• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:06
CEST 18:06
KST 01:06
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202541RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams4Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread RSL Season 1 - Final Week The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
ASL20 Preliminary Maps BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL
Tourneys
CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 842 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 518

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 516 517 518 519 520 5122 Next
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!

NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.

Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.


If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23218 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-07-22 04:25:11
July 22 2018 04:23 GMT
#10341
On July 22 2018 13:12 Excludos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 13:05 screamingpalm wrote:
Trump hasn't sent us to war (yet). Hillary has a long history of hawkish stances and rhetoric. It's not like this is anything new. Why do liberals talk about ruined lives under Trump, but have no qualms about sending more poor people off to die in their wars? They ruin lives just the same, it's just a difference of the delivery of the rhetoric. Honesty or backstabbing, pick your poison.


Hillary is not president, Trump is. We talk about ruined lives under Trump because he has ruined lives, as opposed to maybe hypothetical ruined lives by Hillary if she had been president (At which point I would have been right there with you denouncing her. But since she's not, I'm not). Also, while this is completely irrelevant, a lot of the "Hillary would have started a war" propaganda is just that, propaganda. Most of it is easily debunked.


I doubt it.

She did want further escalation in Syria. She even reiterated that opinion while Trump was bombing indicating he wasn't hawkish enough for her. It's not propaganda, she's is/was undeniably hawkish and already contributed to plenty of dead people/ruined lives during her tenure as SoS which if I recall, you (and pretty much all of her supporters) weren't saying shit about her role in ruining people's lives or attempting to justify/rationalize it.

On July 22 2018 10:07 Sermokala wrote:
Adressing something like that seems like a great issue to fire up the base and drive turnout. Something that republicans literally can't disagree with and their voters would totaly understand.


It's cute you don't think it's on purpose and bipartisan. Also cute that Simberto thinks the solution is voting for it's beneficiaries/intentional perpetrators. But nearly everyone agrees that neither party will ever fix it, but still insist the only way to fix it is to keep voting for the parties they insist will never fix it...

Guys can get pretty silly for some smart people.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42642 Posts
July 22 2018 04:58 GMT
#10342
The idea that Hillary would have started a war with Russia over Syria (or anywhere else) is patently absurd.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23218 Posts
July 22 2018 05:21 GMT
#10343
On July 22 2018 13:58 KwarK wrote:
The idea that Hillary would have started a war with Russia over Syria (or anywhere else) is patently absurd.


She certainly would have escalated. Perhaps this is an extension of the "how was I supposed to know it could go wrong?" argument about her campaigns intentional elevating of Trump not making her more responsible for him winning the nomination and the presidency than progressives or 3rd party voters.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42642 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-07-22 05:30:42
July 22 2018 05:29 GMT
#10344
On July 22 2018 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 13:58 KwarK wrote:
The idea that Hillary would have started a war with Russia over Syria (or anywhere else) is patently absurd.


She certainly would have escalated. Perhaps this is an extension of the "how was I supposed to know it could go wrong?" argument about her campaigns intentional elevating of Trump not making her more responsible for him winning the nomination and the presidency than progressives or 3rd party voters.

There is an awful lot of obstacles that need to be overcome between one mistake and full on nuclear war with Russia. It wouldn’t just happen. One side would need to decide to attempt a first strike. If you don’t think Hillary would launch an offensive nuclear apocalypse on the world then you must agree. And if you do think she would, well, that’s an odd thing to think.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23218 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-07-22 05:35:18
July 22 2018 05:32 GMT
#10345
On July 22 2018 14:29 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 22 2018 13:58 KwarK wrote:
The idea that Hillary would have started a war with Russia over Syria (or anywhere else) is patently absurd.


She certainly would have escalated. Perhaps this is an extension of the "how was I supposed to know it could go wrong?" argument about her campaigns intentional elevating of Trump not making her more responsible for him winning the nomination and the presidency than progressives or 3rd party voters.

There is an awful lot of obstacles that need to be overcome between one mistake and full on nuclear war with Russia. It wouldn’t just happen. One side would need to decide to attempt a first strike.


I'm not sure who put forth the idea of full on nuclear war with Russia/WW3 literally, if anyone. But I'm pretty sure most people considered it a deliberate step back towards the cold war, with a reasonable likelihood shit could go real wrong real fast with US and Russian Troops/planes so hostile (no fly zone) in such close proximity.

EDIT: I mean there's the whole calling for a US backed coup/regime change too.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Excludos
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Norway8072 Posts
July 22 2018 05:34 GMT
#10346
On July 22 2018 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 13:58 KwarK wrote:
The idea that Hillary would have started a war with Russia over Syria (or anywhere else) is patently absurd.


She certainly would have escalated. Perhaps this is an extension of the "how was I supposed to know it could go wrong?" argument about her campaigns intentional elevating of Trump not making her more responsible for him winning the nomination and the presidency than progressives or 3rd party voters.


Escalation =! war. Neither country wants war with each other, as that is just mutual assured annihilation. Even if nukes are never used, the economic loss will be great enough for both countries to go bankrupt many times over.

