|
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 |
On November 15 2025 16:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2025 03:33 WombaT wrote:On November 15 2025 02:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:The jobs report data was not collected. The data collectors were furloughed. We'll know if things are 'so catastrophic' in a few weeks. Automatically assuming catastrophy is a reach. "The truth is never far behind ... You kept it hidden well...", Madonna, 1985. The jobs market is weak and the Fed will likely cut rates by 0.25. This move is congruent with weakness not catastrophy. https://fortune.com/2025/11/13/october-2025-jobs-inflation-data-release-government-shutdown/It is fun to get all emotional about the pending apocalypse though. Karoline looks like she is 45. Who’s being emotional about the apocalypse exactly? In fairness, DPB asserted the reason that the Trump administration doesn't want to reveal the info is because it's catastrophic. So the answer "DPB was being emotional about the jobs apocalypse" would've been a fair response: nobody really knows whether there's a jobs apocalypse/catastrophy, because somebody would have to curate that data and they were furloughed. Mighty convenient, but also true.
My conclusion wasn't me being emotional; it was based on how Trump and his administration usually act when there's bad news: spin it or hide it. Maybe it's premature or unwarranted to think that the Trump administration claiming they may permanently not release information that is typically only delayed by a government shutdown indicates that what they want to purposely hide is extremely bad information, but me being right or wrong about this isn't the same thing as me being emotional about this.
To me, it sounded like the Trump administration was using the government shutdown as an excuse to hide information, which led me to believe that the information probably isn't good news for them (or else they'd say they'd eventually release the information, but Leavitt said "jobs report and inflation data will likely not be released even after the government reopens"). "Likely not releasing" economic information means that they're going to obtain the data but also keep it private, even though historically it's never kept private. If it were good news, then they'd share it with the public.
Her quote, coupled with Trump's recent pivots and reversals on many of his terrible economic positions/tariffs, made me think that "catastrophic" might be an apt adjective. Maybe I'm unjustified in connecting the dots the way that I have, but based on Trump's track record of hiding things he doesn't want people to know about because they might reflect poorly on him, I think that dismissing my inference as "emotional" is bordering on ad hominem.
If we ever do find out about the jobs data and inflation data, then I'll learn if I was right or wrong. Maybe I'm right; maybe I'm wrong. ::shrugs:: It's just a prediction.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 15 2025 21:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2025 16:37 Acrofales wrote:On November 15 2025 03:33 WombaT wrote:On November 15 2025 02:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:The jobs report data was not collected. The data collectors were furloughed. We'll know if things are 'so catastrophic' in a few weeks. Automatically assuming catastrophy is a reach. "The truth is never far behind ... You kept it hidden well...", Madonna, 1985. The jobs market is weak and the Fed will likely cut rates by 0.25. This move is congruent with weakness not catastrophy. https://fortune.com/2025/11/13/october-2025-jobs-inflation-data-release-government-shutdown/It is fun to get all emotional about the pending apocalypse though. Karoline looks like she is 45. Who’s being emotional about the apocalypse exactly? In fairness, DPB asserted the reason that the Trump administration doesn't want to reveal the info is because it's catastrophic. So the answer "DPB was being emotional about the jobs apocalypse" would've been a fair response: nobody really knows whether there's a jobs apocalypse/catastrophy, because somebody would have to curate that data and they were furloughed. Mighty convenient, but also true. My conclusion wasn't me being emotional; it was based on how Trump and his administration usually act when there's bad news: spin it or hide it. Maybe it's premature or unwarranted to think that the Trump administration claiming they may permanently not release information that is typically only delayed by a government shutdown indicates that what they want to purposely hide is extremely bad information, but me being right or wrong about this isn't the same thing as me being emotional about this. To me, it sounded like the Trump administration was using the government shutdown as an excuse to hide information, which led me to believe that the information probably isn't good news for them (or else they'd say they'd eventually release the information, but Leavitt said "jobs report and inflation data will likely not be released even after the government reopens"). "Likely not releasing" economic information means that they're going to obtain the data but also keep it private, even though historically it's never kept private. If it were good news, then they'd share it with the public. Her quote, coupled with Trump's recent pivots and reversals on many of his terrible economic positions/tariffs, made me think that "catastrophic" might be an apt adjective. Maybe I'm unjustified in connecting the dots the way that I have, but based on Trump's track record of hiding things he doesn't want people to know about because they might reflect poorly on him, I think that dismissing my inference as "emotional" is bordering on ad hominem. If we ever do find out about the jobs data and inflation data, then I'll learn if I was right or wrong. Maybe I'm right; maybe I'm wrong. ::shrugs:: It's just a prediction.
