As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

The Democratic Primary

ElkiElki get busyModerator, ClubPA mod
Two old, untalented politicians enter. One leaves to defeat some terrible candidate, and then lose in 4 years. Which one do you support? Discuss.

And don't be an asshole.

smCQ5WE.jpg
«134567100

Posts

  • Options
    CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
    Martin O'Malley is the only person who can lead us through these trying times. #omentum

  • Options
    lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    The results for the Democrats Abroad Global Presidential Primary are coming in.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_Abroad_primary,_2016#Provisional_Results


    Sanders 3640
    Clinton 1556
    Total 5196


    Those are the recorded results for most of the walk-in voting centers that were held around the world from March 1- March 8. I say most because I know the Auckland numbers aren't there as our precinct captain didn't want to suppress turnout for the rest of the voting period by making people feel it was pointless to vote. There are still the emailed/mailed/faxed in votes still to be counted. Complete results are expected to be up and announced by 21 March.

    But if those votes go anything like the voting centers, Bernie Sanders is set to pretty well clean up the delegates from us Expats.

    This is the same update I put into the SE thread, but figured it bore repeating in case some people didn't see it over there.

    So all in all, good news for Bernie from around the world!

  • Options
    AbsalonAbsalon Lands of Always WinterRegistered User regular
    edited March 2016
    Have presidential primary candidates ever made vice president indications or pledges before taking the nomination? Is that considered bad form? I wonder because either of the democrats could possibly make waves by discussing their shortlist.

    Absalon on
  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    Finally. Looking at the biggest congregation of Sanders's supporters, Reddit, they managed to destroy all the good will they had on an amazing White Man's Burden temper tantrum because minorities weren't voting for Sanders.

    I'm not exaggerating:
    Tp13TZx.png

    Very disgraceful, not to mention that it pretty much kills any chance of Sanders winning this thing.

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Finally. Looking at the biggest congregation of Sanders's supporters, Reddit, they managed to destroy all the good will they had on an amazing White Man's Burden temper tantrum because minorities weren't voting for Sanders.

    I'm not exaggerating:
    Tp13TZx.png

    Very disgraceful, not to mention that it pretty much kills any chance of Sanders winning this thing.

    Are you a mainstream media reporter? That post did not get any support and was deleted because it is unacceptable racist bullshit within 24 hours.

    If you're going to not only cast aspersions on nearly a quarter million people, but also predict the general election results, research your facts and don't just post 4chan screenshots.

  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    Ok then, but the Democratic Primary has been about Sanders losing because women and minorities are going hard, like, 80% hard, to Clinton.

    0UAvcDM.jpg

    Why is that? No, seriously, I'm curious.

    TryCatcher on
  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Ok then, but the Democratic Primary has been about Sanders losing because women and minorities are going hard, like, 80% hard, to Clinton.

    0UAvcDM.jpg

    Why is that? No, seriously, I'm curious.

    It's because the establishment Democratic Party has a strong voice in the black community, and that's an alliance that has been built for years. It's the reason both parties consider South Carolina a firewall against insurgent candidates - both parties have strong machines that operate through the churches and community groups that dominate S.C. politics.

    Whatever the level of racism on Reddit Sanders supporters, that's not what is going on with the Democratic Party. Any candidate without the support of the Democratic Party as an organization is going to have an uphill battle with the party's most loyal constituencies.*

    * This is also why the GOP Establishment is freaking the fuck out right now. The traditional allied constituencies that they have relied on as a firewall against RINOs has turned on them. South Carolina should have broken Trump's campaign, not been another win.

  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Discussions about 4chan screengrabs of reddit comments should go where they belong. Twitter. In fact, assume that of all reddit posts.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    Well, and Sanders campaign is miles behind Hillary's on minority outreach and optics. Like, I genuinely am not sure if his campaign realizes him shouting "excuse me, I'm talking" while pointing at Hillary is not the same as her saying "excuse me" when she gets interrupted.

    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    Anyway, my current assessment of the race is that Sanders now needs to rely on all polling to have been as badly off as Michigan, since if he gets a 25 point bump everywhere he will be close to beating Hillary on delegates.

    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    My other working theory was that running a "revolution" against the Obama admin (and Clinton is a face of the Obama admin) as a Democrat was doomed from the start. But that failed to take in account the party machine. Obama was very good on getting the party machine to work for him. Of course, those things aren't exclusive.