Putin knows this, and uses it consistently to bully absolutely everyone around him at all times to get what he wants. Hillary was clear that she would not let the bully just do whatever he wanted, and that is the correct way to act. Pushing back, unlike what Trump told you, does not automatically mean war.

Instead you got a president who is going out of his way to bootlick Putin, and certainly isn't planning on doing anything that might upset him in any way shape or form, including enforcing any of those sanctions (why exactly we do not know, but at this point it's safe to say Putin has something on your president, probably several).
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23218 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-07-22 05:38:08
July 22 2018 05:37 GMT
#10347
On July 22 2018 14:34 Excludos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 22 2018 13:58 KwarK wrote:
The idea that Hillary would have started a war with Russia over Syria (or anywhere else) is patently absurd.


She certainly would have escalated. Perhaps this is an extension of the "how was I supposed to know it could go wrong?" argument about her campaigns intentional elevating of Trump not making her more responsible for him winning the nomination and the presidency than progressives or 3rd party voters.


Escalation =! war. Neither country wants war with each other, as that is just mutual assured annihilation. Even if nukes are never used, the economic loss will be great enough for both countries to go bankrupt many times over.

Putin knows this, and uses it consistently to bully absolutely everyone around him at all times to get what he wants. Hillary was clear that she would not let the bully just do whatever he wanted, and that is the correct way to act. Pushing back, unlike what Trump told you, does not automatically mean war.

Instead you got a president who is going out of his way to bootlick Putin, and certainly isn't planning on doing anything that might upset him in any way shape or form, including enforcing any of those sanctions (why exactly we do not know, but at this point it's safe to say Putin has something on your president, probably several).


I don't adhere to the "US is the global police" mythology, or rather I see them in very similar lights. But I also don't support the US "pushing back" by killing innocent people and some of whoever they claim to be fighting this year.

That doesn't mean I think Trump has a clue about anything but how to enrich himself through sheer stupidity and determination.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Excludos
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Norway8072 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-07-22 05:46:56
July 22 2018 05:46 GMT
#10348
On July 22 2018 14:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't adhere to the "US is the global police" mythology, or rather I see them in very similar lights. But I also don't support the US "pushing back" by killing innocent people and some of whoever they claim to be fighting this year.


Please don't straw man. I never mentioned "pushing back" somehow entailed killing innocent people. It could mean, for instance, enforcing those sanctions... You know, the part I mentioned which you gleefully skipped over. Neither does this have anything to do with global policing, however it's apt to mention that in those areas where the US has already put their noses into, it's not a good idea to just let Putin do whatever he wants, as that surely is not the path to least "innocent killings".
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42642 Posts
July 22 2018 05:46 GMT
#10349
On July 22 2018 14:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 14:29 KwarK wrote:
On July 22 2018 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 22 2018 13:58 KwarK wrote:
The idea that Hillary would have started a war with Russia over Syria (or anywhere else) is patently absurd.


She certainly would have escalated. Perhaps this is an extension of the "how was I supposed to know it could go wrong?" argument about her campaigns intentional elevating of Trump not making her more responsible for him winning the nomination and the presidency than progressives or 3rd party voters.

There is an awful lot of obstacles that need to be overcome between one mistake and full on nuclear war with Russia. It wouldn’t just happen. One side would need to decide to attempt a first strike.


I'm not sure who put forth the idea of full on nuclear war with Russia/WW3 literally, if anyone. But I'm pretty sure most people considered it a deliberate step back towards the cold war, with a reasonable likelihood shit could go real wrong real fast with US and Russian Troops/planes so hostile (no fly zone) in such close proximity.

EDIT: I mean there's the whole calling for a US backed coup/regime change too.

The possibility of a plane getting shot down (while reasonably unlikely because that’s the kind of thing you try to sort out in advance rather than having random pilots start shit) is not a real risk of war with Russia. Turkey shot one down not so long ago. They could kill a dozen pilots without conventional escalation, there isn’t military escalation with Russia. There are sanctions, military aid to Ukraine, creating alliance around them, putting infrastructure in the Baltic states, and so forth, but no actual direct conflict. First strike or nothing in that regard.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23218 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-07-22 06:05:43
July 22 2018 06:00 GMT
#10350
On July 22 2018 14:46 Excludos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 14:37 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't adhere to the "US is the global police" mythology, or rather I see them in very similar lights. But I also don't support the US "pushing back" by killing innocent people and some of whoever they claim to be fighting this year.


Please don't straw man. I never mentioned "pushing back" somehow entailed killing innocent people. It could mean, for instance, enforcing those sanctions... You know, the part I mentioned which you gleefully skipped over. Neither does this have anything to do with global policing, however it's apt to mention that in those areas where the US has already put their noses into, it's not a good idea to just let Putin do whatever he wants, as that surely is not the path to least "innocent killings".


It's not a strawman, it's what is happening right now and being egged on constantly by Democrats and was happening before Trump took office in Syria and beyond.

