Putin on the Writs

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7676
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Pham Nuwen » 09 Apr 2019, 14:19

And its tolerated because the people who voted for him are okay with all of it. He's an elected leader. Other elected leaders rely on the people who voted for him to also vote for them. It's just naked self interest. I feel you understand that at least.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27873
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 09 Apr 2019, 14:22

Yes, I understand that this is about stupid people acting on narrow self-interest.

How does that make it OK?

"Oh, relax, he's just an idiot. And he's only untouchable because a critical mass of people in power are reliant on idiots. So, relax, it's just a bunch of idiots putting up with someone who's thoroughly compromised and has a job with big responsibilities and access to sensitive information. But, look, it's just because people in power are self-interestedly relying on idiots for support. What's the big deal?"

I get the game theory of it, I get why this is a Nash equilibrium, I get why it's going to be hard to unseat him. None of that is reassuring.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27873
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 09 Apr 2019, 14:29

Nobody says "Oh, relax, the guys are only pointing guns at the cashiers because they have an incentive to get money. It's just self-interest."

Nobody says "Oh, relax, the crooked accountant is just an idiot trying to make a quick buck."

Nobody says "Oh, relax, the incompetent doctor is just trying to make some money because he's a self-interested idiot."

I get it. Trump is an idiot. Elected by a mass of idiots sufficient to put him in power and intimidate elected officials who might otherwise do something about him.

How, again, is that reassuring?

And, yes, he's just a self-interested idiot who thinks Putin is admirable and hopes that maybe he can get a real estate deal in Moscow. That's all. He's a self-interested idiot who happens to have a lot of power and a hard-on for a foreign dictator. That's all. What's the big deal?

Nobody says "Oh, relax, the LAPD is just covering up that civil rights violation because they are incented to do it."
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7676
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Pham Nuwen » 09 Apr 2019, 14:30

Example: Travellers dad has a 5th grade education. He can barely write his own name. He's good at math and trade stuff though. But I've had talks with this guy involving banking regulations. With him. Telling me how so and so is what caused the financial meltdown and how to make sure it never happens again. It's all a bunch of nonsense he was spouting.

But he doesn't know that. And he would never accept that he doesn't. It's just an old man trying to feel important and knowledgeable. And now he's got a president who makes him feel important and knowledgeable.

It's just that easy. Your way, Thoreau and taktix, is fiendishly complicated and relies on people doing things that arent in their personal best interest. Laws are/were broken. Clearly. But to average voters they dont care. And it's been proven they dont care. It's just accepting the cynical nature of it all that is your hangup.

I feel anyway. You guys are okay in my book. I'm not dismissing your concerns. I have them too. I just dont think anyone will rise above the partisanship to do anything about it till Trump loses in a landslide. And if the GOP loses the Senate.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27873
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 09 Apr 2019, 14:31

He's just an idiot who fires lots of people at DHS because he wants to do something illegal and stupid at the border. But he's only doing it because he has an incentive to follow through on a promise made to idiots so that he can get re-elected. That's all. It all has a simple explanation, and I'm sure that nothing bad can happen if he keeps purging DHS officials who refuse to violate the law. It's all fine. We're fine here. How are you?
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7676
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Pham Nuwen » 09 Apr 2019, 14:32

thoreau wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 14:29
Nobody says "Oh, relax, the guys are only pointing guns at the cashiers because they have an incentive to get money. It's just self-interest."

Nobody says "Oh, relax, the crooked accountant is just an idiot trying to make a quick buck."

Nobody says "Oh, relax, the incompetent doctor is just trying to make some money because he's a self-interested idiot."

I get it. Trump is an idiot. Elected by a mass of idiots sufficient to put him in power and intimidate elected officials who might otherwise do something about him.

How, again, is that reassuring?

And, yes, he's just a self-interested idiot who thinks Putin is admirable and hopes that maybe he can get a real estate deal in Moscow. That's all. He's a self-interested idiot who happens to have a lot of power and a hard-on for a foreign dictator. That's all. What's the big deal?