    TryCatcher on
  • Options
    a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    My other working theory was that running a "revolution" against the Obama admin (and Clinton is a face of the Obama admin) as a Democrat was doomed from the start. But that failed to take in account the party machine. Obama was very good on getting the party machine to work for him. Of course, those things aren't exclusive.

    Yeah, and the Clintons are the party machine. It isn't quite to the point where Democrats are rallying against the establishment.

  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    TryCatcher wrote: »
    Ok then, but the Democratic Primary has been about Sanders losing because women and minorities are going hard, like, 80% hard, to Clinton.

    Why is that? No, seriously, I'm curious.

    The black establishment is influential and quite effective at turning out the vote, Sanders is a neophyte in national politics running an insurgent campaign against The Democratic Party, he had little name recognition, his support caught fire among young whites and largely spread socially and this is a widely segregated country so there it was not wise to expect this enthusiasm to be contagious across racial lines, he made a strategic mistake by always sticking his general message and not making sure to tailor his message to those different communities, his opponent has great name recognition in the black community.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2016
    milski wrote: »
    Well, and Sanders campaign is miles behind Hillary's on minority outreach and optics. Like, I genuinely am not sure if his campaign realizes him shouting "excuse me, I'm talking" while pointing at Hillary is not the same as her saying "excuse me" when she gets interrupted.

    It's a mistake for anyone to run against Hillary in 2016. The DNC wants to coronate her, and they'll get what they want. Anyone doing it is just wasting their time and energy.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    Hillary was supposed to be coronated in '08 as well so I don't think it's categorically true nobody could win against her now. The problem is that she's smarter now and Sanders is worse than '08 Hillary at campaigning.

    milski on
    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2016
    milski wrote: »
    Hillary was supposed to be coronated in '08 as well so I don't think it's categorically true nobody could win against her now. The problem is that she's smarter now and Sanders is worse than '08 Hillary at campaigning.

    So to beat her you need the political skills, freshness, and charisma of Obama (and his team). I'll need to compare with '08, but I'm positive that just measured by endorsements, this year crushes '08. In fact it crushes any year in modern history.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    Bush 00 and Dole 96 win and Gore 00 was similar but lower. Technically I think that second term runs did better but that isn't on the 538 tracker.

    E: and yes to win you need to be very good, I'm not saying Sanders has or had a chance. But she could have been beaten by a better Sanders.

    milski on
    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    SeñorAmorSeñorAmor !!! Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Hillary was supposed to be coronated in '08 as well so I don't think it's categorically true nobody could win against her now. The problem is that she's smarter now and Sanders is worse than '08 Hillary at campaigning.

    So to beat her you need the political skills, freshness, and charisma of Obama (and his team). I'll need to compare with '08, but I'm positive that just measured by endorsements, this year crushes '08. In fact it crushes any year in modern history.

    600x600px-LL-84a6381f_image.jpeg

  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Hillary was supposed to be coronated in '08 as well so I don't think it's categorically true nobody could win against her now. The problem is that she's smarter now and Sanders is worse than '08 Hillary at campaigning.

    So to beat her you need the political skills, freshness, and charisma of Obama (and his team). I'll need to compare with '08, but I'm positive that just measured by endorsements, this year crushes '08. In fact it crushes any year in modern history.

    A more charismatic pol with Sanders message would have destroyed her. Sanders is a decent guy, but there are real reasons to have reservations about him in that role. But I imagine the Democratic Party has to be getting extremely uneasy about how they are going to have to change to keep the next generation of voters, as they are just as much at risk of a Donald as the GOP in coming elections.

  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Hillary was supposed to be coronated in '08 as well so I don't think it's categorically true nobody could win against her now. The problem is that she's smarter now and Sanders is worse than '08 Hillary at campaigning.

    So to beat her you need the political skills, freshness, and charisma of Obama (and his team). I'll need to compare with '08, but I'm positive that just measured by endorsements, this year crushes '08. In fact it crushes any year in modern history.

    Hillary has had a ridiculous lead throughout on endorsements. This will be the year that is used as the new benchmark for "Outrageous lead in endorsements" in the future.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    I think current numbers say that Sanders needs to win something like 55% of the remaining pledged delegates, which I guess is possible. But if polling is even remotely reliable, Hillary will significantly extend her lead this next Tuesday and then the % by which Bernie needs to win any following primary only increases.