This is exactly advocating US global policing of Putin's actions, like literally.
On July 22 2018 14:46 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 14:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 22 2018 14:29 KwarK wrote:
On July 22 2018 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
On July 22 2018 13:58 KwarK wrote:
The idea that Hillary would have started a war with Russia over Syria (or anywhere else) is patently absurd.


She certainly would have escalated. Perhaps this is an extension of the "how was I supposed to know it could go wrong?" argument about her campaigns intentional elevating of Trump not making her more responsible for him winning the nomination and the presidency than progressives or 3rd party voters.

There is an awful lot of obstacles that need to be overcome between one mistake and full on nuclear war with Russia. It wouldn’t just happen. One side would need to decide to attempt a first strike.


I'm not sure who put forth the idea of full on nuclear war with Russia/WW3 literally, if anyone. But I'm pretty sure most people considered it a deliberate step back towards the cold war, with a reasonable likelihood shit could go real wrong real fast with US and Russian Troops/planes so hostile (no fly zone) in such close proximity.

EDIT: I mean there's the whole calling for a US backed coup/regime change too.

The possibility of a plane getting shot down (while reasonably unlikely because that’s the kind of thing you try to sort out in advance rather than having random pilots start shit) is not a real risk of war with Russia. Turkey shot one down not so long ago. They could kill a dozen pilots without conventional escalation, there isn’t military escalation with Russia. There are sanctions, military aid to Ukraine, creating alliance around them, putting infrastructure in the Baltic states, and so forth, but no actual direct conflict. First strike or nothing in that regard.


Cold wars are still wars, though I mean if someone is saying it was definitely going to lead to nuclear war with Russia (not in reference to some other hyperbole) I'd disagree. But I don't think that's what they meant by "war" though still a possibility albeit remote.

EDIT: Feels like the right time to reemphasize that we were sold that Trump couldn't be trusted with the button too so it's kinda the ultimate lowered expectation if we live till the 2020 election. He'll rub it in liberals faces as "see they made me sound like I was going to start ww3 and NK/SK are on better terms, we're friends with Russia, and European funding of NATO is at an all-time high. Never listen to those cuck fake newsers again"
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
July 22 2018 08:18 GMT
#10351
On July 22 2018 01:52 screamingpalm wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 01:44 micronesia wrote:
On July 22 2018 01:34 screamingpalm wrote:
I respect your opinion that you think warmonger Clinton would not be as bad, I just do not agree.
I'm surprised people still genuinely feel this way, aside from die-hard trump supporters. What would Trump have to do before you are like, "hm, maybe Clinton would have been better"?

Why can't progressives try to build a third party instead of being forced to choose a Blue Dog or moderate?

You can, but unless you have enough influence such that you are able to get your preferred candidate to the general election, you won't have enough influence to change the system in order to make a third party relevant. As I acknowledged this is a big problem.


For me Clinton-Trump is six one, half dozen the other. Clinton wouldn't have started a trade war, but an actual war. Zero sum game. I only see one logical way out of this neoliberal see-saw. I really do not want another windfall gift to Wall Street in the form of the goldilocks economy and private debt expansion. Welfare and prison reform... etc. I know people have short memories, but seriously?


So you also think Clinton would have elected 1-3 Conservative Supreme Court Justices, would gladly oversee direct assaults on abortion laws, and would have thrown immigrant children in cages?

This is exactly what I was talking about. The idea that Clinton would have been 'just as bad' as Trump is absolute stupidity.

And yes, my initial point was that voting for Clinton over Trump should have been the blatantly obvious choice, because Trump is Trump and Trump is the worst. How anyone in America that isn't on the right cannot see that is the exact reason why left wing politics in America is such a clown show.

Shit, half the people on the right hate Trump, that's how bad he is. They hated him then and hate him now, but they voted for their team because they knew he was the only way their agenda would be advanced. See Xdaunt pointing out that Trump has been great for Conservativism, and Danglars' somewhat more lukewarm (in fact, Danglars is an exact example of 'he's a dickhead but at least he's our dickhead' attitude). A big push on their side was Supreme Court Justices, they knew how important that would be, and were desperate to win this election to make sure the SC didn't get another liberal justice on it.

You think 'if I don't vote for the DNC they'll get the message!' but what actually happens is that the right grows stronger, becomes emboldened, and the left falls apart in infighting. Because people on the left refuse to vote for someone who isn't exactly what they want, and start saying 'well if it's not exactly what I want then I'll happily watch the guy who represents everything I don't want win, and make it incredibly hard for anything I want to ever happen! THIS IS THE WAY TO FUTURE VICTORY!!!!!!!!!132159'

I don't actually know enough about the candidate for 100% human President to know if he's bad enough to justify #resist, so I'll abstain on that. However, it should be borne in mind that I weigh the damage Trump has done to political and social dialogue to be very important, arguably most important. Clinton's foreign policy looked pretty shit, absolutely. Ted Cruz's would have looked bad too I'm sure. But neither of them would have engaged in a twitter war where they were punching down on a Puerto Rican mayor in the middle of an honest-to-goodness natural disaster, or actively piss off every ally you have.

