|
Bugsy posted:I havent watched the video and probably wont because I dont want to hear gunshots that killed kids. Nobody is actually shown being shot in the video per the article. The article is very bad for the cops, and I imagine the video is even worse. Never gonna see a more perfect image of cops in the US, than a cop checking his phone with a lovely patriot punisher skull while kids die https://twitter.com/MeinPillowGuy/status/1546961813404880896 It's pretty much a total and overt failure of like six different organizations. TGLT fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jul 13, 2022 |
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
If I know anything about The Punisher it’s that he was not only a huge fan of cops but also of chillin while kids get shot
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
They use it because it’s a socially acceptable totenkopf, not because they know poo poo about the punisher.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
That video is pretty brutal. They removed the sound of the kids screaming but left in the gun fire. Do not recommend listening. It also just utterly shuts down any bullshit good guy with a gun argument by orders of magnitude. I mean we knew that but it's just utterly terrible to watch
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Galaxy brain legal question: is there anything besides decorum that prevents the President from going, "Actually, I think Marbury v Madison was decided wrongly and therefore judicial review doesn't exist."? It's not in the Constitution and exists only because the SC says it does. As the SC drifts further from public opinion it seems like it would be easier and easier to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:Galaxy brain legal question: is there anything besides decorum that prevents the President from going, "Actually, I think Marbury v Madison was decided wrongly and therefore judicial review doesn't exist."? It's not in the Constitution and exists only because the SC says it does. As the SC drifts further from public opinion it seems like it would be easier and easier to do. not a lawyer but my wild-rear end guess is if you went nuclear and declared Marbury vs. Madison wrongly decided, it would cause a constitutional crisis over the legitimacy of SCOTUS but would also remove all other Supreme Court precedent so something like Obergefell (but also all other SCOTUS precedent) would become non-binding and all of a sudden gay marriage is illegal in red states and there's maximum chaos where 200 years of laws built on SCOTUS precedent evaporate
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 01:30
|
|
|
That’s if you got it to stick. The most likely outcome is the court says you’re wrong and everyone agrees with them because it’s the low chaos option. A more realistic possibility for a showdown is the court orders a president or governor to take some positive action and they just… don’t.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:Galaxy brain legal question: is there anything besides decorum that prevents the President from going, "Actually, I think Marbury v Madison was decided wrongly and therefore judicial review doesn't exist."? It's not in the Constitution and exists only because the SC says it does. As the SC drifts further from public opinion it seems like it would be easier and easier to do. Also not a lawyer, but I think the basic result would be that Congress or the Executive could just violate rights whenever and face no consequences for it. What happens when the, "You Can't Bad Mouth the President Act of 2026," happens?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
haveblue posted:That’s if you got it to stick. The most likely outcome is the court says you’re wrong and everyone agrees with them because it’s the low chaos option. This is the likely outcome. Everyone would roll their eyes at the president who immediately loses a lot of credibility as someone to be taken seriously. Then the president possibly pouts and refuses to do his job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm for long shots but even I think the main problem there is that if you run that up the flagpole no one salutes. It would just wildly undo a lot and no one would know what to actually do with that declaration. Now, if you wanted to channel Jefferson and argue Judicial review shouldn't be to an unelected body and push to codify the right to judicial review to someone besides the court, since the constitution doesn't inherently give it that right, you might have something because it does also provide a path forward. At the least a real plan like that needs to give people a path forward because no one will agree to chaos. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jul 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
This did happen in the 1820's. Andrew Jackson told a bunch of Native Americans that the US had treaties with that lived in the southern US that they now had to move to what is now Oklahoma. They sued. The Supreme Court sided with the Native Americans. Jackson said basically "You and what army?" and the Trail of Tears happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 02:09
|
|
|
Twincityhacker posted:This did happen in the 1820's. Andrew Jackson told a bunch of Native Americans that the US had treaties with that lived in the southern US that they now had to move to what is now Oklahoma. They sued. The Supreme Court sided with the Native Americans. Jackson said basically "You and what army?" and the Trail of Tears happened. Eh, that's not Jackson saying that judicial review doesn't exist. That is however Jackson telling the courts that yes they can say something is unconstitutional but that then needs to be enforced through something more than decorum. I think Biden doesn't have something as clear cut here that he could do to show that the court can't enforce it's rulings but he also obviously has no intention of saying the court is illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
