|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On March 04 2017 02:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 01:49 maybenexttime wrote:On March 04 2017 01:10 LegalLord wrote:lol (if we're talking about alternate reality controlling the narrative) Can you elaborate? Be specific. If we want to talk about countries that make up alternate reality depictions of their own place in the world in WWII and beyond, we can look no further than your own country of Poland. The first place to start is the Obama comment in question - an obviously sympathetic statement in an obviously sympathetic context, taken as a disingenuous claim that Poles were complicit in the Holocaust. And don't get me started on your current populist government which, for example, wanted to exhume the bodies of the people killed in the Polish plane crash in Russia out of little more than the pursuit of a conspiracy theory. You complain about biased guests being on Russian TV - well perhaps you should also consider why it is that rabid populists/nationalists are popular enough for you to have the government you currently have. I don't particularly care if you supported this leader or not. It is true that there are more sane and less sane people in every country. But their vote count reflects on the kind of people you have there. That Jar-o-coleslaw's party has as much influence as it does suggests that his brand of populism has some sway over the national consciousness. Same as LDPR's support in Russia suggests some support for aggressive nationalism, Svoboda's/Right Sector's support in Ukraine suggests some inclination towards fascism, and Trump's support in America suggests some tendency towards being really stupid. But don't go around claiming someone else is making an alternate reality narrative when your own country does that as good as anyone.
Sorry but this is just you stereotyping. You can of course soak this version of reality, that there's a sudden outbreak of a caveman xenophobes across the planet (who would have thought, populists are winning not only in wooden, european east?), becouse its really easy and fits into you world view nicely.
I can't say for sure, how it is in other countries (although i guess its kind of simillar, ie. ive read that in the UK, savings of people just under 30s, halved compared to what it was 10 years ago ), but in Poland reasons were mostly economical.
Most people earn here really crap money even though GPC is going up for years. Also wage share is falling really fast, to under 40%.
http://jagiellonski24.pl/2015/06/02/witajcie-w-kraju-zlej-pracy/
50% of Poles earn less than 465 euros, after taxes and only last 10% earn more than 1160 euros!
http://partiarazem.pl/kalkulator/
The famous PiS economic project 500+, removed 95% kid poverty in Poland.
http://www.money.pl/gospodarka/wiadomosci/artykul/500-biedni-polacy-zwolnienia-ubostwo,174,0,2216878.html
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I don't know if "populist" has become a pejorative across Europe now - but I certainly didn't mean it as one here. Populism is a perfectly valid leadership style. And I think it's perfectly fair to describe PiS as populists.
If exhuming bodies to try to revive an issue that happened seven (I think?) years ago sounds like a worthy endeavor... well let's just say that most people would probably be more inclined towards not reopening that issue for some random reason.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 04 2017 04:20 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 02:52 LegalLord wrote:
I don't think "douche" or "asshat" is a good way to describe Le Pen. She clearly is a competent person with a specific agenda, one that is very clearly nationalist, and often described by opposition as fascist. It's the agenda that people have a problem with.
Wilders seems like a bit of a loose cannon, a guy who acts somewhat on impulse and treads quite aggressively in that regard. Wilders doesn't act on impulse. His speeches are always thought out way before he says anything. The 'lesser Morrocans' incident for example was thought of before it happened. It wasn't spontaneous or something.
I suppose the term I was looking for wasn't really "impulsive" but "provocateur." Would that be a fair description of his style?
|
Populist has been a pejorative since the invention of modern democracy.
|
On March 04 2017 07:06 LegalLord wrote:
I don't know if "populist" has become a pejorative across Europe now - but I certainly didn't mean it as one here. Populism is a perfectly valid leadership style. And I think it's perfectly fair to describe PiS as populists.
If exhuming bodies to try to revive an issue that happened seven (I think?) years ago sounds like a worthy endeavor... well let's just say that most people would probably be more inclined towards not reopening that issue for some random reason.
Do you responded to me or to "maybenexttime"?
Because i wasnt really discussing wheter PiS is or isnt populist party (i think their leadership is btw).