If you genuinely think Hilary Clinton would have come on a state visit to the UK and done an exclusive interview where she tore into Theresa May, then walked in front of the Queen while inspecting the troops... there is no hope. She wouldn't have done those things. She wouldn't have sent a diplomat to Germany who openly stated he was there to embolden right wing groups. She wouldn't have sent an ambassador to the Netherlands who denied saying things he was on camera having said.

And yes, it should have been obvious this sort of shit was going to happen under Trump.
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23218 Posts
July 22 2018 09:20 GMT
#10352
On July 22 2018 17:18 iamthedave wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 01:52 screamingpalm wrote:
On July 22 2018 01:44 micronesia wrote:
On July 22 2018 01:34 screamingpalm wrote:
I respect your opinion that you think warmonger Clinton would not be as bad, I just do not agree.
I'm surprised people still genuinely feel this way, aside from die-hard trump supporters. What would Trump have to do before you are like, "hm, maybe Clinton would have been better"?

Why can't progressives try to build a third party instead of being forced to choose a Blue Dog or moderate?

You can, but unless you have enough influence such that you are able to get your preferred candidate to the general election, you won't have enough influence to change the system in order to make a third party relevant. As I acknowledged this is a big problem.


For me Clinton-Trump is six one, half dozen the other. Clinton wouldn't have started a trade war, but an actual war. Zero sum game. I only see one logical way out of this neoliberal see-saw. I really do not want another windfall gift to Wall Street in the form of the goldilocks economy and private debt expansion. Welfare and prison reform... etc. I know people have short memories, but seriously?


So you also think Clinton would have elected 1-3 Conservative Supreme Court Justices, would gladly oversee direct assaults on abortion laws, and would have thrown immigrant children in cages?

This is exactly what I was talking about. The idea that Clinton would have been 'just as bad' as Trump is absolute stupidity.

And yes, my initial point was that voting for Clinton over Trump should have been the blatantly obvious choice, because Trump is Trump and Trump is the worst. How anyone in America that isn't on the right cannot see that is the exact reason why left wing politics in America is such a clown show.

Shit, half the people on the right hate Trump, that's how bad he is. They hated him then and hate him now, but they voted for their team because they knew he was the only way their agenda would be advanced. See Xdaunt pointing out that Trump has been great for Conservativism, and Danglars' somewhat more lukewarm (in fact, Danglars is an exact example of 'he's a dickhead but at least he's our dickhead' attitude). A big push on their side was Supreme Court Justices, they knew how important that would be, and were desperate to win this election to make sure the SC didn't get another liberal justice on it.

You think 'if I don't vote for the DNC they'll get the message!' but what actually happens is that the right grows stronger, becomes emboldened, and the left falls apart in infighting. Because people on the left refuse to vote for someone who isn't exactly what they want, and start saying 'well if it's not exactly what I want then I'll happily watch the guy who represents everything I don't want win, and make it incredibly hard for anything I want to ever happen! THIS IS THE WAY TO FUTURE VICTORY!!!!!!!!!132159'

I don't actually know enough about the candidate for 100% human President to know if he's bad enough to justify #resist, so I'll abstain on that. However, it should be borne in mind that I weigh the damage Trump has done to political and social dialogue to be very important, arguably most important. Clinton's foreign policy looked pretty shit, absolutely. Ted Cruz's would have looked bad too I'm sure. But neither of them would have engaged in a twitter war where they were punching down on a Puerto Rican mayor in the middle of an honest-to-goodness natural disaster, or actively piss off every ally you have.

If you genuinely think Hilary Clinton would have come on a state visit to the UK and done an exclusive interview where she tore into Theresa May, then walked in front of the Queen while inspecting the troops... there is no hope. She wouldn't have done those things. She wouldn't have sent a diplomat to Germany who openly stated he was there to embolden right wing groups. She wouldn't have sent an ambassador to the Netherlands who denied saying things he was on camera having said.

And yes, it should have been obvious this sort of shit was going to happen under Trump.


Clinton would have brought on more abortion restrictions and nominated pretty conservative judges.

You're asking if Clinton would have been the bad in the same ways, not who would be bad or even who would be worse. In many conventional and obvious ways Trump is worse, in many less conventional and more subversive ways Clinton was worse. Boiling the US presidential election to a choice between two bads is as everyone agrees, a shitty system. However contrary to the repeated assertion, voting to perpetuate that system by voting on a less/different bad that is still utterly dependent on it and seeks to perpetuate/embolden it is the literal definition of insanity.

Asking if Hillary would do precisely the same stupid things Trump does is a funny distraction but an empty argument.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
screamingpalm
Profile Joined October 2011
United States1527 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-07-22 10:58:41
July 22 2018 09:37 GMT
#10353
A lot of this is becoming circular and I've already stated that I don't believe Clinton appointees would support a progressive agenda anyway.