Twincityhacker posted:This did happen in the 1820's. Andrew Jackson told a bunch of Native Americans that the US had treaties with that lived in the southern US that they now had to move to what is now Oklahoma. They sued. The Supreme Court sided with the Native Americans. Jackson said basically "You and what army?" and the Trail of Tears happened. I'm probably being overly pedantic here, but that wasn't Jackson. The case where that happened was Worcester v Georgia. Samuel Worcester was a Christian missionary and ally to the Cherokee who lived on Cherokee land. The Georgia legislature had passed a law saying that no non-Cherokee could live on Cherokee land without permission from the state of Georgia, and arrested Worcester. It went to the Supreme Court where they said that only the US government, not state governments, had any jurisdiction over Indian land, and therefore the Georgia law was unconstitutional. The governor of Georgia didn't release him (and another missionary who had broken the law for a while. The treaty that disposessed the Cherokee was the Treaty of New Echota, which a lot of the Cherokees considered invalid, because it was signed by a minority party in the Cherokee legislature (and actually led to a civil war in Oklahoma after removal, where a lot of the signatories were assassinated), but that never was heard by the Supreme Court. Instead of suing, Chief Ross petitioned the Senate not to ratify the treaty and spent a lot of time lobbying Congress to repeal it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:Galaxy brain legal question: is there anything besides decorum that prevents the President from going, "Actually, I think Marbury v Madison was decided wrongly and therefore judicial review doesn't exist."? It's not in the Constitution and exists only because the SC says it does. As the SC drifts further from public opinion it seems like it would be easier and easier to do. Even assuming it worked, this would also invalidate Brown v Board, Loving v Virginia, Obergefell, and a fuckton of other good Supreme Court rulings. The judiciary has created a number of rights that, to this very day, haven't really been enshrined into law, continuing to exist only because everyone regards those acts of judicial fiat with a sense of respect and legitimacy. Twincityhacker posted:This did happen in the 1820's. Andrew Jackson told a bunch of Native Americans that the US had treaties with that lived in the southern US that they now had to move to what is now Oklahoma. They sued. The Supreme Court sided with the Native Americans. Jackson said basically "You and what army?" and the Trail of Tears happened. The infamous "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" is apocryphal and almost certainly mythical, and Jackson didn't have to refuse to enforce the ruling since it didn't impact him at all. While Jackson had no sympathy for Native Americans and was not inclined to support the court's ruling, there wasn't really anything for him to defy. Materials from the time suggest that if the Supreme Court had called on him to enforce the ruling, he would have refused, but things never got to that point. The Supreme Court didn't rule that the removal of Native Americans was illegal. The case was a response to the government of Georgia trying to force the Cherokee out on its own, and the court ruled that state governments had no authority over native tribes, and that only the federal government had any jurisdiction over them. The Jackson administration came in and "negotiated" a removal treaty on Georgia's behalf. As best as I can tell, the resulting federal actions leading to the Trail of Tears were never challenged in court, and were legal by the laws of the time since they complied with the previous ruling. It is true that there was some executive defiance of the court ruling, though - the government of Georgia had no real intention of complying with the Supreme Court ruling. Since the Nullification Crisis happened right after said ruling, the federal government already had a confrontation against an even more openly rebellious state to deal with, and wasn't inclined to challenge Georgia as well. Instead, they came in and aided Georgia, seeking to defuse the jurisdictional conflict between the state and the feds by using federal power to do the thing the state wanted to do. And it's not like Jackson was anti-genocide in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:Galaxy brain legal question: is there anything besides decorum that prevents the President from going, "Actually, I think Marbury v Madison was decided wrongly and therefore judicial review doesn't exist."? It's not in the Constitution and exists only because the SC says it does. As the SC drifts further from public opinion it seems like it would be easier and easier to do. number one thing that would probably prevent it would be the military units or armed mobs that are going to back your coup attempt not being in position yet
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 02:57
|
|
|
Dubar posted:I read this thread and the other posters description of "red lines between photographs vibe" is dead accurate. I'm not doubting any of the information, but its a very q-esque series of implications being hinted at to explain why a bunch of prominent conservative activists run in the same circles I was really under the impression that the Mueller report/russiagate had killed a lot of the enthusiasm for that kind of dumbassed, breathless, 200 tweets of "okay grab a drink and get comfy y'all, and let me break down how these documents PROVE that Bruce Gunt and Christy Heck KNEW that Todd Burp was a partner in Treat Boy LLC with Sandy Blimp!! this is HUGE, y'all!" But apparently it's still going strong. It's a weird phenomenon, this bizarre tattletale politics where if we can just prove that Clint Gumbo had his taxes done by Tandem Climp then the Republicans will have to stop what they're doing and let us be in charge. A weird, legalist conception of politics that seems to assume there's some omnipotent umpire who can be appealed to if we can prove that the other side aren't playing fair!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 03:24
