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/

The Democratic Primary: Will Never End

196979899100102»

Posts

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    PantsB wrote: »
    Early exit poll info: 21% Dem voters black, 16% < 30 yo

    how does that compare to, like 2008? or what's expected by the 538 model?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.

    This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.

    I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"

    there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.

    so, yes, there are costs to inaction

    but also costs to interference

    it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.

    Not every bad thing that happens is realistically preventable or should be seen as some cost of action vs inaction.


    I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?

    i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones.

    not discounting the assertion that an actual american invasion wouldn't have produced its own problems and resentments.

    Your positive belief is based on what, though? Have you spoken with refugees and/or other victims of sectarian violence who say, "I wish the Americans would have invaded & intervened," ?

    Like I said before, do you have a source that supports this claim?

    so look this was the first google hit i found

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/world/meast/syria-unrest/

    do you really believe that there aren't more?

    every time anything goes wrong in the world, there are calls for american intervention from all corners

    and every time america intervenes there are calls from all corners criticising the intervention

    it's not rocket science. this is how the world works.

    The people calling for US intervention in that article aren't Syrian refugees, though, they're Syrian opposition leaders in exile—exactly the people who would expect to be installed into the reconstruction period leadership if the USA went in and annihilated the Assad regime. Of course they were clamoring for us to do it. That is, as you put it, how the world works.

    CptKemzikJulius
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Don't think I would call her policies good when it comes to the Middle East, but I don't think there is a good choice there. No matter what you do thousands of people are going to die and will be at your hands (including abstaining). You just have to make the least worst judgement calls. I don't envy whoever is in the security cabinet come 2016. It's a fucked up situation.

    This is such a nonsense argument. No, you are not responsible for deaths that happen because you decided not to put on your cape & cowl for the night.

    I love how this kool aid has been on offer so long that almost everyone has had a drink. "We have to go over there and start killing people because otherwise people would die!"

    there are actual massacres going on in syria and libya.

    so, yes, there are costs to inaction

    but also costs to interference

    it's a bloody calculus and it's hard to know the "right" answer in advance, or even in hindsight. i, personally, think obama was right not to get involved deeply in syria. but, of course, i can't fault syrians for their horror over the US's inaction.

    Not every bad thing that happens is realistically preventable or should be seen as some cost of action vs inaction.


    I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that there is a significant Syrian bloc that is angry about Americans not bombing their country. Do you have a source for that?

    i am positive that the massive amount of syrian refugees wish that someone had stopped assad and isis from destroying their homes and killing their loved ones.

    not discounting the assertion that an actual american invasion wouldn't have produced its own problems and resentments.

    Your positive belief is based on what, though? Have you spoken with refugees and/or other victims of sectarian violence who say, "I wish the Americans would have invaded & intervened," ?

    Like I said before, do you have a source that supports this claim?

    so look this was the first google hit i found

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/world/meast/syria-unrest/

    do you really believe that there aren't more?

    every time anything goes wrong in the world, there are calls for american intervention from all corners

    and every time america intervenes there are calls from all corners criticising the intervention

    it's not rocket science. this is how the world works.

    ...So your source is a CNN link on Google, then?

    I mean, the voice presented in that link is of the Syrian Opposition Council. These are hardly representative of refugees, and have pretty clear interests in having the conflict resolved in favor of a given belligerent.


    This link was posted earlier by @Elki , and I think the author makes a rather good case:
    Who owns queer Arab bodies? Is it the authoritarian regimes who trample on queer bodies for moral legitimacy, the jihadists who burnish their religious credentials by tossing these bodies off the highest towers, the western human rights groups who enforce their own narratives to ‘save’ these bodies, the anti-imperialist academics who argue that these bodies are naively adopting colonialist discourses, the neoconservatives who shake dead queer bodies in front of their constituents to justify wars and occupations, or the rich who dictate the line between sexual freedom and public morality?


    As a queer person in the Arab world, everywhere you turn someone wants to use your body, your story, or your life for their own purposes.

    Disaffected persons in the Persian Gulf should probably be allowed to speak for themselves & afforded the right of human autonomy rather than be used as excuses to exercise use of a bloated military apparatus, IMHO. Certainly that's all I've ever heard such persons say.

