intervening in election processes, but Congressional law would still override state law when it comes to federal elections. Who are these people the Democrats need to broaden their appeal to and what do they need to do to do it? The GOP doesn't get people to vote for them because they see to their economic interests, they vote for them over culture war issues that they're constantly picking fights over. I'm skeptical that there's some hidden, potential progressive movement hidden within the American countryside. In my opinion, more likely is any further "broadening" of Democratic appeal will mean even more Manchins and Sinemas, not more AOCs. Personally, I'd rather the Democrats not start embracing conservative rhetoric on CRT and LGBTQ issues just to MAYBE capture some votes outside the cities. To even have a chance at appealing to these people's economic interests the Democrats are going to need to actually take action and get something done, and they don't currently seem up to the task as long as the filibuster is in place. They've already made big promises and failed to follow through, nobody is going to trust their words any time soon. Look at the rural areas in Washington, in some ways they're even more extreme than small towns in the South despite being in one of the most progressive states in the country. Even in Seattle I'll sometimes encounter hostility towards some progressive ideas from people that have voted Democrat their entire lives. What progressive ideas are going to motivate these people to start voting for Progressive Democrats? Just seems like wishful thinking, though I'd love to be wrong, the next 10+ years look dire from here....
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 21:43
|
|
|
drawkcab si eman ym posted:I think Newsom and DeSantis both run. The deal won't cost as much in the New Hampshire 2024 Republican Primary I don't think, because polling there has Ron neck-and-neck with Don. Ok, now I'm even more confused; what does Newsom have to do with DeSantis? (Don & Ron will not be running against each other; I'm talking about your first sentence here.) eta: And if "the deal" (Twitter, I guess?) won't "cost" NH (for DeSantis, I guess?), where would it cost? And why? Like, I can see absolutely no thread connecting Musk/Twitter & the Republican primary in 2024. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Mustang posted:Who are these people the Democrats need to broaden their appeal to and what do they need to do to do it? The GOP doesn't get people to vote for them because they see to their economic interests, they vote for them over culture war issues that they're constantly picking fights over. I'm skeptical that there's some hidden, potential progressive movement hidden within the American countryside. In my opinion, more likely is any further "broadening" of Democratic appeal will mean even more Manchins and Sinemas, not more AOCs. Personally, I'd rather the Democrats not start embracing conservative rhetoric on CRT and LGBTQ issues just to MAYBE capture some votes outside the cities. The left doesn't really have any real choice but to come up with an answer to that question. All this talk about gerrymander and election laws and court decisions doesn't go anywhere if, at the end of the day, we believe that progressivism has already gotten all the votes it's capable of getting and is unable to expand its appeal beyond big cities and colleges. There's only so much of the electorate we can write off as impossible to win or not worth winning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
Mustang posted:Who are these people the Democrats need to broaden their appeal to and what do they need to do to do it? The GOP doesn't get people to vote for them because they see to their economic interests, they vote for them over culture war issues that they're constantly picking fights over. I'm skeptical that there's some hidden, potential progressive movement hidden within the American countryside. In my opinion, more likely is any further "broadening" of Democratic appeal will mean even more Manchins and Sinemas, not more AOCs. Personally, I'd rather the Democrats not start embracing conservative rhetoric on CRT and LGBTQ issues just to MAYBE capture some votes outside the cities. People absolutely do vote for economic interests (both correctly perceived ones and incorrectly) and historically that's almost certainly been a far bigger thing in both parties than any kind of culture war issue. Reminder that tax cuts were the only significant piece of legislation trump actually managed to pass. Mustang posted:Personally, I'd rather the Democrats not start embracing conservative rhetoric on CRT and LGBTQ issues just to MAYBE capture some votes outside the cities. is there any evidence that this movement is happening or might even happen? afaict most of the appeals to centrists have been based purely around the idea that we should have a government that functions and that empowering the worst part of the republican party needs to be vigorously opposed for the sake of the nation. There's no way for dems to move significantly on gop culture war issues without losing like 80% of their base and so far they haven't really had to with how effectively trump/trumpists have repelled voters in the last two elections. Main Paineframe posted:The left doesn't really have any real choice but to come up with an answer to that question. All this talk about gerrymander and election laws and court decisions