I responded to you writing that PiS high votecount "reflects on the kind of people you have there" - even bolded and underlined that quoted part. very bs part
|
On March 04 2017 07:06 LegalLord wrote:
I don't know if "populist" has become a pejorative across Europe now - but I certainly didn't mean it as one here. Populism is a perfectly valid leadership style. And I think it's perfectly fair to describe PiS as populists.
If exhuming bodies to try to revive an issue that happened seven (I think?) years ago sounds like a worthy endeavor... well let's just say that most people would probably be more inclined towards not reopening that issue for some random reason.
Well, the term "populist" has a distinctly pejorative undertone unless it's a technical discussion in the field of political science. I find it hard to believe you're not aware of that. But regardless, PiS is populist in the sense that most Western European government have been for the past several decades. Whether their reforms are affordable remains to be seen. The opposition's critique (aside from Kukiz'15) cannot be taken seriously (on the one hand they claim that the budget cannot sustain such expenses, and on the other they promise to expand the program if they win the next elections...), so it's hard to say.
Certainly, exhuming the bodies is not a priority. I'm personally tired of this whole ordeal. But you are mistaken if you think the case was ever closed. Russia still has not closed the investigation, if I am not mistaken. The Russian government did a shoddy job with the investigation itself and mixed truth with outright lies (e.g., the aforementioned notion that one of the generals was drunk and influencing the pilots), most likely to further divide our society. Donald Tusk seemed okay with because it suited his strategy sometimes referred to as "monkey in a cage" (enraging your political opponents to make them look irrational and thus unelectable), and PiS used it to consolidate its core voters. Neither side truly wanted to let it go.
|
On March 04 2017 07:06 LegalLord wrote:
I don't know if "populist" has become a pejorative across Europe now - but I certainly didn't mean it as one here. Populism is a perfectly valid leadership style. And I think it's perfectly fair to describe PiS as populists.
If exhuming bodies to try to revive an issue that happened seven (I think?) years ago sounds like a worthy endeavor... well let's just say that most people would probably be more inclined towards not reopening that issue for some random reason.
The problem is that people like Geert Wilders actually are not just populist, but fascists/xenophobic/racists. The general, underlying idea of populism is sound and well defined.
It has nothing to do with what populism has become in the last couple of decades. I'd argue you could call Trump an actual populist, if it wouldn't be for the demonstrable fact that he's also a pathological liar and bullshitted about draining the swamp, instead making it swampier than it ever has been.
The definition of populism is "draining the swamp, give power to the people, get rid of the "elite" that suppresses the "little man/people".
Does that sound like anything GW, or others, blargh about? Nowadays "populism" is pretty much equal to "say whatever is most popular with the majority of your country - racism, xenophobia etc work well".
|
I'd say populism is a much better name for these political movements than fascists or nazis. Nazis put people in death camps, and I think we're well off from that actually happening. Fascists undermine democratic means, and that's not happening either. They're populists riding a xenophobic wave.
Calling them fascists or nazis is doing essentially the same thing they're doing: scaremongering.
"Oh look at these dangerous people if they get in control democracy is gone and people will be put in death camps"
It's really not much better than what they're doing.
|
I strongly disagree with that sentiment.
Calling them populists is like calling a VB super sized burger a diet meal. It's hopelessly understated and ignores the inherent contempt for anyone that's not in their target group. Calling fascist by their name is not name calling, it's precise.
|
It's far too easy to call someone a fascist and provide absolutely no evidence in the current political climate. Can you provide me with any proof that Geert Wilders is a fascist and not, as he claims, somebody who cares about liberal values in his own country? Have all the Dutch people who support him been hoodwinked, or are they all fascists too? Anyone who has been to the Netherlands or knows anything about its history knows that this is one of the most liberal and tolerant places on the planet.
You should try to understand how counterintuitive your behaviour is, because it furthers the agenda you seek to argue against. If you want moderate discussion of controversial issues then you cannot call someone a fascist every time they talk about them. This makes the moderate politicians afraid to bring the issues up, despite the fact that they are hugely concerning to the electorate, which creates a vacuum within the discussion which only those who do not care about your opinion can fill.