    I don't agree that your 'not rocket science' interpretation is accurate, as by far the loudest calls for intervention come from within America's own borders & echo off of it's internal media channels.

    With Love and Courage
    Commander Zoom
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Early exit poll info: 21% Dem voters black, 16% < 30 yo

    how does that compare to, like 2008? or what's expected by the 538 model?
    Older(and less white obv) than the MA primary from this year
    Similar demographically to OH this year

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular

    Clinton is criticized by the Bernie camp for advocating in intervention during the rebellion in Libya (along with the rest of NATO) and for not advocating for intervention when the Honduran President was legally ousted by his government. If she had done the opposite in each, she'd be criticized just as much

    Uh, no?

    Clinton was criticized for continuing to fund & provide weapons to the Honduras Junta, despite U.S. policy of discontinuing support of governments established via coup d'état (she argues that discontinuing support would've made things worse & that the Junta had the support of the nation's supreme court). Her policy facilitated regime change; it was hardly non-interventionist, and certainly wasn't criticized as such.

    With Love and Courage
    MrMisterShortyjoshofalltradesOptimusZed
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Clinton is criticized by the Bernie camp for advocating in intervention during the rebellion in Libya (along with the rest of NATO) and for not advocating for intervention when the Honduran President was legally ousted by his government. If she had done the opposite in each, she'd be criticized just as much

    Uh, no?

    Clinton was criticized for continuing to fund & provide weapons to the Honduras Junta, despite U.S. policy of discontinuing support of governments established via coup d'état (she argues that discontinuing support would've made things worse & that the Junta had the support of the nation's supreme court). Her policy facilitated regime change; it was hardly non-interventionist, and certainly wasn't criticized as such.

    It was patently not a junta. The National Legislature and the Supreme Court told the President his actions were illegal and Unconstitutional. He ignored them and ordered the military to hold illegal referendums to remove his Constitutional term limit. The Legislature ordered the military to arrest him and they exiled him in order to avert a civil war.

    This is what I'm talking about. Spinning the legislature upholding Constitutional limits on the Executive is the absolute opposite of a junta

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    MvrckshrykeNyysjanTryCatcher
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    PantsB wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Early exit poll info: 21% Dem voters black, 16% < 30 yo

    how does that compare to, like 2008? or what's expected by the 538 model?
    Older(and less white obv) than the MA primary from this year
    Similar demographically to OH this year

    Apparently 538 was projecting 15% AA but I don't have a strong source

    edit

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    21% Black voters would be quite bad for Sanders. Exit polls have pretty huge MoE though, so I wouldn't count any chickens yet.

    And of course, the New York won't be finished counting any chickens until 4 in the morning because they're so slow, so we really won't know much for ages.

    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Clinton is criticized by the Bernie camp for advocating in intervention during the rebellion in Libya (along with the rest of NATO) and for not advocating for intervention when the Honduran President was legally ousted by his government. If she had done the opposite in each, she'd be criticized just as much

    Uh, no?

    Clinton was criticized for continuing to fund & provide weapons to the Honduras Junta, despite U.S. policy of discontinuing support of governments established via coup d'état (she argues that discontinuing support would've made things worse & that the Junta had the support of the nation's supreme court). Her policy facilitated regime change; it was hardly non-interventionist, and certainly wasn't criticized as such.

    It was patently not a junta. The National Legislature and the Supreme Court told the President his actions were illegal and Unconstitutional. He ignored them and ordered the military to hold illegal referendums to remove his Constitutional term limit. The Legislature ordered the military to arrest him and they exiled him in order to avert a civil war.

    This is what I'm talking about. Spinning the legislature upholding Constitutional limits on the Executive is the absolute opposite of a junta

    A non-elected body (the Honduras SC) used the military to remove the acting elected government. How is that not a Junta? What would you prefer to call it when an effective military dictatorship installs itself into power?

    Yes, of course, there are always justifications for such activities (even good ones!) - that hardly changes the nature of them.


    That aside, again, criticism of Clinton's policy revolved around regime change, not non-intervention. Critics argue that she should have maintained U.S. policy of not providing arms & funding to governments established as part of a coup. Argue against that criticism if you like, but said criticism is not about wishing Clinton were more Hawkish.