|
|
|
Rochallor posted:Galaxy brain legal question: is there anything besides decorum that prevents the President from going, "Actually, I think Marbury v Madison was decided wrongly and therefore judicial review doesn't exist."? It's not in the Constitution and exists only because the SC says it does. As the SC drifts further from public opinion it seems like it would be easier and easier to do. In the future, it may be helpful to search a thread to see if your question has been asked and answered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 06:27
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:I was really under the impression that the Mueller report/russiagate had killed a lot of the enthusiasm for that kind of dumbassed, breathless, 200 tweets of "okay grab a drink and get comfy y'all, and let me break down how these documents PROVE that Bruce Gunt and Christy Heck KNEW that Todd Burp was a partner in Treat Boy LLC with Sandy Blimp!! this is HUGE, y'all!" But apparently it's still going strong. It's a weird phenomenon, this bizarre tattletale politics where if we can just prove that Clint Gumbo had his taxes done by Tandem Climp then the Republicans will have to stop what they're doing and let us be in charge. A weird, legalist conception of politics that seems to assume there's some omnipotent umpire who can be appealed to if we can prove that the other side aren't playing fair!!! It's pretty much 'When Prophecy Fails' at this point. Doubling down harder and harder because they've put everything into that idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 08:00
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:I was really under the impression that the Mueller report/russiagate had killed a lot of the enthusiasm for that kind of dumbassed, breathless, 200 tweets of "okay grab a drink and get comfy y'all, and let me break down how these documents PROVE that Bruce Gunt and Christy Heck KNEW that Todd Burp was a partner in Treat Boy LLC with Sandy Blimp!! this is HUGE, y'all!" But apparently it's still going strong. It's a weird phenomenon, this bizarre tattletale politics where if we can just prove that Clint Gumbo had his taxes done by Tandem Climp then the Republicans will have to stop what they're doing and let us be in charge. A weird, legalist conception of politics that seems to assume there's some omnipotent umpire who can be appealed to if we can prove that the other side aren't playing fair!!! Just want to jump in and say, you're really good at coming up with realistic stupid sounding fake white politician names.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 09:09
|
|
|
haveblue posted:A more realistic possibility for a showdown is the court orders a president or governor to take some positive action and they just… don’t. This is how it will go. I can see a California governor in the near future feeling themselves enough to tell a Republican SCOTUS to eat poo poo. Where it goes from there is pure Clancy
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 09:33
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Just want to jump in and say, you're really good at coming up with realistic stupid sounding fake white politician names. hah, thanks. I really got on a roll there
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 09:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NancyVu99/status/1547007379820216322?t=TEmlD2xsbZTAbtwWWOvZrQ&s=19 The Dems do not care about abortion rights. They willingly surrender any leverage they have on the issue because they do not care about women's right to choose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 09:59
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/NancyVu99/status/1547007379820216322?t=TEmlD2xsbZTAbtwWWOvZrQ&s=19 It's... hard to draw any other conclusion, isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 11:06
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/NancyVu99/status/1547007379820216322?t=TEmlD2xsbZTAbtwWWOvZrQ&s=19 Yeah they could have played hardball with this and dared republicans to vote against a defense bill but instead they decided they care more about "bipartisan support" than abortion rights huh. If they can't even be bothered to fight for small victories like this, what hope is there for them to do anything substantial wrt abortion rights?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 12:38
|
|
|
Srice posted:Yeah they could have played hardball with this and dared republicans to vote against a defense bill but instead they decided they care more about "bipartisan support" than abortion rights huh. This is some Obama-era thinking, imo. Without a doubt, the current GOP would absolutely vote against a defense bill and put all the blame on the Democrats, who (for the most part) do not actually want the defense bill to fail. It's not really the powerful leverage you're imagining it to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
Did they achieve a majority over the weekend?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is some Obama-era thinking, imo. Without a doubt, the current GOP would absolutely vote against a defense bill and put all the blame on the Democrats, who (for the most part) do not actually want the defense bill to fail. It's not really the powerful leverage you're imagining it to be. Call this anecdotal but cratering a defense bill is exactly the kind of thing that would be appealing to a certain sector of the voter base that they seem to have largely dismissed in recent decades