Anyway, for you to make those accusations with such confidence I am sure you must have ample and convincing evidence. Please do share.
|
On March 04 2017 16:03 a_flayer wrote:
I'd say populism is a much better name for these political movements than fascists or nazis. Nazis put people in death camps, and I think we're well off from that actually happening. Fascists undermine democratic means, and that's not happening either. They're populists riding a xenophobic wave.
Calling them fascists or nazis is doing essentially the same thing they're doing: scaremongering.
"Oh look at these dangerous people if they get in control democracy is gone and people will be put in death camps"
It's really not much better than what they're doing.
“Populism” is a vague and confusing term which says nothing about the actual content of proposed policies, so no it's not a good term to qualify far-right movements/parties; especially as it's used in a pejorative way by TINA adepts to sell the “radical left = far-right” lie.
Pretty much no one in the French political debate calls the FN “nazis”. “Fascist” is debatable (and debated) + Show Spoiler +The generic term used to describe the FN in France is “far-right,” instances of “fascist” are mostly found at the left and the far left For the little story, Le Pen actually sued Mélenchon for calling her “fascist” in 2011, claiming it was a public insult, and she lost 3 times in courts.
No one is saying that the FN will “put people in death camps”. Look, if you want a serious discussion, how about you stop those exaggerations? It's too easy to craft imaginary positions to better refute them afterwards.
|
No one today is going to defend the same exact things as the fascists of the 1920s, but it's not difficult to see many of the same ingredients in these far right movements. Instilling fear and anger in the population and uniting against a common enemy, a disdain for the democratic processes and checks on power, a promise to go back to the idyllic values of times past, racism. The anti-EU rhetoric is part of it, an attack on a set of institutions that actually serve as checks on potential national authoritarian power disguised as a fight for national sovereignty.
Thankfully this kind of phenomenon is not bound to happen in Portugal any time soon as our collective memory still reacts against any hint of nationalism after we lived under a far right dictatorship until 74.
|
On March 04 2017 20:57 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 16:03 a_flayer wrote:
I'd say populism is a much better name for these political movements than fascists or nazis. Nazis put people in death camps, and I think we're well off from that actually happening. Fascists undermine democratic means, and that's not happening either. They're populists riding a xenophobic wave.
Calling them fascists or nazis is doing essentially the same thing they're doing: scaremongering.
"Oh look at these dangerous people if they get in control democracy is gone and people will be put in death camps"
It's really not much better than what they're doing. “Populism” is a vague and confusing term which says nothing about the actual content of proposed policies, so no it's not a good term to qualify far-right movements/parties; especially as it's used in a pejorative way by TINA adepts to sell the “radical left = far-right” lie. Pretty much no one in the French political debate calls the FN “nazis”. “Fascist” is debatable (and debated) + Show Spoiler +The generic term used to describe the FN in France is “far-right,” instances of “fascist” are mostly found at the left and the far left , but it's a political characterization before being an insult, like “racist”. + Show Spoiler +For the little story, Le Pen actually sued Mélenchon for calling her “fascist” in 2011, claiming it was a public insult, and she lost 3 times in courts. If, for reason X or Y, you think that those parties (≠ all their voters) are fascist, I don't see why you should censor yourself about it. Getting rid of the word doesn't make the phenomenon magically disappear. No one is saying that the FN will “put people in death camps”. Look, if you want a serious discussion, how about you stop those exaggerations? It's too easy to craft imaginary positions to better refute them afterwards.
A major part of being fascist is undermining democratic institutions, which none of those parties aim to do as far as I can tell. If you want to go with the broader definition of fascist, you might also call practically anyone in government a fascist because they're all making up rules that we have to obey. For example, I think it's fascist of my government to require us to have identification papers with us at all times when we leave the house (which was then conveniently used to arrest an 80 year old Muslim man for cycling on the wrong side of the road). However, if I express myself like that, then I get rightfully shouted down for overreaching. Just as my exaggerated comparison to death camps was overreaching.
I don't really care how the courts judged this, of course you should be able to express yourself as you see fit. I'm just saying it is not conducive to engage with people - and this is what LightSpectra wanted to do, he wanted to engage in a discussion while at the same time calling them fascists, which is why I brought this up to begin with - I don't think it is very conducive to a potential discussion by essentially opening with "Hi, you are a nazi fascist, lets talk about that". I mean... is that really so hard to understand? If you belittle people like that, even if it may be rooted in some truth, they're not going to be willing to sit at a table with you.
|
On March 04 2017 07:06 LegalLord wrote:
I don't know if "populist" has become a pejorative across Europe now - but I certainly didn't mean it as one here. Populism is a perfectly valid leadership style. And I think it's perfectly fair to describe PiS as populists.
If exhuming bodies to try to revive an issue that happened seven (I think?) years ago sounds like a worthy endeavor... well let's just say that most people would probably be more inclined towards not reopening that issue for some random reason.
Populism basically consists in defending the "pure people" against the "corrupt elite" (and usually falsly pretending you are part of the former). It's a simplistic, divisive tactics aimed at exploiting "small people"'s resentment, comforting them by saying that everyone that is somewhat higher in a real or imaginary social, financial and intellectual hierarchy is corrupt and needs to be taken down.
It's level 0 if politics, and never leads to anything good.
|
On March 04 2017 21:45 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 20:57 TheDwf wrote:On March 04 2017 16:03 a_flayer wrote:
I'd say populism is a much better name for these political movements than fascists or nazis. Nazis put people in death camps, and I think we're well off from that actually happening. Fascists undermine democratic means, and that's not happening either. They're populists riding a xenophobic wave.
Calling them fascists or nazis is doing essentially the same thing they're doing: scaremongering.
"Oh look at these dangerous people if they get in control democracy is gone and people will be put in death camps"
It's really not much better than what they're doing. “Populism” is a vague and confusing term which says nothing about the actual content of proposed policies, so no it's not a good term to qualify far-right movements/parties; especially as it's used in a pejorative way by TINA adepts to sell the “radical left = far-right” lie. Pretty much no one in the French political debate calls the FN “nazis”. “Fascist” is debatable (and debated) + Show Spoiler +The generic term used to describe the FN in France is “far-right,” instances of “fascist” are mostly found at the left and the far left , but it's a political characterization before being an insult, like “racist”. + Show Spoiler +For the little story, Le Pen actually sued Mélenchon for calling her “fascist” in 2011, claiming it was a public insult, and she lost 3 times in courts. If, for reason X or Y, you think that those parties (≠ all their voters) are fascist, I don't see why you should censor yourself about it. Getting rid of the word doesn't make the phenomenon magically disappear. No one is saying that the FN will “put people in death camps”. Look, if you want a serious discussion, how about you stop those exaggerations? It's too easy to craft imaginary positions to better refute them afterwards. A major part of being fascist is undermining democratic institutions, which none of those parties aim to do as far as I can tell. If you want to go with the broader definition of fascist, you might also call practically anyone in government a fascist because they're all making up rules that we have to obey. For example, I think it's fascist of my government to require us to have identification papers with us at all times when we leave the house (which was then conveniently used to arrest an 80 year old Muslim man for cycling on the wrong side of the road). However, if I express myself like that, then I get rightfully shouted down for overreaching. Just as my exaggerated comparison to death camps was overreaching. I don't really care how the courts judged this, of course you should be able to express yourself as you see fit. I'm just saying it is not conducive to engage with people - and this is what LightSpectra wanted to do, he wanted to engage in a discussion, which is why I brought this up to begin with - I don't think it's its conducive to a potential discussion by essentially opening with "Hi, you are a nazi fascist, lets talk about that". I mean... is that really so hard to understand? If you belittle people like that, even if it may be rooted in some truth, they're not going to be willing to sit at a table with you.
I don't know, the FN is historically very deeply rooted in anti democratic ideology (see both Charles Maurras' influence on the french far right and the Petainist nostalgia that started the FN) and the Le Pens have shown a glorious disdain of democratic institutions from day one. It's not so long ago that tge FN supporters were calling the Republic "la putain" (the whore). It's a bit hard to believe that this is all in the past just because Le Pen has a better PR and hides her skinheads a bit better than her daddy.
Fascism is a spectrum, and the FN is certainly somewhere in it if anything because of historical and ideological continuity. You can call someone a communist without him being a hardcore supporter of gulags and a total stalinist, it wouldn't be fear mongering.