doesn't go anywhere if, at the end of the day, we believe that progressivism has already gotten all the votes it's capable of getting and is unable to expand its appeal beyond big cities and colleges. There's only so much of the electorate we can write off as impossible to win or not worth winning. I think he's right wrt the futility of viewing rural areas as a resource of untapped progressive values votes is probably grounded in reality. There are votes to be had there, including some progressive ones, but the progressive ones alone aren't enough to win statewide elections as they're an absolute minority in almost the entirety of small town red/purple america. That said, man there's a lot that dems could do to actually figure out what the gently caress is important to people in rural areas that just isn't significantly done. Half of that is likely some variation of 'bring back congressional pork,' but a lot of that is just knowing enough about local issues to even have a message to rural voters at all. And especially to rural voters from a specific town. Historically I think dems have really sucked at that both because of distance and also because of elitism. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:People absolutely do vote for economic interests (both correctly perceived ones and incorrectly) and historically that's almost certainly been a far bigger thing in both parties than any kind of culture war issue. Reminder that tax cuts were the only significant piece of legislation trump actually managed to pass. The base hated those tax cuts. They were fired up by the cruelty and bigotry politics. If you're going to flip red gerrymanders blue you need to figure out a way to sell progressive policy that skirts the politics of white grievance while not pissing off the targets of that white grievance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The base hated those tax cuts. I'm suggesting that dems should do literally anything at all other than chase the morons fired up by cruelty and bigotry politics. Those people are literal write offs are far as dems should be concerned. That does still leave a significant number of potential voters to pick up. Your last sentence is basically restating my point, albeit I think you are greatly overstating how delicate dems should be towards white grievance poo poo. White grievance poo poo is what conversations default back to if you have no clue what are locally relevant concerns. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Elon musk getting buzzsawed by the Saudis would be seen as a conspiracy to keep gas cars around and not revenge for Twitter. He just wanted them to be able to rock the casbah in style!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
It's pretty gross seeing prominent liberals like Katzenberg finance an anti-choice candidate like Liz Cheney:quote:To help Ms. Cheney bolster her chances in Wyoming’s upcoming Republican primary — she is facing a Trump-backed opponent — Mr. Katzenberg and his wife have donated more than $43,000 to her campaign and groups supporting her. The story goes on to name several other richie Dems who are financing her campaign, in spite of Cheney likely losing the primary next month (and in spite of her efforts to get Dems to vote for her in that primary). Is liberals' hatred of all things Trump so great that they're willing to donate to an anti-choice, anti-climate Republican like Cheney? I guess the answer is an unequivocal "yes." 
Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Ok, now I'm even more confused; what does Newsom have to do with DeSantis? You see DeSantis not running I see DeSantis AND Newsom running. Musk's non-political endorsement becomes ineffective. I think voters in the primary will stick with Trump over DeSantis despite Trump's sharp elbows.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:02
|
|
|
drawkcab si eman ym posted:You see DeSantis not running I see DeSantis AND Newsom running. I never said DeSantis won't run; I said he won't run against Trump. I'm still confused as to why Newsom would be a factor in a Republican primary, and why you're now saying that Musk won't endorse and thus be ineffective when you started out by saying that Musk's endorsement of DeSantis might sink DeSantis's chances. But with every response I grow more baffled by your points, so I'll take your word for it that your stream of thought is logical and drop the convo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:08
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:It's pretty gross seeing prominent liberals like Katzenberg finance an anti-choice candidate like Liz Cheney: She is less bad than her opponent and high profile. It's an R 20+ district, so whoever wins the primary is winning the general. It's not very complicated or part of some Trump derengement syndrome. Not the most efficient place to put your political money, but rich people donate to highly visible causes rather than the most efficient causes 99% of the time. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jul 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