"Half the people on the right hate Trump". Which is why I see him as being much more limited in the potential damage he could do than Hillary.

You say the right grows stronger and more emboldened, but it's also having the same effect on the left (finally!). I was not in the target audience for the Dem's message for a long time- haven't supported them since Nader started running. Only when Bernie ran did I become interested again. There are two strategies that are debated to death in progressive circles: #dementer and #demexit. I have mostly been in the 'exit' camp, thinking that there is no way to get support for progressives with powerful establishment institutions like the DCCC and after failed lawsuits against the DNC. The 'enter' crowd and "Justice Democrats" are currently making some headway though, and now I currently think the best strategy is a combination of both.

I'm also one of last people who would want to see strained relations with the UK considering half my family lives in England. :D

Anyway, more news on the uprising of the left- surprisingly from the NY Times. Even they have to admit to what's happening.


+ Show Spoiler +




DETROIT — For Rachel Conner, the 2018 election season has been a moment of revelation.
A 27-year-old social worker, Ms. Conner voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primaries, spurning the more liberal Bernie Sanders, whom many of her peers backed. But Ms. Conner changed course in this year’s campaign for governor, after concluding that Democrats could only win with more daring messages on issues like public health and immigration.

And so on a recent Wednesday, she enlisted two other young women to volunteer for Abdul El-Sayed, a 33-year-old advocate of single-payer health care running an uphill race in Michigan to become the country’s first Muslim governor.
“They need to wake up and pay attention to what people actually want,” Ms. Conner said of Democratic leaders. “There are so many progressive policies that have widespread support that mainstream Democrats are not picking up on, or putting that stuff down and saying, ‘That wouldn’t really work.’”

Voters like Ms. Conner may not represent a controlling faction in the Democratic Party, at least not yet. But they are increasingly rattling primary elections around the country, and they promise to grow as a disruptive force in national elections as younger voters reject the traditional boundary lines of Democratic politics.

Energized to take on President Trump, these voters are also seeking to remake their own party as a ferocious — and ferociously liberal — opposition force. And many appear as focused on forcing progressive policies into the midterm debate as they are on defeating Republicans.

The impact of these activists in the 2018 election has been limited but revealing: Only about a sixth of Democratic congressional nominees so far have a formal affiliation with one of several important insurgent groups. Fifty-three of the 305 candidates have been endorsed by the Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, the Progressive Change Campaign and Our Revolution, organizations that have helped propel challenges to Democratic incumbents.

But the voters who make up the ascending coalition on the left have had an outsize effect on the national political conversation, driving the Democrats’ internal policy debates and putting pressure on party leaders unseen in previous campaigns.

Mark Brewer, a former longtime chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, said “progressive energy” was rippling across the state. But Mr. Brewer, who backs Gretchen Whitmer, a former State Senate leader and the Democratic front-runner for governor, said Michigan Democrats were an ideologically diverse bunch and the party could not expect to win simply by running far to the left.

“There are a lot of moderate and even conservative Democrats in Michigan,” Mr. Brewer cautioned. “It’s always been a challenge for Democrats to hold that coalition together in the general election.”

Progressive activists have already upended one major election in Michigan, derailing a former federal prosecutor, Pat Miles, who was running for attorney general with the support of organized labor, by endorsing another lawyer, Dana Nessel, who litigated against Michigan’s gay marriage ban, at a party convention.

In more solidly Democratic parts of the country, younger progressives have battered entrenched political leaders, ousting veteran state legislators in Pennsylvania and Maryland and rejecting, in upstate New York, a congressional candidate recruited by the national party.

In Maryland, Democrats passed over several respected local officials to select Ben Jealous, a former N.A.A.C.P. president and an ally of Mr. Sanders who backs single-payer health care, as their nominee for governor. And in a climactic upset in New York last month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old Democratic socialist, felled Representative Joseph Crowley, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House.

With about two months left in primary season, a handful of races remain where restive liberals could flout the Democratic establishment, demolishing archaic party machinery or pressuring Democrats in moderate areas to tack left. Beyond Mr. El-Sayed, there are also insurgents contesting primaries for governor in Florida and New York, for Senate in Delaware and for a smattering of House seats in states including Kansas, Massachusetts and Missouri.

The pressure from a new generation of confrontational progressives has put Democrats at the precipice of a sweeping transition, away from not only the centrist ethos of the Bill Clinton years but also, perhaps, from the consensus-oriented liberalism of Barack Obama. Less than a decade ago, Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Robert Gibbs, derided the “professional left” for making what he suggested were preposterous demands — like pressing for “Canadian health care.”

That attitude now appears obsolete, on matters well beyond health policy. Corey Johnson, the progressive speaker of the New York City Council, who supported Mr. Crowley over Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, urged Democrats to recognize the intensity of “anger, fear and disappointment from people in our own party,” especially those new to the political process.
“They’re young, and a lot of them are folks that weren’t around or weren’t engaged when Obama ran for the first time,” Mr. Johnson, 36, said. “So this is their moment of: Let’s take our country back.”