Also look at the prototype of populistic government in Europe: Orban's Hungary. If the effort to promote the (actual) fascist historical figures of the 30's were not enough of a clue, he is systematically undermining democratic institutions and therefore matches pretty well your definition of a fascist.
As for whether or not it's productive to call far right sympathizers fascists, it's another question. I notice for example that no one in those threads has ever directly called any far right winger posting here a fascist, while they treats their contradictors of "regressive leftists", SJW and so on and so on. Maybe the condescention is on both part of the argument there (I am not making a point about anyone in particular, but if we have to stop calling people this and that because it's insulting or whatever, maybe let start by dropping the snowflake crap and the generalization about the "establishment" (those are people too) and the "liberal elite".)
One last thing: how does your reasoning holds in an extreme case, such as Germany in the late 20's? Would it have been appropriate not to insult those NSDAP supporters? People say "you can't insult 20% of the electorate", how is that exactly working with much worse forms of far right and the historical perspective? I know the case is wildly different, but at one point you have to call a cat a cat and confront people's ideas. That's what politics is about.
|
On March 04 2017 21:45 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 20:57 TheDwf wrote:On March 04 2017 16:03 a_flayer wrote:
I'd say populism is a much better name for these political movements than fascists or nazis. Nazis put people in death camps, and I think we're well off from that actually happening. Fascists undermine democratic means, and that's not happening either. They're populists riding a xenophobic wave.
Calling them fascists or nazis is doing essentially the same thing they're doing: scaremongering.
"Oh look at these dangerous people if they get in control democracy is gone and people will be put in death camps"
It's really not much better than what they're doing. “Populism” is a vague and confusing term which says nothing about the actual content of proposed policies, so no it's not a good term to qualify far-right movements/parties; especially as it's used in a pejorative way by TINA adepts to sell the “radical left = far-right” lie. Pretty much no one in the French political debate calls the FN “nazis”. “Fascist” is debatable (and debated) + Show Spoiler +The generic term used to describe the FN in France is “far-right,” instances of “fascist” are mostly found at the left and the far left , but it's a political characterization before being an insult, like “racist”. + Show Spoiler +For the little story, Le Pen actually sued Mélenchon for calling her “fascist” in 2011, claiming it was a public insult, and she lost 3 times in courts. If, for reason X or Y, you think that those parties (≠ all their voters) are fascist, I don't see why you should censor yourself about it. Getting rid of the word doesn't make the phenomenon magically disappear. No one is saying that the FN will “put people in death camps”. Look, if you want a serious discussion, how about you stop those exaggerations? It's too easy to craft imaginary positions to better refute them afterwards. A major part of being fascist is undermining democratic institutions, which none of those parties aim to do as far as I can tell.
Well, what European party in 2017 is going to run in elections saying, “Hi, upon winning we'll terminate rule of law and establish a one-party dictatorship”? It's not even their goal, but if it was obviously they wouldn't tell it anyway. Double talk is a constant in those movements, they will always present themselves as mere “protectors” of something endangered; their destructive nature has to be concealed.
The Front National barely wants to touch the existing institutions in their program. But you only need to look at their local practices when they get mayors somewhere to have a good idea at what it would be nation-wide. Plus they ban certain journalists from their meetings based on previous publications (= if you write something they don't like, they slander or ban you, possibly using violence). When the press corrects their s*itty hoaxes, they call it “fake news”. Then you have Marine Le Pen threatening public officers who investigate her [for FN folks, all judges are biased “leftists” ...], and you can add 2 and 2: were those people in power, they would methodically try to weaken existing counterpowers, claiming that there is some plot to bring down the great leader, etc.
(Also note that their hardcore base calls anyone who disagrees with them “traitors” ...)
If you want to go with the broader definition of fascist, you might also call practically anyone in government a fascist because they're all making up rules that we have to obey.
A broad definition of fascism would be something which associates authoritarianism, populism and nationalism in a radical way. How far from that we are when talking about those movements/parties? Those traits all exist among them. The only question is to which degree.
I don't really care how the courts judged this, of course you should be able to express yourself as you see fit. I'm just saying it is not conducive to engage with people - and this is what LightSpectra wanted to do, he wanted to engage in a discussion while at the same time calling them fascists, which is why I brought this up to begin with - I don't think it is very conducive to a potential discussion by essentially opening with "Hi, you are a nazi fascist, lets talk about that". I mean... is that really so hard to understand? If you belittle people like that, even if it may be rooted in some truth, they're not going to be willing to sit at a table with you.