Yeah, no: I still think it's gross for richie Dems to finance an anti-choice, pro-earth-plundering Republican as some sort of weird lesser-evil flex. (And especially as they're using Dobbs for record-setting fundraising. As I've said, Dem support for bodily autonomy is a mile wide and an inch deep.) On which issues would Cheney be "less bad" than her opponent other than Trump-related stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jordanzakarin/status/1545876493263323136 Gotta say I did not expect the admin to so quickly return to trashing the left, especially when the subject at hand is abortion rights! Like, even they must realize that the combo message of "Vote!" and "gently caress off with your demands" is mixed messaging, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:It's pretty gross seeing prominent liberals like Katzenberg finance an anti-choice candidate like Liz Cheney: I'll immediately get in the ear of anyone I know back home that entertains the idea of registering as a Republican to keep Liz Cheney in the general election or try to stop Foster Freis from getting the GOP nomination for Wyoming governor, but there's some really broke-brained people out there that think Liz Cheney is one of the good ones. It's unreal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:On which issues would Cheney be "less bad" than her opponent other than Trump-related stuff? Which issues besides the fascist overthrow of our democracy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:Which issues besides the fascist overthrow of our democracy? I see a few here that I'd consider a tad more serious than the clowns wearing facepaint who stormed the capitol, but that's me. eta: Needless to say, I have a different bar for definitions of what constitutes a "fascist overthrow of our democracy" than you do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I see a few here that I'd consider a tad more serious than the clowns wearing facepaint who stormed the capitol, but that's me. Either she loses and it doesn't matter because her opponent is as bad or worse on those issues or she doesn't. I think it's dumb to waste money on her, but you're being obtuse to pretend you can't figure out why rich people would donate to a high profile race other than "Trump derengement syndrome!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:
They are entitled to your vote. They are not entitled to your sass
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Either she loses and it doesn't matter because her opponent is as bad or worse on those issues or she doesn't. You didn't answer my question: On which issues would Cheney be "less bad" than her opponent other than Trump-related stuff? Like, if she has a decent stance on anything remotely progressive other than America's Darkest Day, 1/6, Never Forget  then I could understand richie libs pouring money into her campaign, but she doesn't so I don't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:Which issues besides the fascist overthrow of our democracy? Maybe I've missed where she's condemned it, but based on her name I'm pretty sure Liz Cheney supported the decision in Bush v Gore, so the best you can say of her is "won't support a coup that doesn't materially benefit her."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:You didn't answer my question: I think you've actually turned me around on this, not that it was ever a particularly important issue to begin with. Yeah, I guess it really is just pretty much hatred of Trump, and that is it, which makes spending any money on her even dumber. As far as votes go, I don't think she would vote in a different manner than her Trumpy opponent would once we're past the issue of 1/6, which we will be as far as the house is concerned next year no matter who wins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:You didn't answer my question: Are you legitimately saying that - regardless of what you think about the idea - that you genuinely can't figure out why some rich people would donate to a high profile political race? Not that you think it is a bad idea, but you legitimately "can't figure out" a reason other than they have Trump derengement syndrome? It seems very obvious why some rich people would want to donate to a high profile race (hint: part of the reason is that you are talking about them and their names are in the WaPo.) If you look at the campaign material, Hageman's biggest policy attacks on Cheney is that Cheney doesn't want to repeal the endangered species act or clean water act and that she doesn't support state legislatures overriding the popular vote and assigning their electoral college votes to someone else. The people donating specifically mention those issues. I think they are wasting money, but they are wealthy and throwing around millions of dollars to various political causes. Is your issue that rich people aren't being effecient with their money? On policy, it doesn't make much of a difference except on fringe cases of the endangered species act and to have a Republican who doesn't support overriding the popular vote. Those are better than her opponent, but it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jul 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Yeah, no: I still think it's gross for richie Dems to finance an anti-choice, pro-earth-plundering Republican as some sort of weird lesser-evil flex. (And especially as they're using Dobbs for record-setting fundraising. As I've said, Dem support for bodily autonomy is a mile wide and an inch deep.) presumably the whole trying to overthrow american democracy and replace it with evangelical christian fascism thing. If you have issues with private donations that's something to take up with private donators, I don't think it has any bearing whatsoever on dems. it's certainly weird, but idk that's american private political contributions for you. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Jul 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 00:15