In a source of relief to Democratic officials, the millennial-infused left has left a lighter mark in moderate areas where Republicans are defending their congressional majorities, and where bluntly left-wing candidates could struggle to win. In House races, Democrats have mainly picked nominees well to the left of center, but to the right of Mr. Sanders and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

Across most of the approximately 60 Republican-held districts that Democrats are contesting, primary voters have chosen candidates who seem to embody change — many of them women and minorities — but who have not necessarily endorsed positions like single-payer health care and abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.

Some national Democrats remain skeptical that voters are focused on specific policy demands of the kind Mr. El-Sayed and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez have championed. Former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, a left-of-center Democrat who ran for president in 2016, suggested the party wants “new leaders and fresh ideas” more than hard-left ideology.
“Sometimes that may be filled by a leader who calls herself a Democratic socialist, and sometimes it’s not,” said Mr. O’Malley, reflecting on the political convulsion that touched his home state. “Sometimes it’s with a young person. Sometimes it’s with a retiree. Sometimes it’s with a vet.”

Several crucial Democratic victories since 2016 have also come with avowedly moderate standard-bearers, such as Senator Doug Jones of Alabama and Representative Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, who won grueling special elections. And unlike hard-liners on the right, Democratic activists have not contested Senate primaries in conservative-leaning states where the majority is at stake, allowing centrists to run unimpeded in Arizona and Tennessee.
Yet among Democratic stalwarts, there is a sometimes-rueful recognition that a cultural gulf separates them from the party’s next generation, much of which inhabits a world of freewheeling social media and countercultural podcasts that are wholly unfamiliar to older Democrats.

Evan Nowlin, a writer and barista supporting Mr. El-Sayed, said he had been motivated to volunteer by a podcast hosted by The Intercept, a left-leaning news site that has intensively covered challenges to the Democratic establishment.

Mr. Nowlin, a soft-spoken 26-year-old who supported Mr. Sanders in 2016, said the traditional Democratic leadership had plainly failed to inspire the country. “I think they’re generally spineless,” he said.

In some instances, the party’s rebels may be too brazen even for some of the candidates they have supported. The gradations of Democratic revolution were on display at an event in Brooklyn Tuesday celebrating the Working Families Party: Cynthia Nixon, the actor running in a September primary against Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, a more moderate Democrat, drew cheers hailing Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow Democratic socialists.

But Mr. Jealous, the Maryland nominee for governor, who is supported by Working Families and addressed the event, was warier of the socialist label. After embracing Ms. Nixon on stage but not quite endorsing her, Mr. Jealous chuckled at a question about the resurrection of Democratic socialism as a political identity.

“I’m a venture capitalist,” he said, noting his work as an investor. “I’m kind of like the last person to ask.”
In Michigan, however, Mr. El-Sayed is counting on a mood of ideological ambition to decide his primary: He remains an underdog, facing a well-funded rival in Ms. Whitmer, who is backed by powerful labor unions like the United Auto Workers. She has led in recent polls, while a third candidate, Shri Thanedar, a wealthy wild card, has complicated the race.

Aiming to build momentum, Mr. El-Sayed will campaign later this month with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, to whom he linked himself in generation and political outlook. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez also campaigned in Kansas Friday for liberal House candidates and was slated for an event over the weekend for a primary challenger to a Democratic incumbent in Missouri, William Lacy Clay.

“The rise of somebody like Alexandria seems kind of obvious to somebody in our generation,” Mr. El-Sayed said in an interview, casting the moment in grand terms: “The machine, whether it is on the right or on the left, has assented to this broken system of corporate politics, and I think people are real frustrated about that.”

That mind-set unnerves Democratic veterans like Mr. Brewer, the former party chairman, in a state where they have long struggled to overcome a Republican machine aligned with the business community. Mr. Trump’s slim victory there exposed divisions between the national Democratic Party and many of the white union members on whose votes Michigan Democrats rely, underscoring Democrats’ tenuous position in 2018.

But within deep-blue precincts where Democratic insurgency appears strongest, talk of accommodating the center is in short supply.

In Massachusetts, where several incumbent House Democrats are facing feisty challenges, Michelle Wu, a 33-year-old member of the Boston City Council, said voters are demanding leaders who share their intense alarm about economic and racial inequality. Defying the local machine, she recently endorsed Ayanna Pressley, a fellow council member, in a primary against Representative Michael Capuano, a long-serving liberal.

“People want to believe we can take our own future into our hands,” Ms. Wu said.

Source





MMT University is coming! http://www.mmtuniversity.org/
Longshank
Profile Joined March 2010
1648 Posts
July 22 2018 10:21 GMT
#10354
If the American left truly believes, and that seems partially to be the case, that Hillary is just as bad as Trump then I'm actually stunned. In my ignorance I've always chalked it up as recentment over how the primaries was run. As a EU leftie, I can only hope that you guys never get anywhere near the White House, which is a shame since I think Sanders was the best thing in a long time for US politics.
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12171 Posts
July 22 2018 10:33 GMT
#10355
On July 22 2018 19:21 Longshank wrote:
If the American left truly believes, and that seems partially to be the case, that Hillary is just as bad as Trump then I'm actually stunned. In my ignorance I've always chalked it up as recentment over how the primaries was run. As a EU leftie, I can only hope that you guys never get anywhere near the White House, which is a shame since I think Sanders was the best thing in a long time for US politics.