  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Hillary was supposed to be coronated in '08 as well so I don't think it's categorically true nobody could win against her now. The problem is that she's smarter now and Sanders is worse than '08 Hillary at campaigning.

    So to beat her you need the political skills, freshness, and charisma of Obama (and his team). I'll need to compare with '08, but I'm positive that just measured by endorsements, this year crushes '08. In fact it crushes any year in modern history.

    Hillary has had a ridiculous lead throughout on endorsements. This will be the year that is used as the new benchmark for "Outrageous lead in endorsements" in the future.

    Bush 00 is still far higher.

    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    milski wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Hillary was supposed to be coronated in '08 as well so I don't think it's categorically true nobody could win against her now. The problem is that she's smarter now and Sanders is worse than '08 Hillary at campaigning.

    So to beat her you need the political skills, freshness, and charisma of Obama (and his team). I'll need to compare with '08, but I'm positive that just measured by endorsements, this year crushes '08. In fact it crushes any year in modern history.

    Hillary has had a ridiculous lead throughout on endorsements. This will be the year that is used as the new benchmark for "Outrageous lead in endorsements" in the future.

    Bush 00 is still far higher.

    Bush eventually overtakes her numbers, but nobody starts with more than Hillary as early. And for just Democratic races there's nothing even close.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    milski wrote: »
    E: and yes to win you need to be very good, I'm not saying Sanders has or had a chance. But she could have been beaten by a better Sanders.

    My point with the coronation comment is that the Democratic party was marvelously successful at what they wanted to do; dissuade any talented young pol with a future from challenging Hillary for the nomination. Mission accomplished, I say.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    So if it's a mistake to run against hillary, does that also make it a bad thing? I don't have any rational basis for this, but I feel like it's been nothing but positive for him to be in the race and his populist message is a good thing TM.

  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2016
    So if it's a mistake to run against hillary, does that also make it a bad thing? I don't have any rational basis for this, but I feel like it's been nothing but positive for him to be in the race and his populist message is a good thing TM.

    No, it's fine, I have nothing against the man and his run. And he's old, so it's not like he'll be saving himself for 2020/2024.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    I feel like Hillary starting with so many is partially a function of communication plus longer primary season, since Bush caught up with Hillary about a month after announcing.

    But yes Hillary and the DNC absolutely did clear the deck of anybody who wanted to run against her to get national attention. If only they could keep people in line so well when writing legislation.

    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    So if it's a mistake to run against hillary, does that also make it a bad thing? I don't have any rational basis for this, but I feel like it's been nothing but positive for him to be in the race and his populist message is a good thing TM.

    No, it's fine, I have nothing against the man and his run. And he's old, so it's not like he'll be saving himself for 2020/2024.

    They're all old. There's only a 6 year difference between him and Hillary. He just happens to look like Dr. Wiley.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • Options
    PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    Elki wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    E: and yes to win you need to be very good, I'm not saying Sanders has or had a chance. But she could have been beaten by a better Sanders.

    My point with the coronation comment is that the Democratic party was marvelously successful at what they wanted to do; dissuade any talented young pol with a future from challenging Hillary for the nomination. Mission accomplished, I say.

    I just hope it doesn't turn out to be a longterm mistake. The Democratic Party has a serious boomer problem. Compared to the GOP, it's major figures are from another generation. I see a ton of "young hopefuls" mentioned here and there, but none of them seems to be making a mark. This would have been a good race to show off a few Democratic Marco Rubios.

    I was reading about Obama for years - especially after the Alan Keyes campaign - but I don't see any of the same buzz around anyone else. Corey Booker seemed like he was in line for big things, and he's still climbing the ranks, but I think the failure to improve Newark and extremely close ties to Wall Street are going to be a stone around his neck.

    Phillishere on
  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    So if it's a mistake to run against hillary, does that also make it a bad thing? I don't have any rational basis for this, but I feel like it's been nothing but positive for him to be in the race and his populist message is a good thing TM.

    It's a mistake to run against Hillary for the vast majority of Democrats since it'll kill you with the DNC. For Bernie, he got a message out there, which is what he wanted. I wish the message wasn't anti Free Trade, but the rest of it is good for the DNC long term.

    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    E: and yes to win you need to be very good, I'm not saying Sanders has or had a chance. But she could have been beaten by a better Sanders.

    My point with the coronation comment is that the Democratic party was marvelously successful at what they wanted to do; dissuade any talented young pol with a future from challenging Hillary for the nomination. Mission accomplished, I say.

    I just hope it doesn't turn out to be a longterm mistake. The Democratic Party has a serious boomer problem. Compared to the GOP, it's major figures are from another generation. I see a ton of "young hopefuls" mentioned here and there, but none of them seems to be making a mark. This would have been a good race to show off a few Democratic Marco Rubios.

    I was reading about Obama for years - especially after the Alan Keyes campaign - but I don't see any of the same buzz around anyone else. Corey Booker seemed like he was in line for big things, and he's still climbing the ranks, but I think the failure to improve Newark and extremely close ties to Wall Street are going to be a stone around his neck.

    That's a different strategy, yes. It can be effective, but this time around they went with Clinton. It was effectively treated as a quasi-incumbent race.

  • Options
    SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    I find the whole attitude of "Well Hilary is inevitable" kinda frustrating. I don't like having a politican be inevitable, I want to have the people actually select them because they're the best candidate, not because whatever establishment believes it's their time or whatever.

    Bernie has made huge strides and his win in Michigan and other victories shows me he definitely has a chance. It's a rough fight, but it's possible. I way prefer Bernie to Hilary (though to me, Hilary is a clear second choice given the crazies on the other side) and think he has a decent shot.

    At the very least hopefully this shows the country there is a desire for the kinds of things he's saying, even if he doesn't win.

  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    The problem for anyone who wasn't Clinton this time around is that she's been treated like the next nominee since basically 2006. The only thing that stopped her the first time was the political force of nature that was Barack Obama, backed by the insurgent Progressive wing of the party. In terms of personal political power within the party, Clinton wields just a completely insane amount. Anyone with aspirations for future runs at higher office wasn't going to tilt at this particular windmill, especially with how commanding her leads were.

    Sanders is a deeply imperfect candidate, but he's a hell of a salesman for economic progressivism and his personal integrity is casting a strong contrast with Clinton's overt politicism of practically everything. And he's an old man who is running a passion campaign and in no way threatened by potential backlash for opposing the coronation.

    He's very likely going to lose, but it's a demonstration that the Clinton wing needs to start taking the Progressive wing seriously.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Elki wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    E: and yes to win you need to be very good, I'm not saying Sanders has or had a chance. But she could have been beaten by a better Sanders.

    My point with the coronation comment is that the Democratic party was marvelously successful at what they wanted to do; dissuade any talented young pol with a future from challenging Hillary for the nomination. Mission accomplished, I say.

    I just hope it doesn't turn out to be a longterm mistake. The Democratic Party has a serious boomer problem. Compared to the GOP, it's major figures are from another generation. I see a ton of "young hopefuls" mentioned here and there, but none of them seems to be making a mark. This would have been a good race to show off a few Democratic Marco Rubios.

    I was reading about Obama for years - especially after the Alan Keyes campaign - but I don't see any of the same buzz around anyone else. Corey Booker seemed like he was in line for big things, and he's still climbing the ranks, but I think the failure to improve Newark and extremely close ties to Wall Street are going to be a stone around his neck.

    It smells like stagnation. A party that gives its constituents little choice will start to learn increasingly less about what animates its voters; as far as the DNC is concerned they figured it out and don't really need their voters for anything but to go through a formality.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    I wasn't talking about inevitability, I was talking about general Democratic strategy.

  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Elki wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Hillary was supposed to be coronated in '08 as well so I don't think it's categorically true nobody could win against her now. The problem is that she's smarter now and Sanders is worse than '08 Hillary at campaigning.

    So to beat her you need the political skills, freshness, and charisma of Obama (and his team). I'll need to compare with '08, but I'm positive that just measured by endorsements, this year crushes '08. In fact it crushes any year in modern history.

    Except perhaps Gore in 2000, Clinton has the highest Democratic support among elected officials and office holders in recent memory.

    Most analysis just accepts that and frames it simply as "establishment" vs "outsider."

    I think its telling that Clinton has the support of essentially the entire Obama administration, and almost every substantial Democratic elected figure. Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years. And he can't get any substantial support there.