Nobody says "Oh, relax, the LAPD is just covering up that civil rights violation because they are incented to do it."
I feel that is all just the nature of democracy. It ebbs and flows in the direction of freedom/tyranny. It is what it is.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27873
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 09 Apr 2019, 14:36

Pham Nuwen wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 14:30
Example: Travellers dad has a 5th grade education. He can barely write his own name. He's good at math and trade stuff though. But I've had talks with this guy involving banking regulations. With him. Telling me how so and so is what caused the financial meltdown and how to make sure it never happens again. It's all a bunch of nonsense he was spouting.

But he doesn't know that. And he would never accept that he doesn't. It's just an old man trying to feel important and knowledgeable. And now he's got a president who makes him feel important and knowledgeable.
If the President were a ceremonial figure like the Presidents of most parliamentary democracies then I wouldn't care nearly as much. But it just so happens that this President who makes your father-in-law feel good is also able to fire DHS officials who refuse illegal orders. He's able to appoint Federal Reserve officials.
Your way, Thoreau and taktix, is fiendishly complicated and relies on people doing things that arent in their personal best interest. Laws are/were broken. Clearly. But to average voters they dont care. And it's been proven they dont care. It's just accepting the cynical nature of it all that is your hangup.

I feel anyway. You guys are okay in my book. I'm not dismissing your concerns. I have them too. I just dont think anyone will rise above the partisanship to do anything about it till Trump loses in a landslide. And if the GOP loses the Senate.
Oh, so that makes it all right. "Oh, it's just idiots doing things that will set terrible precedents. That's all. Relax. Accept it."

Look, I don't think Putin is an 11-dimensional chessmaster. I just think he's the clearest example of a compromising relationship that really ought to be sufficient to bring down Trump. And it is infuriating that a critical mass of the public doesn't give a shit. This will come to no good. Not because Putin will play 11-dimensional chess and build a Slavic Empire around the world, but rather because America will set precedents that hasten the rot.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7676
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Pham Nuwen » 09 Apr 2019, 14:39

He's still a democratically elected leader. I dont know what to tell you. It's not okay. I'm not saying dont be concerned. I'm just saying you have absolutely no power to change anything. Like pretty much everyone else. There are a handful of people who could fo something about the situation but they won't.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27873
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 09 Apr 2019, 14:40

Pham Nuwen wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 14:39
He's still a democratically elected leader. I dont know what to tell you. It's not okay. I'm not saying dont be concerned. I'm just saying you have absolutely no power to change anything. Like pretty much everyone else. There are a handful of people who could fo something about the situation but they won't.
If you're saying don't focus on things we can't change, well, so be it.

Some people here (not you) seem to be saying not just that impeachment is impossible, but that impeachment isn't warranted. There's a difference between saying that a deserved measure is infeasible and saying that it isn't deserved.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7676
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Pham Nuwen » 09 Apr 2019, 14:44

I'm saying you get shrill with your fellow grylliers over it all.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23869
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by JasonL » 09 Apr 2019, 15:28

Winning an election does get you that clearance. It just does. It's what winning an election means. I may not qualify for government clearance for lots of reasons, if I become POTUS, presto I become cleared. That's the nature of the office. If you can't get something like coordinated efforts to subvert the election, you are trying to undo a democratic process with random stuff like the wink at Helsinki which is literally nothing. He likes strongmen and seeks approval from people sitting in front of him. He's dumb and arrogant. He also won the election. He gets to do all the things that people who get elected to that office get to do. I hate him, but if you are going for extra democratic removal, you better have something substantial.

I know you think you don't need anything else other than the public record right now to remove a sitting president, but I'm very happy that most people feel like they needed something in the way of coordinated efforts / collusion from Mueller to get that done.