    With Love and Courage
    Julius
  • MrTLiciousMrTLicious Registered User regular
    How do we have demographic breakdowns but not vote breakdowns from the exits?

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Clinton is criticized by the Bernie camp for advocating in intervention during the rebellion in Libya (along with the rest of NATO) and for not advocating for intervention when the Honduran President was legally ousted by his government. If she had done the opposite in each, she'd be criticized just as much

    Uh, no?

    Clinton was criticized for continuing to fund & provide weapons to the Honduras Junta, despite U.S. policy of discontinuing support of governments established via coup d'état (she argues that discontinuing support would've made things worse & that the Junta had the support of the nation's supreme court). Her policy facilitated regime change; it was hardly non-interventionist, and certainly wasn't criticized as such.

    It was patently not a junta. The National Legislature and the Supreme Court told the President his actions were illegal and Unconstitutional. He ignored them and ordered the military to hold illegal referendums to remove his Constitutional term limit. The Legislature ordered the military to arrest him and they exiled him in order to avert a civil war.

    This is what I'm talking about. Spinning the legislature upholding Constitutional limits on the Executive is the absolute opposite of a junta

    A non-elected body (the Honduras SC) used the military to remove the acting elected government. How is that not a Junta? What would you prefer to call it when an effective military dictatorship installs itself into power?

    Yes, of course, there are always justifications for such activities (even good ones!) - that hardly changes the nature of them.


    That aside, again, criticism of Clinton's policy revolved around regime change, not non-intervention. Critics argue that she should have maintained U.S. policy of not providing arms & funding to governments established as part of a coup. Argue against that criticism if you like, but said criticism is not about wishing Clinton were more Hawkish.

    By the basic definition of junta?
    a military or political group that rules a country after taking power by force.

    The Supreme Court didn't take power. They held elections. Also the National Assembly was elected

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    MrTLicious wrote: »
    How do we have demographic breakdowns but not vote breakdowns from the exits?

    They hold the latter until polls are closed

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    PantsB wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Clinton is criticized by the Bernie camp for advocating in intervention during the rebellion in Libya (along with the rest of NATO) and for not advocating for intervention when the Honduran President was legally ousted by his government. If she had done the opposite in each, she'd be criticized just as much

    Uh, no?

    Clinton was criticized for continuing to fund & provide weapons to the Honduras Junta, despite U.S. policy of discontinuing support of governments established via coup d'état (she argues that discontinuing support would've made things worse & that the Junta had the support of the nation's supreme court). Her policy facilitated regime change; it was hardly non-interventionist, and certainly wasn't criticized as such.

    It was patently not a junta. The National Legislature and the Supreme Court told the President his actions were illegal and Unconstitutional. He ignored them and ordered the military to hold illegal referendums to remove his Constitutional term limit. The Legislature ordered the military to arrest him and they exiled him in order to avert a civil war.

    This is what I'm talking about. Spinning the legislature upholding Constitutional limits on the Executive is the absolute opposite of a junta

    Either way, though, you misidentified the criticism of Hillary. The criticism was that she elected not to classify the events that transpired as a coup (and thus declined to trigger the mandatory legal responses to a coup, such as secession of aid) even though the critics thought that it was. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, that's a very different criticism from "you ought to have intervened a la Libya."

    MrMister on
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »

    Clinton is criticized by the Bernie camp for advocating in intervention during the rebellion in Libya (along with the rest of NATO) and for not advocating for intervention when the Honduran President was legally ousted by his government. If she had done the opposite in each, she'd be criticized just as much

    Uh, no?

    Clinton was criticized for continuing to fund & provide weapons to the Honduras Junta, despite U.S. policy of discontinuing support of governments established via coup d'état (she argues that discontinuing support would've made things worse & that the Junta had the support of the nation's supreme court). Her policy facilitated regime change; it was hardly non-interventionist, and certainly wasn't criticized as such.
    The criticism I've seen most definitely focused on a snippet from her book where she wrote that discussions focused on making the question of Zelaya "moot" by going forward with the elections.