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 12:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is some Obama-era thinking, imo. Without a doubt, the current GOP would absolutely vote against a defense bill and put all the blame on the Democrats, who (for the most part) do not actually want the defense bill to fail. It's not really the powerful leverage you're imagining it to be. I do not think it's a powerful move to take, just that if they aren't gonna try to fight the small battles I don't have any hope for them fighting the big fights, y'know?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 13:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:put all the blame on the Democrats, who (for the most part) do not actually want the defense bill to fail. If it wouldn't be possible for Democrats to turn this outcome into a net campaigning win, then what's the loving point of anything at all. Is it really a "don't lose the midterms any worse" calculation? Or are they just genuinely convinced that their main job description is to protect defense industry profits. I don't loving want to live in a civilization that ultimately just exists to pay tribute to these demons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 13:12
|
|
|
I wonder how many extra billions they tipped the DoD above their requested budget this time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 13:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:the Democrats, who (for the most part) do not actually want the defense bill to fail That's more of an indictment of the Democrats, isn't it? What mid-term votes do they lose if they demonstrate some spine and show that they are willing to let the defense bill fail, vs throwing (more) abortion rights under the bus in favour of feeding the maws of the MIC?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 13:28
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:It's pretty much 'When Prophecy Fails' at this point. Doubling down harder and harder because they've put everything into that idea. I remember in 2017 people making fun of Trump for still talking about Hillary. We're well into Biden's second year and the Jan6 hearing is the biggest news for a lot of Democrats. There's a decent chance "lock him up!" will be the Democratic rallying cry in 2024. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 13:32
|
|
|
RandomUserString posted:That's more of an indictment of the Democrats, isn't it? What mid-term votes do they lose if they demonstrate some spine and show that they are willing to let the defense bill fail, vs throwing (more) abortion rights under the bus in favour of feeding the maws of the MIC? Given the kind of money behind the MIC they might genuinely worry about assassination attempts. Or more likely of course, their donors getting mad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 13:36
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Given the kind of money behind the MIC they might genuinely worry about assassination attempts. Or more likely of course, their donors getting mad. Then the US is already a fascist country and the difference between whether Democrats or Republicans are nominally in power is just a matter of aesthetics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 13:40
|
|
|
RandomUserString posted:That's more of an indictment of the Democrats, isn't it? What mid-term votes do they lose if they demonstrate some spine and show that they are willing to let the defense bill fail, vs throwing (more) abortion rights under the bus in favour of feeding the maws of the MIC? I generally agree and I am skeptical that it would have mattered, but I think the idea here is that miraculously the national conversation (1/6 stuff, abortion) has become focused on the politically best topics for them at the absolute perfect time, and the GOP is now desperate to change the subject to literally anything else. These amendments to this defense bill are not going to matter very much for abortion rights in the grand scheme of things so they may be thinking that an unnecessary fight over the defense budget could give the GOP the chance to scream "never mind about Trump and abortion, the Democrats do not support our troops!" I don't think it would have worked, because there is just too much intense interest in what's going on right now and the voters are not going to care much about a little budget squabble, so I think there's really no risk in fighting for this now to rally the base, but I think the risk-averse Dem leaders would prefer to just very cautiously manage a win now and fight for this later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 13:46
|
|
|
June 2022 CPI numbers are out and it is a huge miss upwards. Previous y/y was 8.6 estimates were 8.8% and it came in at 9.1%. Real wages down -4.4%. Sticky cpi readings will be something to watch. Small chance we have seen peak inflation in usa with energy and other commodities starting to fall. Place an asterisk next to that though. Oil markets have been weird and it is unknown if commodities fell due to potential usa recession or China lockdown. Strengthening dollar will continue to export inflation. Global readings should still rise in July if dxy stays on its upward course. https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1547196777702592513?t=clorcYwJp4hd-WNkO3rmAw&s=19 I've only looked at the big numbers and not the breakdowns yet, so no comment on individual categories. Mr Hootington fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Jul 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 13:47
|
|
|