Can you at least acknowledge that the logic that's been used to justify neoliberal support ensures that the left never gets in power, which seems like a counterproductive thing for a leftist to want?
No will to live, no wish to die
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
July 22 2018 11:08 GMT
#10356
On July 22 2018 19:33 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 19:21 Longshank wrote:
If the American left truly believes, and that seems partially to be the case, that Hillary is just as bad as Trump then I'm actually stunned. In my ignorance I've always chalked it up as recentment over how the primaries was run. As a EU leftie, I can only hope that you guys never get anywhere near the White House, which is a shame since I think Sanders was the best thing in a long time for US politics.


Can you at least acknowledge that the logic that's been used to justify neoliberal support ensures that the left never gets in power, which seems like a counterproductive thing for a leftist to want?


I think blame for that problem lies at the foot of the Cold War.

Americans are so petrified of the Red Scare that the merest hint of a sniff of the beginnings of socialism causes hysterical shit fits on the right. AND on some parts of the left, for that matter. The argument you're espousing seems to me blaming an adaptation tactic for the thing it's adapting to.

I always doubted Bernie could beat Trump on those grounds, because it seemed to me he was so obviously vulnerable to being hit on his - if not extreme - more left views, and being pilloried as a closet communist, which could very easily have motivated more conservatives to get to the polls. Maybe the youth vote would have carried it, though. Maybe we'll find out in 2020. Hopefully Trump will have done enough damage by then that people will at least get behind the Democrats' final (non-Hilary) choice.
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
Longshank
Profile Joined March 2010
1648 Posts
July 22 2018 13:16 GMT
#10357
On July 22 2018 19:33 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 19:21 Longshank wrote:
If the American left truly believes, and that seems partially to be the case, that Hillary is just as bad as Trump then I'm actually stunned. In my ignorance I've always chalked it up as recentment over how the primaries was run. As a EU leftie, I can only hope that you guys never get anywhere near the White House, which is a shame since I think Sanders was the best thing in a long time for US politics.


Can you at least acknowledge that the logic that's been used to justify neoliberal support ensures that the left never gets in power, which seems like a counterproductive thing for a leftist to want?

First off, I'm in deep water here since I'm really not familiar enough with US politics to be discussing this, but from an outsider's perspective, what exactly is the game plan for the left? How do they expect to ever win a general election without the support of other blue voters? I get that it's not easy being an American socialist but in my eyes, the most realistic way would be to, 8, 16 or 32 years from now, drum up enough support for a Bernie-esque candidate in the primaries and hope enough democrat voters rally behind their candidate in the general election. That would require those voters not to act with the same pettiness that the left showed in 2016 however. From reading certain left posters posts for the last few years, I get the feeling that they're more interested in 'sticking it to the neoliberals' than doing anything constructive.

Of course, one option would be to tear down the political structure to the ground and build from there - in wchich case I wish you the best of luck!
Liquid`Drone
Profile Joined September 2002
Norway28665 Posts
July 22 2018 13:57 GMT
#10358
meh, it's been going both ways. quite some progressives stayed home or voted third party this election. I saw quite some 'moderate democrats' claim they were gonna vote trump instead of bernie (mostly for tax reasons from what I saw) if bernie was the candidate. both groups blame the other segment.

I think 4 years is probably one of the best chances for a somewhat radical leftist personally, because it'll be the only election where trump is the opponent, and moderate democrats now seem to dislike trump way more than they dislike the leftist segment of their own party (even if they're not too fond of that group, either). I think if republicans run a romney (in 8 years, not if they primary trump) then an AOC type will do a lot worse than if up against Trump - the romney would get quite some right wing democrats as well as the normal republican crowd. Maybe there are more non-voting progressives than I know of though, but I thought they were more visible on the internet than in actual elections.
Moderator
Nebuchad
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
Switzerland12171 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-07-22 14:56:59
July 22 2018 14:56 GMT
#10359
On July 22 2018 22:16 Longshank wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 19:33 Nebuchad wrote:
On July 22 2018 19:21 Longshank wrote:
If the American left truly believes, and that seems partially to be the case, that Hillary is just as bad as Trump then I'm actually stunned. In my ignorance I've always chalked it up as recentment over how the primaries was run. As a EU leftie, I can only hope that you guys never get anywhere near the White House, which is a shame since I think Sanders was the best thing in a long time for US politics.


Can you at least acknowledge that the logic that's been used to justify neoliberal support ensures that the left never gets in power, which seems like a counterproductive thing for a leftist to want?