    The situation doesn't seem to have been clearly one thing or another. My impression is that Zelaya did something illegal and should have been removed, but the way it was done was also illegal.

    He was actually going to be reinstated for his remaining three months at one point, but then his replacement did a thing and he got mad.

    It seems super messy and I don't think there was an obviously right option.

    10 = yes, 1 = no; yes = 10, no = 1
    The EnderCommander Zoom
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Surfpossum wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »

    Clinton is criticized by the Bernie camp for advocating in intervention during the rebellion in Libya (along with the rest of NATO) and for not advocating for intervention when the Honduran President was legally ousted by his government. If she had done the opposite in each, she'd be criticized just as much

    Uh, no?

    Clinton was criticized for continuing to fund & provide weapons to the Honduras Junta, despite U.S. policy of discontinuing support of governments established via coup d'état (she argues that discontinuing support would've made things worse & that the Junta had the support of the nation's supreme court). Her policy facilitated regime change; it was hardly non-interventionist, and certainly wasn't criticized as such.
    The criticism I've seen most definitely focused on a snippet from her book where she wrote that discussions focused on making the question of Zelaya "moot" by going forward with the elections.

    The situation doesn't seem to have been clearly one thing or another. My impression is that Zelaya did something illegal and should have been removed, but the way it was done was also illegal.

    He was actually going to be reinstated for his remaining three months at one point, but then his replacement did a thing and he got mad.

    It seems super messy and I don't think there was an obviously right option.


    This is my interpretation (and that of the commission put together to investigate the matter in Honduras) as well.

    Tangential:
    Zelaya was corrupt and attempting to game the system to get extra term years; the SC (which is divided along partisan lines, similar to the U.S. SC in that respect) used that as a pretense to have him arrested by the secret police (illegally) and flown out of the country; the speaker was installed as per the Honduras constitution as de facto leader (it's worth noting that, again, the speaker is a partisan position and was the man that the nationalist seats in the SC wanted in power).

    With Love and Courage
    CptKemzik
  • KiplingKipling Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    The Ender wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Clinton is criticized by the Bernie camp for advocating in intervention during the rebellion in Libya (along with the rest of NATO) and for not advocating for intervention when the Honduran President was legally ousted by his government. If she had done the opposite in each, she'd be criticized just as much

    Uh, no?

    Clinton was criticized for continuing to fund & provide weapons to the Honduras Junta, despite U.S. policy of discontinuing support of governments established via coup d'état (she argues that discontinuing support would've made things worse & that the Junta had the support of the nation's supreme court). Her policy facilitated regime change; it was hardly non-interventionist, and certainly wasn't criticized as such.

    It was patently not a junta. The National Legislature and the Supreme Court told the President his actions were illegal and Unconstitutional. He ignored them and ordered the military to hold illegal referendums to remove his Constitutional term limit. The Legislature ordered the military to arrest him and they exiled him in order to avert a civil war.

    This is what I'm talking about. Spinning the legislature upholding Constitutional limits on the Executive is the absolute opposite of a junta

    A non-elected body (the Honduras SC) used the military to remove the acting elected government. How is that not a Junta? What would you prefer to call it when an effective military dictatorship installs itself into power?

    Yes, of course, there are always justifications for such activities (even good ones!) - that hardly changes the nature of them.


    That aside, again, criticism of Clinton's policy revolved around regime change, not non-intervention. Critics argue that she should have maintained U.S. policy of not providing arms & funding to governments established as part of a coup. Argue against that criticism if you like, but said criticism is not about wishing Clinton were more Hawkish.

    I don't think you understand the sequence of events.

    The person installed into power was one of the legislators from the same party as the ousted president. So I'm not sure what military dictatorship you speak of in your comment. And in 2010, the main opponent to the party of the new president won.

    This was a pretty lame attempt at taking control the government when you can't even get yourself entrenched in power during the next election.

    Kipling on
    3DS Friends: 1693-1781-7023
    Julius
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »

    Its not that people care, its that the wrong people care.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    No-Quarter
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    Erich Zahn wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Assuran wrote: »
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    Assuran wrote: »
    So It Goes wrote: »
    And not to open a can of worms, but you need to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election. Your third party vote (or abstention from voting) will only help the Republicans.