|
|
|
My "issue" is pointing out that supporting anti-choice candidates dilutes the message that Democrats will protect your bodily autonomy. I don't have a horse in this race so I don't care if Dems supporting anti-choice pols like Cuellar or Cheney demotivates voters to support Dems in November. But I'd think that those who do want to see Dems sustain & expand their congressional majorities would take into consideration the optics of high-profile liberals (including Democratic leaders) supporting those who have opposed bodily autonomy, and especially the optics of elevating America's Darkest Day over Dobbs when push comes to shove. eta: I said it was gross (ie: repulsive); not that I think they're monsters instead of idiots. I stand by my contention: It's gross to see Dems fundraising on abortion out of one side of their mouths, and supporting anti-choice candidates out of the other side. vvv As I've said, I'm also referencing Dem House leadership campaigning & fundraising for Cuellar. Random, incredibly rich donors, who fund the Dem ecosystem up & down the ticket, and many of whom have proclaimed themselves personally in favor of bodily autonomy. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Jul 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
it sounds like it's random donors support her and not 'dems'
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:My "issue" is pointing out that supporting anti-choice candidates dilutes the message that Democrats will protect your bodily autonomy. It seems like you actually care a lot. Some random donors aren't elevating anything over Dobbs. Neither of the candidates are pro-choice. They specifically say why they are giving her money. It's about not supporting election changes for state legislatures to give their electors to someone who loses the state, 1/6 visibility, and being slightly better on a couple of animal issues. They also want their names out there in press coverage of a high profile race. It's not complicated and it is a waste of money, but doesn't actually negatively impact anything except their bank account.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 00:25
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/jordanzakarin/status/1545876493263323136 Dubar posted:They are entitled to your vote. They are not entitled to your sass Yeah, pretty much this. Your run of the mill lib has brainwashed themselves into thinking that voting blue no matter who is a responsibility, and that Dems doing literally anything in our interests is a little treat that maybe they'll think about throwing our way if we're good and properly deferential, and anyone who claims the system is supposed to work otherwise is being a big stupid baby throwing a tantrum over unicorns and also they love Trump and want to kiss Russia on the mouth. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/jordanzakarin/status/1545876493263323136 I didn't realize Bedingfield was still at the White House (her resignation "to spend more time with the family" was announced a couple days ago), but I guess she's stuck there for a couple more weeks. It'll be interesting to see who replaces her, since she was a pretty significant figure. The context of the statement isn't really clear (it doesn't appear to be a public statement), but from the White House's perspective, they're doing everything that's legal for them to do, with a robust response that does their best to protect women any way they can. It's not really surprising that they'd be sour about the fact that, not only are their efforts and initiatives being completely ignored, but people are showering them with demands to waste their time on stuff that's they believe is unlikely to make any difference and is often outright illegal. As far as they're concerned, they're already doing everything the executive branch can really do, and anything more is in the hands of Congress. Obviously, many of us disagree with how they see things, but a statement like that makes perfect sense if you consider their perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/jordanzakarin/status/1545876493263323136 It's literal word salad. Like moderates in the party are screaming at you to do something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:It's literal word salad. Like moderates in the party are screaming at you to do something. Seriously. A broad based coalition of who? People who want to defend women's rights and...? And why do we need one? It's frustrating watching the need for someone to be at the vanguard and a white house who are so resistant to being pushed up front. It doesn't even feel like an attack on the left, just blind swinging at the idea people could be mad at what they view as inaction/not enough. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jul 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:46 |
|
|
Rochallor posted:Maybe I've missed where she's condemned it, but based on her name I'm pretty sure Liz Cheney supported the decision in Bush v Gore, so the best you can say of her is "won't support a coup that doesn't materially benefit her." “Sorry, you can’t argue statewide voting issues while selectively recounting counties that lean in your direction” isn’t anything close to a coup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2022 01:29
|
|