First off, I'm in deep water here since I'm really not familiar enough with US politics to be discussing this, but from an outsider's perspective, what exactly is the game plan for the left? How do they expect to ever win a general election without the support of other blue voters? I get that it's not easy being an American socialist but in my eyes, the most realistic way would be to, 8, 16 or 32 years from now, drum up enough support for a Bernie-esque candidate in the primaries and hope enough democrat voters rally behind their candidate in the general election. That would require those voters not to act with the same pettiness that the left showed in 2016 however. From reading certain left posters posts for the last few years, I get the feeling that they're more interested in 'sticking it to the neoliberals' than doing anything constructive.

Of course, one option would be to tear down the political structure to the ground and build from there - in wchich case I wish you the best of luck!


It's really hard for me to envision a version of 2020 where a decent progressive candidate doesn't crush Trump. Don't think that'll take 32 years and I agree the hard part is to beat the liberals within their own party.

As far as game plan that's probably still the best option though: win some primaries and push the democratic party left. If they succeed in doing that, the liberals should then immediately go "Did we say unity? Woops we meant that only when we're united under our ideas" and split into a third party, at least that's what I would expect to happen. When there's a third party for liberals the left should then be able to compete for the specific batch of voters who go for republicans because they despise the liberal elites, as the liberal elites will be perceived to be in that third party. Bunch of things can happen in the meantime though, don't think they should be doing very precise battle plans when they have such an advantageous position in terms of image right now.
No will to live, no wish to die
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44272 Posts
July 22 2018 15:08 GMT
#10360
On July 22 2018 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 22 2018 22:16 Longshank wrote:
On July 22 2018 19:33 Nebuchad wrote:
On July 22 2018 19:21 Longshank wrote:
If the American left truly believes, and that seems partially to be the case, that Hillary is just as bad as Trump then I'm actually stunned. In my ignorance I've always chalked it up as recentment over how the primaries was run. As a EU leftie, I can only hope that you guys never get anywhere near the White House, which is a shame since I think Sanders was the best thing in a long time for US politics.


Can you at least acknowledge that the logic that's been used to justify neoliberal support ensures that the left never gets in power, which seems like a counterproductive thing for a leftist to want?

First off, I'm in deep water here since I'm really not familiar enough with US politics to be discussing this, but from an outsider's perspective, what exactly is the game plan for the left? How do they expect to ever win a general election without the support of other blue voters? I get that it's not easy being an American socialist but in my eyes, the most realistic way would be to, 8, 16 or 32 years from now, drum up enough support for a Bernie-esque candidate in the primaries and hope enough democrat voters rally behind their candidate in the general election. That would require those voters not to act with the same pettiness that the left showed in 2016 however. From reading certain left posters posts for the last few years, I get the feeling that they're more interested in 'sticking it to the neoliberals' than doing anything constructive.

Of course, one option would be to tear down the political structure to the ground and build from there - in wchich case I wish you the best of luck!


It's really hard for me to envision a version of 2020 where a decent progressive candidate doesn't crush Trump. Don't think that'll take 32 years and I agree the hard part is to beat the liberals within their own party.


I think that even much of the Republican establishment old guard and Fox News would prefer trying to have a new Republican primary winner over having to support Trump for another general election and term, if possible.

I know we've had some one-term presidents before, but have we ever had the incumbent lose in his own primary before (rather than merely the general election the second time around)?
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
Prev 1 516 517 518 519 520 5122 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Esports World Cup
10:00
2025 - Day 2
herO vs CureLIVE!
Serral vs Classic
EWC_Arena10152
ComeBackTV 2092
TaKeTV 642
Hui .509
3DClanTV 308
EnkiAlexander 218
Rex205
CranKy Ducklings166
UpATreeSC132
mcanning119
Reynor98
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena10152
Hui .509
Rex 205
UpATreeSC 132
mcanning 119
Reynor 98
StarCraft: Brood War
Bisu 3054
Flash 2835
Jaedong 2276
Barracks 1452
BeSt 1248
Mini 877
EffOrt 824
Snow 359
Stork 350
Soulkey 347
[ Show more ]
ZerO 320
Soma 269
Rush 114
Hyun 77
Dewaltoss 75
sas.Sziky 36
Sea.KH 35
scan(afreeca) 29
soO 26
Sacsri 24
Aegong 24
Yoon 18
Terrorterran 15
yabsab 7
Bale 6
Dota 2
syndereN629
420jenkins370
XcaliburYe326
Counter-Strike
fl0m2249
sgares557
flusha260
byalli178
Super Smash Bros
Westballz42
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor131
Other Games
hiko1031
crisheroes310
FrodaN224
Fuzer 172
ArmadaUGS92
KnowMe86
QueenE63
ZerO(Twitch)20
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH215
• intothetv
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• IndyKCrew
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• FirePhoenix4
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2663
• masondota2830
• WagamamaTV773
League of Legends
• Nemesis3033
• TFBlade914
Other Games
• Shiphtur198
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
17h 54m
Reynor vs Zoun
Solar vs SHIN
TBD vs ShoWTimE
TBD vs Rogue
Esports World Cup
1d 18h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
6 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.