If we can accept that the Republicans are hateful villians and the democrats will never be part of the solution, that our system is effectively in a state of failure, that all positions and decisions are beholden to money first, I think it's possible to convince people that that two party system needs to go or even that we must endure some sort of collapse to get it out of the way. I know people who voted for trump in 2016, people I've had heated words with over them spouting problematic old man right wing internet memes. It's taken years, but even they will admit they've been deceived by Republicans, that the culture war is a distraction, that if our leaders/systems can't actually address climate change (even if it's not their #1 issue, my acquaintances that is) they will never meaningfully address our myriad other problems. They will admit things are surely getting worse, that we need massive change. I know we make fun of survivalist and preppers, but considering the discomfort surely involved with making the changes we need to make as a country (and indeed world), a certain attitude of rugged self sustainability is going to be necessary to make it palatable to enough of the population. These are the kind of people who would usually complain about their very narrow personal qualms with the government, but they will admit now we've in a sense got it made, materially... it's just not equal and we have no control. This (like so many previous times) should be a moment when a new message can resonate, an outsider for labor, an actual leader not a hateful charlatan like trump. I think if somebody were to make Americans feel strong and give them a way to fight it could work. But these people hate democrats and liberals, they are utterly lost to democrats. They might not follow the news like us nor have the same grievances with democrats, but it's certainly not just culture war racism and bigotry. I wish there was anybody with power and platform who seemed able to meet this moment and overcome the obstacles to building that coalition, tea party astroturf style or Bernie sanders passionate supporters style. It's clearer than ever we have no way to even approach it using the terms democrat and republican, it's just too easy to divide people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:June 2022 CPI numbers are out and it is a huge miss upwards. Previous y/y was 8.6 estimates were 8.8% and it came in at 9.1%. Real wages down -4.4%. Sticky cpi readings will be something to watch. Yeah, it appears the entire world is still getting hit with it. https://twitter.com/Investingcom/status/1547151928525819904 https://twitter.com/Schuldensuehner/status/1547138719727190018 https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1547180581141766144 One tiny pedantic point, this doesn't mean that inflation is still currently accelerating at this moment. It probably is, but it is still possible that we are currently at peak because oil and commodity prices have been continuing to drop post-data collection. Inflation is likely still accelerating in the U.S., but it doesn't mean it 100% absolutely is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Yeah, it appears the entire world is still getting hit with it. Has the USA finally peaked? The chances are better now, but anyone is a fool to make that claim at this point. Again prices decreases of raw materials have to work their way through. Energy is the most immediate and I'd it stays down for the rest of July then it probably has peaked. Global inflation will get worse as the dollar strengthens. Europe is most likely heading into a debt crisises too. Edit: real wages took a massive hit too. https://twitter.com/LiveSquawk/status/1547197193295110147?t=yIvVPu4AiA-HmQN9QicLig&s=19 Mr Hootington fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Jul 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
The negotiation on the climate provisions of the slimmed down BBB are basically complete on the details, but they may still collapse. Manchin wants a pipeline in West Virginia that the administration has been delaying approval on to be approved as part of a deal to pass this bill. But, the approval can't be done legislatively and the White House doesn't trust Manchin. They don't want to approve the projects and then have Manchin back out of the climate portion of the bill and Manchin doesn't want the White House to decide to back out of giving him what he wants after he votes because he loses all leverage. Manchin also wants some kind of guarantee that the projects will move forward even after approval because he is concerned that the administration could still let them die after approval by red tape or climate lawsuits from outside groups. https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1547179334930034688 https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1547180205621407744 https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1547181059871109120 quote:The difficult balancing act, described by four administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing a potential deal, is part of the White House’s last-ditch effort to salvage the chances of meeting Biden’s carbon emissions reduction targets with just months until the 2022 midterm elections. The fossil fuel projects may also prove crucial to Democrats’ broader economic package focused on energy, prescription drugs and taxes, since Manchin has so far balked at only approving the new clean energy tax credits that form the core of the party’s climate legislation. quote:Though some energy analysts have said the pipeline is not needed to supply domestic or international markets, Manchin has championed the project. He has described it as “strategically important” for American energy security and the European Union’s goal of cutting its dependence on Russian gas, told administration officials the pipeline is one of his top priorities, and cited its many delays to argue that permitting hurdles are strangling U.S. oil and gas production. quote:From the perspective of many administration officials, such a deal would be worth making if the billions of dollars in tax incentives for renewable energy could curb rising emissions that are fueling planetary warming. quote:Manchin has said boosting clean energy — without also increasing U.S. production of oil and gas — could hurt the nation by making it more dependent on authoritarian petrostates such as Saudi Arabia, which Biden is visiting in part because the United States needs its oil. Manchin has also voiced concerns about approving hundreds of billions in government subsidies for fossil fuel projects that could be defeated by red tape or climate lawsuits, the people said. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Jul 13, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2022 14:40
|
|