Exactly, if it was good news they’d spin it as such. Even if it’s a ‘trust me bro the numbers were great but the Dems are stopping us showing the American people what a great job we’re doing!’ It’s their stock play.
Speaking of stock plays, this is a Jimmy classic. People say x is a bad idea, Jimmy entertains the idea. He eventually comes around to the former, but goes ‘hey it’s not apocalyptic’, even though that wasn’t the initial analysis.
There’s a pretty marked contrast between his ‘que sera sera’ attitude and hey life’s alright just get on with it if one is talking America or Canada
|
we can't really evaluate someone's emotional state over a forum board.
Generally speaking, Americans for many, many decades have been ranting and screaming about the end of the world only being a nanosecond away from happening. This apocalypse takes many forms including economic ruin. Whether we look at the overblown fear of a nuclear apocalypse since 1951, the War of the Worlds radio broadcast, AIDS hysteria in the 80s, the impending Ice Age that will wipe us out or global warming. It is hilarious that some how we might be getting BOTH an Ice Age AND Global Warming. 
They've given up on trying to scare everyone about the earth getting too hot. Now, its going to get too cold. In the 70s the Ice Age was also coming. They had drawings of dark pollution clouds blocking out sun rays. Any how, it is 2025 and the Ice Age is coming guys! These diagrams are awesome.
https://nypost.com/2025/11/12/science/gulf-stream-on-the-verge-of-collapse-scientists-warn/
As Americans turn away from Christianity and move to Atheism the deep seeded culture of Christian living and mindset is still there. You can not just flip a switch. One's deepest subconscious processes don't just end when one declares 'i no longer believe God exists'. A big element in the psychology of many christians is the "second coming" when Christ comes back. When Christ returns the world is obliterated or destroyed or this realm ends or something like that. I think this is where this deep seeded need for something that will "end the world" comes from. That is just spit balling on my part.
Returning to alarmism around the economy... this has been going on forever.
Remember Reagan's 1964 speech "a time for choosing". I've posted here about 10 times. What a great speech. Vote Republican to dramatically decrease the size of government or the economy and nation is doomed.
“No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income.” , October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan. LOLOL. Thanks for the laughs Mr. Reagan.
So, I take with a grain of salt any report of an economic catastrophe with insufficient evidence. Americans love drama.
|
On November 15 2025 22:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
we can't really evaluate someone's emotional state over a forum board.
Generally speaking, Americans for many, many decades have been ranting and screaming about the end of the world only being a nanosecond away from happening.
Okay, but don't project that onto me.
|
What am I supposed to do with the information that Donald Trump is almost certainly a pedophile?
Sometimes people like to believe in a good-vs-evil narrative in which all their side is brilliant and incorruptible and attractive, and all the other side is brutish and hideous and predatory. The QAnon folks have always been of this type – it’s virtually impossible for them to understand a good-faith opposition to their cause, they’re certain anybody who disagrees with them is an interdimensional demon pedophile who harvests adrenochrome from Christian babies. But I’ve never gone in for that sort of thing, I’m well aware that someone being right about something politically doesn’t mean they’re admirable in other respects.
It was always clear Trump had a long history of, at a minimum, scummy sex pest behavior. Bragging about owning the Miss Teen USA pageant and getting to walk into the dressing rooms, or talking a lot – a lot – about wanting to fuck his own daughter, the Access Hollywood tape, etc. But I still figured the most salacious stories are almost never true, and anyway my opposition to Trump has more to do with his political impact than him personally.