    Now maybe that just says something about the machine or the establishment or whatever. But Obama got plenty of support in 08. And if the narrative is Sanders can overcome the machine or the establishment or whatever, then shouldn't he be able to garner something approaching not embarrassing in terms of margin either through personal connections or whatever political skill he's claiming will allow him to get some of his agenda done?

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    PantsB wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    milski wrote: »
    Hillary was supposed to be coronated in '08 as well so I don't think it's categorically true nobody could win against her now. The problem is that she's smarter now and Sanders is worse than '08 Hillary at campaigning.

    So to beat her you need the political skills, freshness, and charisma of Obama (and his team). I'll need to compare with '08, but I'm positive that just measured by endorsements, this year crushes '08. In fact it crushes any year in modern history.

    Except perhaps Gore in 2000, Clinton has the highest Democratic support among elected officials and office holders in recent memory.

    Most analysis just accepts that and frames it simply as "establishment" vs "outsider."

    I think its telling that Clinton has the support of essentially the entire Obama administration, and almost every substantial Democratic elected figure. Sanders has been in Congress for 25 years. And he can't get any substantial support there.

    Now maybe that just says something about the machine or the establishment or whatever. But Obama got plenty of support in 08. And if the narrative is Sanders can overcome the machine or the establishment or whatever, then shouldn't he be able to garner something approaching not embarrassing in terms of margin either through personal connections or whatever political skill he's claiming will allow him to get some of his agenda done?

    I'm not sure what you're responding to, or want me to say. I think Sanders is an untalented politician; I pretty much said so. And then expanded in subsequent comments with more related thoughts on the primary.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    milskimilski Poyo! Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    I find the whole attitude of "Well Hilary is inevitable" kinda frustrating. I don't like having a politican be inevitable, I want to have the people actually select them because they're the best candidate, not because whatever establishment believes it's their time or whatever.

    Bernie has made huge strides and his win in Michigan and other victories shows me he definitely has a chance. It's a rough fight, but it's possible. I way prefer Bernie to Hilary (though to me, Hilary is a clear second choice given the crazies on the other side) and think he has a decent shot.

    At the very least hopefully this shows the country there is a desire for the kinds of things he's saying, even if he doesn't win.

    If you are talking about the current state of affairs Hillary is inevitable because you need the same math that says Cruz can beat Trump HtH to say that Sanders can win on delegates.

    Literally the only hope right now is if Michigan revealed a deep trend in polling errors in the next 30 contests that didn't affect the previous 20.

    E: Sanders is more likely to get the nomination via Hillary being indicted than he is on delegates counts.

    milski on
    I ate an engineer
  • Options
    LadaiLadai Registered User regular
    edited March 2016
    I like both Sanders and Clinton as candidates and think both would make fine presidents, although I agree with Sanders more on the issues and will most likely be voting for him when Pennsylvania has its primary in late April (even if it'll be mostly symbolic at that point, unless some major change happens between now and then).

    The one thing that tempers my enthusiasm for Sanders (OK, there are actually a few things, but one of the big factors) is that, while I agree with almost everything he says philosophically, I feel like he doesn't really give a lot of specifics, and what details he does give sometimes have some issues with the numbers adding up. Or, at least that's what I'm reading from my regular list of trusted commentators. I'm far from an expert on this. I also sometimes get the feeling that Clinton better understands the ugly, sausage-making process of compromise and the messiness of politics in Washington. On the other hand, I still have the same issues with Clinton that I had in 2008. Namely, her general hawkishness (by Democratic Party standards anyway, she's practically a pacifist compared to the GOP) and a continued sense on my part that she has to be forced to publicly adopt more liberal stances via primary challenge, rather than just starting out with those positions in the first place.

    These are just my general, over-simplified impressions.
    Still gonna vote for Sanders in the primary.
    Still gonna (if things keep going as they are) vote for Clinton in the general.
    Overall, I expect I'll feel pretty good about both votes.

    Ladai on
    ely3ub6du1oe.jpg
  • Options
    ToxTox I kill threads he/himRegistered User regular
    I wonder if Gore or Cheney is more responsible for killing the "VP as heir" mentality in presidential politics.

    HW Bush may also have had something to do with it, but I feel like his loss was a very different matter.

    Twitter! | Dilige, et quod vis fac
This discussion has been closed.