Good thing that pretty much no one does that, then. There's a distinction between the ideology of the party and their voters, who don't necessarily share everything the party says. Luckily there are not 25% of convinced fascists in France.
By the way, TV emissions now love to invit some FN voter to discuss with politicians, and I have never seen anyone treat them like fascists.
|
TheDwf,
Regarding what you highlighted in my post in bold, please remember what originally started this whole discussion:
On March 03 2017 23:18 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 12:38 SoSexy wrote:
Having an opinion should be banned? Thank you, Light Spectra. Unbelievable. I meant what I said - I like the FN, so I said let's hope this (chaos happening with Fillon) helps her (party to get more votes). If you want to put effort into defending the FN, be my guest. I just think these drive-by posts that are essentially nothing but "yay fascist party!" should be counted as trolling.
On March 04 2017 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:
I'd love to have an open debate with a FN supporter, but that's a far cry from those one-liner posts.
Saying "I hope Macron wins" is equally as useless as "I hope Le Pen wins", but it's less inflammatory and troll-ish considering Macron isn't a hatemonger.
As far as I can tell, he is basically just attacking SoSexy for his opinion (which admittedly didn't contribute anything, but neither did the attack in response to that), and asking for a discussion as he does that. He's saying that showing support for Le Pen is just going "yay fascist party!" and then asking for a discussion. That's pretty damn close to what you highlighted, I'd say. That was all I was trying to say.
|
On March 04 2017 19:52 bardtown wrote:
It's far too easy to call someone a fascist and provide absolutely no evidence in the current political climate. Can you provide me with any proof that Geert Wilders is a fascist and not, as he claims, somebody who cares about liberal values in his own country? Have all the Dutch people who support him been hoodwinked, or are they all fascists too? Anyone who has been to the Netherlands or knows anything about its history knows that this is one of the most liberal and tolerant places on the planet.
You should try to understand how counterintuitive your behaviour is, because it furthers the agenda you seek to argue against. If you want moderate discussion of controversial issues then you cannot call someone a fascist every time they talk about them. This makes the moderate politicians afraid to bring the issues up, despite the fact that they are hugely concerning to the electorate, which creates a vacuum within the discussion which only those who do not care about your opinion can fill.
Anyway, for you to make those accusations with such confidence I am sure you must have ample and convincing evidence. Please do share.
Wilders follows some liberal values of our country like gay rights and things but he's very selective. The closing of mosques and prohibition of the Koran has nothing to do with liberalism and tolerance. So while The Netherlands is very liberal in some regards that doesn't mean Wilders is.
|
On March 05 2017 02:36 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 19:52 bardtown wrote:
It's far too easy to call someone a fascist and provide absolutely no evidence in the current political climate. Can you provide me with any proof that Geert Wilders is a fascist and not, as he claims, somebody who cares about liberal values in his own country? Have all the Dutch people who support him been hoodwinked, or are they all fascists too? Anyone who has been to the Netherlands or knows anything about its history knows that this is one of the most liberal and tolerant places on the planet.
You should try to understand how counterintuitive your behaviour is, because it furthers the agenda you seek to argue against. If you want moderate discussion of controversial issues then you cannot call someone a fascist every time they talk about them. This makes the moderate politicians afraid to bring the issues up, despite the fact that they are hugely concerning to the electorate, which creates a vacuum within the discussion which only those who do not care about your opinion can fill.
Anyway, for you to make those accusations with such confidence I am sure you must have ample and convincing evidence. Please do share. Wilders follows some liberal values of our country like gay rights and things but he's very selective. The closing of mosques and prohibition of the Koran has nothing to do with liberalism and tolerance. So while The Netherlands is very liberal in some regards that doesn't mean Wilders is.
Yes, understood. I think he goes too far but there is a kernel of truth in the notion that tolerating intolerance on the basis that tolerance is a virtue is somewhat paradoxical. If moderates were taking this concern seriously then there would be much less draw to those who cross the line.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