But like… it’s kind of hard to read the current situation any other way? I think the most charitable reading right now would be “he almost certainly knew about Epstein’s predation but didn’t give a shit” and even that looks pretty credulous right now. I still think his political impact matters more than him having fucked minors, but it seems extremely likely that he did and that’s kind of hard to just ignore?
|
United States24753 Posts
Oppose a constitutional amendment that would allow him to run for president in 2028. Him being a sexual predator has already proven not to prevent his re-election.
|
Demand congress impeach him?
|
On November 16 2025 17:03 Acrofales wrote:
Demand congress impeach him?
Third time's the charm!
I feel like skipping past how Democrats gave up their last bits of functional power after capitulating entirely on the shutdown does us all a disservice if we're going to talk seriously in any capacity about what to do/the future.
|
On November 16 2025 17:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Third time's the charm! I feel like skipping past how Democrats gave up their last bits of functional power after capitulating entirely on the shutdown does us all a disservice if we're going to talk seriously in any capacity about what to do/the future.
Okay, fine. Riot and lynch your congresspeople who refuse to act in good faith? That what you wanted to hear?
I mean, my faith in American politics crashed and burned ages ago. But my faith in the American people to dig themselves out of that mess is possibly even lower. I mean, these are the same American people who elected Trump for a second term in the first place, right?
At some point you just have to pray for a miracle (or as JJR likes to say: leave).
|
On November 16 2025 17:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Third time's the charm! I feel like skipping past how Democrats gave up their last bits of functional power after capitulating entirely on the shutdown does us all a disservice if we're going to talk seriously in any capacity about what to do/the future.
Idk there’s some quote from micro you’re basing that on? Something about the shutdown being “do or die” for the Democrats?
I mean micro can speak for himself if he wants to, but I don’t really see why this moment of cowardice would be any more final than previous ones. They didn’t actually give up any formal power, we’re going again on this thing in January apparently.
“Do or die” sounds like an apt description to me, but I’d be looking both more narrowly and more broadly with it – broadly, in that opposing the fascists in this whole era is more important than this one shutdown fight, and narrowly in that it’s a test being applied individually to each person in any position of power.
A lot of Democratic senators (as well as public and private leaders and elites across the country) seem like they just want a cushy job they can look busy at while enjoying the pleasures of elite living. Senators in particular seem like they might just want to keep a quality of senior care that is otherwise nearly unobtainable in America. They don’t want a battle for the soul of the country or whatever.
In more stable times maybe that could be tolerated, but in this moment we don’t have room for complacency. If someone can fight, they should do it, if they can’t they should retire. Tim Kaine might be a good dad or drinking buddy or even policy wonk, but if he’s not prepared to fight he should get out of the way and let someone else in who is.
The Dem leadership is most obviously untenable here, because it seems pretty clear the official list of senators who caved was carefully chosen to stave off this exact form of backlash. So Schumer has got to go, I just don’t see how he could be trusted at this point. Everyone else in the Cave Caucus (who may or may not be publicly admitting their membership) is at a minimum eyed with suspicion, but I just can’t imagine letting Schumer continue to lead.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 16 2025 12:18 ChristianS wrote:
What am I supposed to do with the information that Donald Trump is almost certainly a pedophile?
Sometimes people like to believe in a good-vs-evil narrative in which all their side is brilliant and incorruptible and attractive, and all the other side is brutish and hideous and predatory. The QAnon folks have always been of this type – it’s virtually impossible for them to understand a good-faith opposition to their cause, they’re certain anybody who disagrees with them is an interdimensional demon pedophile who harvests adrenochrome from Christian babies. But I’ve never gone in for that sort of thing, I’m well aware that someone being right about something politically doesn’t mean they’re admirable in other respects.
It was always clear Trump had a long history of, at a minimum, scummy sex pest behavior. Bragging about owning the Miss Teen USA pageant and getting to walk into the dressing rooms, or talking a lot – a lot – about wanting to fuck his own daughter, the Access Hollywood tape, etc. But I still figured the most salacious stories are almost never true, and anyway my opposition to Trump has more to do with his political impact than him personally.
But like… it’s kind of hard to read the current situation any other way? I think the most charitable reading right now would be “he almost certainly knew about Epstein’s predation but didn’t give a shit” and even that looks pretty credulous right now. I still think his political impact matters more than him having fucked minors, but it seems extremely likely that he did and that’s kind of hard to just ignore?
I mean basically this for me.
I almost end up not caring, which isn’t ideal. On a more detached macro level I think he’s done more damage to our collective society in other domains. Without diminishing it, but in a way that outweighs some alleged acts with individuals.
In a way that is almost circular. One becomes jaded, or shrugs the shoulders because of course Trump isn’t going to face the requisite consequences of his behaviour, because he’s engineered (or fluked) his way into a climate where he doesn’t, no matter what it is.
It just doesn’t move my personal needle at all, but for the worst of reasons. It’s not that I don’t care, but that the people who actually matter do not, remotely. Or at least a sufficient groundswell of them.
It would be like working in a company, and one of the bosses is a sexual predator, it’s not merely some rumour or open secret, there are receipts. Some people step forward and demand action through the requisite mechanisms, dot their I’s and cross their x’s and the bosses just go ‘nah we’re not doing that’. Well, not much left for you to do there, it’s either leave the company or keep working there while feeling jaded.
|
I'd like to add some additional colour to the impending doom mindset Americans seem to enjoy living within. Specifically, the over hyping of imminent nuclear armageddon. I was watching some replays of 80s US Sports and I caught this.
in the 1983 Super Bowl MVP award ceremony President Reagan is talking to the winner Marcus Allen. The discussion is supposed to be football and how great Allen was that day. Instead Reagan says, "Allen is so dangerous that in the nuclear weapons negotiations with the Russians they are going to want me to dismantled him". Marcus Allen has a confused look on his face and tries to look nonchalant. Later, in 1983 the Baltimore Orioles win the baseball's world series. Rick Dempsey is receiving the MVP and once again Ronald Reagan is talking to the big winner. What does Dempsey start talking about ... "the russians". “You tell the Russians,” Dempsey said to President Reagan, “that we’re having an awful good time over here playing baseball.” Why was the 1983 movie "War Games" able to be mainstream? Because Americans thought the plot was plausible.
By constantly bringing up the threat of a war with the Soviet Union this justifies the massive and increasing military budgets that Republicans love. American culture was immersed in fear throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Even during America's biggest celebrations ... somehow ... the mutually assured destruction of nuclear war had to be a topic.
I can provide sources for the Marcus Allen and Rick Dempsey MVP award ceremonies if necessary. Marcus Allen's 74 yardd run is one of my favourite plays in NFL history.. His brother Damon Allen was a quarterback. Back then, the NFL did not allow black QBs. So, the CFL was filled with great black QBs. The CFL experienced its greatest most popular era in its 100+ year history with QBs often far and away the best athletes on the field. It made for some epic football.
Kinda funny how today's Republicans do not want art forms like movies, TV, and video games turned into political messaging.
|
On November 16 2025 23:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2025 12:18 ChristianS wrote:
What am I supposed to do with the information that Donald Trump is almost certainly a pedophile?
Sometimes people like to believe in a good-vs-evil narrative in which all their side is brilliant and incorruptible and attractive, and all the other side is brutish and hideous and predatory. The QAnon folks have always been of this type – it’s virtually impossible for them to understand a good-faith opposition to their cause, they’re certain anybody who disagrees with them is an interdimensional demon pedophile who harvests adrenochrome from Christian babies. But I’ve never gone in for that sort of thing, I’m well aware that someone being right about something politically doesn’t mean they’re admirable in other respects.
It was always clear Trump had a long history of, at a minimum, scummy sex pest behavior. Bragging about owning the Miss Teen USA pageant and getting to walk into the dressing rooms, or talking a lot – a lot – about wanting to fuck his own daughter, the Access Hollywood tape, etc. But I still figured the most salacious stories are almost never true, and anyway my opposition to Trump has more to do with his political impact than him personally.