User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 7910
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Taktix® » 09 Apr 2019, 15:48

JasonL wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 15:28
Winning an election does get you that clearance. It just does. It's what winning an election means. I may not qualify for government clearance for lots of reasons, if I become POTUS, presto I become cleared. That's the nature of the office. If you can't get something like coordinated efforts to subvert the election, you are trying to undo a democratic process with random stuff like the wink at Helsinki which is literally nothing. He likes strongmen and seeks approval from people sitting in front of him. He's dumb and arrogant. He also won the election. He gets to do all the things that people who get elected to that office get to do. I hate him, but if you are going for extra democratic removal, you better have something substantial.

I know you think you don't need anything else other than the public record right now to remove a sitting president, but I'm very happy that most people feel like they needed something in the way of coordinated efforts / collusion from Mueller to get that done.
Two Misunderstandings:

1) I don't think the Mueller report in its full un-redacted form would be enough to remove Trump extra-democratically. Trump could stab an unborn fetus live from the West Wing and they still wouldn't get 67 votes in the Senate for removal. I am fully aware that simply won't happen. I only ask that we stay vigilant because I believe he is setting up the pieces to remain in office in an extra-democratic fashion if he loses in 2020.

I expect the Mueller report to provide more context and maybe some new details. I do not expect it to call for impeachment any more than I expect it to exonerate the president as Barr claims. The window for impeachment closed a few months after the inauguration once Trump was able to put or cultivate loyalists in a few key positions such as the pre-2018 house intelligence committee (Nunes) and several key cabinet positions like State (and that's why Jeff Sessions was such a sore spot despite doing everything the President wanted except un-recusing).

2) The public record is not enough to remove Trump (see #1 above) but it should be enough to vote against Trump for anybody except his most loyal 30%-40% of unbudge-ables. The only way that fails is if we allow all this spin over the next two years to chip away and the credibility and the memories of this seminal event that happened in 2016.

And the first step in forgetting that, and letting pass from the public consciousness, is to marginalize and normalize just how uniquely terrible and corrupt and compromised this president is from both a conservative and a liberal perspective...
"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 12275
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Ellie » 09 Apr 2019, 15:53

Pham Nuwen wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 14:16
He's just an idiot elected by idiots.
Consider that shit sigged, son.
"He's just an idiot elected by idiots." - Pham

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7676
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Pham Nuwen » 09 Apr 2019, 15:55

Ellie wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 15:53
Pham Nuwen wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 14:16
He's just an idiot elected by idiots.
Consider that shit sigged, son.
*heart*
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7049
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Jadagul » 09 Apr 2019, 16:06

There are different standards.

Mueller concluded that there was not enough evidence to bring conspiracy/collusion charges. He made no conclusion about whether there was enough evidence to bring obstruction of justice charges.

The first statement doesn't mean he proved there was no conspiracy; it's that he's pretty confident there is not enough evidence to prove conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean there isn't enough to clear a "preponderance of the evidence" conclusion or anything. (Doesn't mean there is, either. That's why seeing the report and/or its summaries would be extremely useful).

The second statement doesn't say very much at all. It indicates it wasn't a slam-dunk exoneration. It doesn't necessarily mean prosecution wouldn't be a slam dunk; DOJ has a policy against indicting a sitting president, and it's not unreasonable to think that Mueller just left that as a political question for the political branches.

But again, even if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, a preponderance of the evidence standard is perfectly damn reasonable for making political decisions. And for that matter, a "Caesar's Wife" standard is pretty reasonable for a lot of political decisions.

---

To sidestep an argument you're making that I don't entirely agre with but is tangential to this point: I'm not talking about impeachment right now.

As a political matter, of political advocacy, I think that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Donald Trump is corrupt, and compromised as a national security decision-maker, and has obstructed justice. And I think this is a good argument to make about why one ought not to support Trump politically. This is a reason not to vote for him.

And the impeachment threshold is pretty unrelated to that political argument. But "You ought to want to know, and we should see the report so we can make informed political decisions" is a perfectly sensible position. (Maybe the report does exonerate him! Maybe it shifts my views on that preponderance of the evidence conclusion. I don't know because we haven't seen any of the fucking report).