    If we keep voting for the lesser evil, all that means is we're stuck with the lesser evil.
    So instead we should pick the greater evil?

    Only if you think that voting for a third party is equivalent to voting for a Republican. I don't buy that line of reasoning, but ymmv.

    My point is that she's not a lesser evil, especially if you voted for Obama twice, which if I recall, you did. She's a slightly less good than Obama, because she'll probably have one major unforced error in the Middle East.

    I don't think she's only slightly less good than Obama, however. I think she is significantly less good than him, most especially because of her foreign policy. Which isn't to say I don't think she has positions that are very admirable, for instance, her original position on universal health care.

    If you don't buy the reasoning that a 3rd party / abstain vote makes it easier for your least favored option to win, you either don't understand how the election process works or you don't understand math. This isn't a symmantic argument. For someone who favors the policies of the left, your three choices come down to:

    1) Increase the likelihood of a Democrat winning by one vote (vote for them). The GOP now has one more vote to overcome.
    2) Increase the likelihood of the Republican winning by half a vote (abstain/3rd party vote). The GOP now has one less vote to overcome.
    3) increase the likelihood of the Republican winning by one vote (vote for them). The GOP now has one more vote.

    These are your only choices. Yay FPTP!

    And especially with the Green Party you claim to support as a backup, whose agenda specifically overlaps exclusively with Democrat voters. They aren't drawing from the disaffected ranks of the GOP to support an environmental legislation agenda.

    No, the Green Party favors anti-nuclear hysteria, murdering children through neglect, and poaching.

    Woah, really?

    The Green platform includes alt-med, religious treatment, and Chinese animal part woo.

    MegaMek
  • MrTLiciousMrTLicious Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »

    Its not that people care, its that the wrong people care.

    ehhh, it's more of a Mount Stupid phenomenon

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Posting that stuff before vote close by Benchmark is super unethical as far as I'm concerned.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    lonelyahava
  • MrTLiciousMrTLicious Registered User regular
    That 2nd tweet was a pretty loaded exit poll question, presuming "energized" and "divided" were provided as alternatives as the numbers summing to 96% seem to suggest ...

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Posting that stuff before vote close by Benchmark is super unethical as far as I'm concerned.

    I thought the polls officially closed at 6 ET, which was just over an hour ago.

    Einzel
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    Posting that stuff before vote close by Benchmark is super unethical as far as I'm concerned.

    I thought the polls officially closed at 6 ET, which was just over an hour ago.

    9 Eastern.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    Death of Rats
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    Posting that stuff before vote close by Benchmark is super unethical as far as I'm concerned.

    I thought the polls officially closed at 6 ET, which was just over an hour ago.

    9 Eastern.

    I am likely transposing 6 PT to 6 ET, then! Time is weird.

    Though yes, shame on Benchmark.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Meh number of people checking election tweets like crazy vs number of people who would be swayed by those tweets is probably pretty small.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Turkey
  • SavgeSavge Indecisive Registered User regular
    I just hope the media does a hit job on Bernie after his loss tonight and paints him as an unviable candidate who's about to drop any day now.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Savge wrote: »
    I wish Bernie Sanders never ran.
    Savge wrote: »
    I just hope the media does a hit job on Bernie after his loss tonight and paints him as an unviable candidate who's about to drop any day now.

    Can you not

    HounMrTLiciouswazillaenlightenedbumNiryaSo It GoesCorehealerMrMisterTurkeyArdolTofystedethNobodyTubularLuggageshrykeDavid WalgasCommunistCowCommander ZoomMegaMekShadowenlonelyahavaKwoaru
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Is it a hit job to report on reality?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    come on; don't

    Wqdwp8l.png
    SavgeKwoaru
  • SavgeSavge Indecisive Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    Savge was warned for this.
    Preacher wrote: »
    Is it a hit job to report on reality?

    Maybe a trigger warning would help?

    Irond Will on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    ffs what did i just say?!

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SavgeSavge Indecisive Registered User regular
    Sorry, I didn't see your post at the time I was posting

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    i-KqNkwt6-2100x20000.jpg

    smCQ5WE.jpg
    Harry DresdenInkstain82TetraRay
This discussion has been closed.