But like… it’s kind of hard to read the current situation any other way? I think the most charitable reading right now would be “he almost certainly knew about Epstein’s predation but didn’t give a shit” and even that looks pretty credulous right now. I still think his political impact matters more than him having fucked minors, but it seems extremely likely that he did and that’s kind of hard to just ignore? I mean basically this for me. I almost end up not caring, which isn’t ideal. On a more detached macro level I think he’s done more damage to our collective society in other domains. Without diminishing it, but in a way that outweighs some alleged acts with individuals. In a way that is almost circular. One becomes jaded, or shrugs the shoulders because of course Trump isn’t going to face the requisite consequences of his behaviour, because he’s engineered (or fluked) his way into a climate where he doesn’t, no matter what it is. It just doesn’t move my personal needle at all, but for the worst of reasons. It’s not that I don’t care, but that the people who actually matter do not, remotely. Or at least a sufficient groundswell of them.
Agreed. The needle is bottomed out. It would be way harder if he was fucking kids but also doing good things. But he is only doing horrible things, and constantly finding new horrible things to do.
Him fucking children doesn't move the needle downwards because he is already at absolute zero.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
It was plausible. You don’t seem to understand the concept that if a bad thing didn’t happen, that it was never on the table. Or that people can adjust worst case scenario projections over time, or alter them with greater understanding.
I mean people were obviously idiots to be worried about AIDS in the 80s when it first emerged and was a pretty quick death sentence. And hey it’s only killed an estimated 40 million people since.
Nascent climate change science 50 years ago and its analysis is dumb because the field advanced and adjusted projections, what with the whole internet thing happening and huge advances in computational power and information gathering.
|
On November 17 2025 00:23 WombaT wrote:
It was plausible. You don’t seem to understand the concept that if a bad thing didn’t happen, that it was never on the table. Or that people can adjust worst case scenario projections over time, or alter them with greater understanding.
I mean people were obviously idiots to be worried about AIDS in the 80s when it first emerged and was a pretty quick death sentence. And hey it’s only killed an estimated 40 million people since.
Nascent climate change science 50 years ago and its analysis is dumb because the field advanced and adjusted projections, what with the whole internet thing happening and huge advances in computational power and information gathering.
all this fear is used to justify sky high taxes dawg. i ain't buyin' it. and really, most Americans are now numb to the whole nuclear armageddon thing at this point. However, in the 80s it was a constant topic. I find the cold war era fascinating.
|
On November 17 2025 00:23 WombaT wrote:
Nascent climate change science 50 years ago and its analysis is dumb because the field advanced and adjusted projections, what with the whole internet thing happening and huge advances in computational power and information gathering.
in the 1970s we had an impending ice age. then, it went to global warming. people are bored of listening to predictions of doom due to global warming; now we're back to a possible ice age. "intellectuals" like Bill Gates have taken their foot of the gas pedal when it comes to predicting environmental doom. Americans are growing numb to it.
My problem with this is that there are very real environmental issues that need to be addressed. A great example of solid environmental management is how canada and the USA helped curtail the acid rain issue. That was very good and the issue was real. Managing fisheries off the coast of the Pacific and Atlantic is important and requires constant attention. I do not like real environmental issues being diluted by BS crazy projections that grab media attention. I prefer to stick to the plethora of very real environmental issues that must be met head on.
|
On November 17 2025 00:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 00:23 WombaT wrote:
Nascent climate change science 50 years ago and its analysis is dumb because the field advanced and adjusted projections, what with the whole internet thing happening and huge advances in computational power and information gathering. in the 1970s we had an impending ice age. then, it went to global warming. people are bored of listening to predictions of doom due to global warming; now we're back to a possible ice age. "intellectuals" like Bill Gates have taken their foot of the gas pedal when it comes to predicting environmental doom. Americans are growing numb to it. My problem with this is that there are very real environmental issues that need to be addressed. A great example of solid environmental management is how canada and the USA helped curtail the acid rain issue. That was very good and the issue was real. Managing fisheries off the coast of the Pacific and Atlantic is important and requires constant attention. I do not like real environmental issues being diluted by BS crazy projections that grab media attention. I prefer to stick to the plethora of very real environmental issues that must be met head on.
Are you a boomer? A lot of things kind of click into place if you’re a boomer.
Anyway…
Climate change deniers love to take this rhetorical stance where they ignore any of the actual evidence being presented by experts, and just say “well I’m no scientist, I can’t be asked to understand any of that.” But then when the scientists say “well I *am* a scientist and here’s what the data says” they say “oh, sure, I’m just supposed to trust you? I don’t think so, you’re getting paid to say that.”
Here’s a link where you can plot historical data on average annual temperature for any location in the US. Pick your own locations if you want! Just pick “12-month” for time scale and “all months” for the month. Plot from, say, 1950 to 2024. I understand you get confused and suspicious when predictive modeling comes into play, so here we’re working purely with actual measurements taken with actual thermometers, no modeling involved.
The trend is generally pretty obvious, no? Usually there’s been a climb in the average of about 3-4 degrees Fahrenheit. Not always! If you choose, say, Abilene, Texas it’s harder to say confidently there’s a trend. (Houston, Texas, on the other hand, is pretty obvious.)
Now it’s pretty hard to answer questions like “why?” or “will it continue?” without some predictive modeling, and again, I don’t want to confuse or upset you. But I will say that it’s pretty easy to demonstrate empirically that carbon dioxide absorbs more heat from a light source (e.g. the sun) than other atmospheric components. And it’s also pretty easy to demonstrate that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing over the same period. It may be a little more complicated to prove that increase is anthropogenic; I doubt you’re actually skeptical on that point but we can go through it if you are.
So without relying on appeals to the incomprehensible intellect of climate scientists, we can look at the evidence and put together a pretty plausible explanation, no? I’m not sure where you’re getting this “actually it’s cooling again now” thing but, like, you don’t have to pretend you’re too dense to understand what’s happening.
|
If anyone wondered how you do a deal with the US nowadays: Just bribe Trump. His tariffs are just extortion, but he doesn't care about the country, only about himself.
The Swiss just gave him a big Rolex and a 1kg gold bar as "gifts" to end the tariffs.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8zkrplpdyo
"Parmelin said a move by Swiss business leaders to meet Trump in the White House last week had proved "decisive" in reaching a deal.
Industry chiefs visited the Oval Office, bearing gifts including a Rolex gold watch and a specially engraved gold bar from Swiss-based gold refining company MKS."
Honestly, i am surprised at just how cheaply you can buy a US president. I'd expected the price tag to be a bit more than just a few hundred thousand. Also, kind of surprised that people in the US are this okay with the blatant corruption. Well, not really surprised anymore nowadays, but i would have been a few years ago.
I guess the playbook now is: Trump picks a country to bully, the country bribes Trump, the bullying goes away. You can probably also just preemptively bribe him to prevent the bullying, or to get him to do a thing you would like to have done.
|
yeah. impeachable and a scandal worth getting rid of top government leadership when people cared about their democracy and who is running it.
now just another day in Trump's USA. a damn shame you guys.
|
On November 17 2025 02:52 Simberto wrote:If anyone wondered how you do a deal with the US nowadays: Just bribe Trump. His tariffs are just extortion, but he doesn't care about the country, only about himself. The Swiss just gave him a big Rolex and a 1kg gold bar as "gifts" to end the tariffs. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8zkrplpdyoShow nested quote +
"Parmelin said a move by Swiss business leaders to meet Trump in the White House last week had proved "decisive" in reaching a deal.
Industry chiefs visited the Oval Office, bearing gifts including a Rolex gold watch and a specially engraved gold bar from Swiss-based gold refining company MKS."
Honestly, i am surprised at just how cheaply you can buy a US president. I'd expected the price tag to be a bit more than just a few hundred thousand. Also, kind of surprised that people in the US are this okay with the blatant corruption. Well, not really surprised anymore nowadays, but i would have been a few years ago. I guess the playbook now is: Trump picks a country to bully, the country bribes Trump, the bullying goes away. You can probably also just preemptively bribe him to prevent the bullying, or to get him to do a thing you would like to have done.
Qatar vastly overpaid trolololol!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