But this is a factor that people, voting, should use to make political judgments. And talking about it is political advocacy. And that's totally unrelated to whether his election was legitimate or whether he should be impeached.

"The voters get to make choices" is not a rebuttal to "here is my argument for why you should make this choice."

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23869
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by JasonL » 09 Apr 2019, 16:45

I agree with the information being released and its utility in making a political decision. I think we disagree and have explicitly done so in the past about what should be pursued as grounds for impeachment and removal. In our system, different from the no confidence / new election design of parliamentary systems, it's a pretty high bar.

There's another thing I worry about that I almost don't want to discuss here because people will go insane. I think there is a risk of lowering the bar to create a special investigation in the first place. I have a sense there were some unusual standards applied in the FISA process, and while I think it entirely reasonable to look at all this stuff, I kind of feel like there is a risk of asymmetrically greasing the wheels of monitoring and special investigations. I would like to have quite a bit of sunlight on the whole process creating the investigation is what I'm saying. I am not interested in a future that's The Right People win elections and that's it but The Wrong People win elections and maybe we get another crack at them through monitoring.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27873
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by thoreau » 09 Apr 2019, 17:04

1) The bar for impeachment is only as high or low as the political process will accept. If most people won't accept the bar that I want, well, then they won't. But that doesn't mean that I must revise my standards. I can have my bar and you have yours, and I call my Congresswoman and you don't. I'm not obligated to stop calling my Congresswoman to demand impeachment just because a critical mass of the public has a different bar. At the same time, if a critical mass of the public moves to my side, you aren't suddenly obligated to call your Congresswoman and demand impeachment.

You should set your bar for impeachment based on your own judgment of what justifies removal, not based on "Well, nobody else supports this so I guess I have to oppose it to."

2) The standard for investigating certainly has to be reasonable, but the standard for not investigating also has to be reasonable. If a guy brings in a team full of security risks, a team of people who are nowhere near the usual standards for security, it isn't reasonable to say "Well, they won, so no investigation."

Although the phrase "Republic, not a democracy!" misses a whole lot of important points about the usual usages of words, one important idea in both that phrase and the more traditional usage of "Republic" is that the head of state is not a monarch, i.e. not a personal ruler. The head of state is just a guy doing a job for the public. The head of state is bound by law. If the head of state brings in a team full of people who play footsie with foreign agents dangling valuable info, and if he kisses the ass of a leader from whom he would like to get a real estate deal (i.e. a personal benefit, not a public benefit) then the security services will investigate. Many systems define kings to be above the law, but the President of a Republic is not a king.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23869
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by JasonL » 09 Apr 2019, 17:10

I know what the political rules are for impeachment. I’m not talking about what can be pursuedI’m talking about what is wise to pursue. If your bar is low I think you are being unwise.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15721
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Aresen » 09 Apr 2019, 22:22

Taktix® wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 15:48

1) I don't think the Mueller report in its full un-redacted form would be enough to remove Trump extra-democratically. Trump could stab an unborn fetus live from the West Wing and they still wouldn't get 67 votes in the Senate for removal. I am fully aware that simply won't happen. I only ask that we stay vigilant because I believe he is setting up the pieces to remain in office in an extra-democratic fashion if he loses in 2020.
I don't think an impeachment trial would convict him. That is my main reason for opposing impeachment. Impeachment is one of those things I don't think you should start unless you are going to win it. A failed impeachment would a) rally his fanbase and b) make him even more obtuse and uncontrollable.

I have said before that I do not think he is going to win in 2020. The traditional GOP is not happy with him and the party is shrinking, leaving only the Trumpers in the gutted shell. He has zero outreach: Nobody who voted against him in 2016 is going to vote for him. Instead, the Blues are inspired and are going to get out the vote in a major way. We have already seen this in 2018. Not only is Trump not going to win, he is going to take down a bunch of GOP Congressmen and Senators with him.

I doubt he has any plans for a coup, if only because he deludes himself that he is vastly beloved and he will win 'bigly'. Even if he had such plans, I don't think the USA is ripe for it. Further, I doubt he is competent to carry out a coup.

(I would not be surprised, however, if he convinces himself that he has won in 2020 and that he has to be forcibly dragged from the White House.
2) The public record is not enough to remove Trump (see #1 above) but it should be enough to vote against Trump for anybody except his most loyal 30%-40% of unbudge-ables. The only way that fails is if we allow all this spin over the next two years to chip away and the credibility and the memories of this seminal event that happened in 2016.

And the first step in forgetting that, and letting pass from the public consciousness, is to marginalize and normalize just how uniquely terrible and corrupt and compromised this president is from both a conservative and a liberal perspective...
The worst thing about President Trump is that he will set the precedents for POTUSes to follow.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Taktix®
Posts: 7910
Joined: 07 May 2010, 05:29
Location: The Caribbean

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Taktix® » 12 Apr 2019, 02:54

"Guilty as charged. Go ahead and ban me from the mall." - Ellie

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24379
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Mo » 12 Apr 2019, 07:13

JasonL wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 17:10
I know what the political rules are for impeachment. I’m not talking about what can be pursuedI’m talking about what is wise to pursue. If your bar is low I think you are being unwise.
Keeping it unreasonably low. The powers of the presidency are awesome and therefore should be reigned in. The fact that it has only been used 2.5 times in the history of our country is part of the reason that presidents have been able to ratchet the powers of the presidency up without consequence and how it's been normalized. Also, I would note, that using the power of the office to enrich yourself fell under the traditional definition of a high crime and misdemeanor. The British definition, which our terminology was directly lifted from defined it as "damage to the state in such forms as misapplication of funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, encroachment on Parliament’s prerogatives, corruption, and betrayal of trust." Granted the whole, "encroachment on Parliament’s prerogatives" would apply to every president in my lifetime, but the first time someone gets impeached or threatened with impeachment over it would have put an end to the process. Now that behavior has been largely normalized.

Oh and look at that.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15721
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Aresen » 12 Apr 2019, 11:20

Mo wrote:
12 Apr 2019, 07:13
Keeping it unreasonably low. The powers of the presidency are awesome and therefore should be reigned in. The fact that it has only been used 2.5 times in the history of our country is part of the reason that presidents have been able to ratchet the powers of the presidency up without consequence and how it's been normalized.
Part of the problem is that Impeachment requires a 'conviction' for 'crimes'. (I know 'crimes' can be very elastic, but the issue is a 'conviction.) If there were an easier method of removing the POTUS, like a 'Non-confidence' motion in a Westminster-style parliament, the POTUS might be reined in. But that is partly because the leader is more closely tied to the party in a Westminster parliament. If the Members of Parliament feel the leader's actions threaten their position, they are willing to take him/her down.

The biggest downside of a Westminster parliament is that a majority government is essentially an elected dictatorship in that there are no effective checks on the executive, so long as they don't threaten the gravy train.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Tuco
Posts: 256
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 21:00

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Tuco » 13 Apr 2019, 07:01

Pham Nuwen wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 14:16
He's just an idiot elected by idiots.
Fulla sound & fury.

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15721
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Aresen » 13 Apr 2019, 10:58

Tuco wrote:
13 Apr 2019, 07:01
Pham Nuwen wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 14:16
He's just an idiot elected by idiots.
Fulla sound & fury.
A poor player that struts and frets upon the stage
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26360
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Putin on the Writs

Post by Warren » 13 Apr 2019, 11:02

Aresen wrote:
13 Apr 2019, 10:58
Tuco wrote:
13 Apr 2019, 07:01
Pham Nuwen wrote:
09 Apr 2019, 14:16
He's just an idiot elected by idiots.
Fulla sound & fury.
A poor player that struts and frets upon the stage
Signifying nothing
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests