Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Tediz64 said:

Not realistically. Furthermore trying to promise something that you can't uphold would be a lie and it isn't ethical to do that or mislead people for whatever reason. The balance will be found in trying to compromise or find ground where everyone can agree to move forward. If that can't be done, then I'll figure out how to cross that bridge when I get to it.

Do you know if my words irritated him? If they did, I'd like him to tell me so I can apologize to him directly so he can hopefully feel my sincerity being conveyed. Otherwise, it was just a suggestion. I'm not quite sure what tone you perceived when reading my post but it wasn't supposed to be felt as if I was issuing a demand or order to him. Just like before in our PMs, I like talking to you. The level of thinking I have to do is a great exercise. Responding to you makes me feel like I'm practicing.

Oh man. . .where do I begin.

Rather than attempt to explain the kind of social strain it'll take, I'll direct you to the mafia subforum.  When there's sign-ups, and if you have the time, feel free to jump in!  You'll be yelled at, have to defend yourself against a bunch of people who have no idea who you are, and will probably mess up (don't worry, it's normal).  That's a small taste of what you'll have to deal with in politics, since the stakes in a mafia game are bragging rights and pride.  The mafia players won't try to dig up your past, put every single thing you've done under a microscope, etc.

What I quoted was an example of communication gone badly.  The beauty of a forum is that you can read your words.  Thus, you can take the time to see how you come across.  "You should do this" carries a very different tone than "feel free to jump in".  The former tells someone what to do, while the latter suggests it.  They're subtle differences, but those are the differences that make or break a politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

28 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Oh man. . .where do I begin.

Rather than attempt to explain the kind of social strain it'll take, I'll direct you to the mafia subforum.  When there's sign-ups, and if you have the time, feel free to jump in!  You'll be yelled at, have to defend yourself against a bunch of people who have no idea who you are, and will probably mess up (don't worry, it's normal).  That's a small taste of what you'll have to deal with in politics, since the stakes in a mafia game are bragging rights and pride.  The mafia players won't try to dig up your past, put every single thing you've done under a microscope, etc.

What I quoted was an example of communication gone badly.  The beauty of a forum is that you can read your words.  Thus, you can take the time to see how you come across.  "You should do this" carries a very different tone than "feel free to jump in".  The former tells someone what to do, while the latter suggests it.  They're subtle differences, but those are the differences that make or break a politician.

Well thanks for the invite and the constructive feedback I can use. You are a pretty generous person. You're even giving me a resource I can use. I appreciate it.

But I'd like to add this in since I want you to weigh in for me as well. Regarding the good communication skills.

I think it's unfair to hold one to that standard you describe. Ideally yes we'd want someone to be good at it but I don't think demanding or expecting someone to be really proficient is going be achieved any time soon. I saw a live feed of a senator giving a speech that was supposed to be in recognition of someone's service now that thy have passed. But that senator butchered it up nasty. Not only did he stutter a few times but he also pronounced a few words wrong. It was missing so much sincerity it felt degrading almost. Poor deceased guy. Plus I also saw back in 2016 the debates between Beto and Cruz and I saw them slip up numerous times. I honestly felt at that time even I could speak publicly better than them. But then I remembered I get shy and nervous sometimes too which I guess would explain why maybe some people slip up. I'd grow grey hairs just wondering if I sounded stupid or not after any event. This is why I dunno if I'm fit for office.

Also I think it is inevitable someone would not like to hear me talk and will already go into an event to hear me thinking from the onset that I'm whatever name in the book you want to call me. Once my psych teacher challenged us to listen to some speeches and asked us to write our interpretation of what we heard. The class shared papers the following week and quite honestly the results were amusing and interesting. Some of us couldn't even believe we attended the same event and walked away with such different attitudes toward it. The teacher revealed to us that some people come in with a predisposition to certain things like public speeches and it effects how we remember them and feel about them. So case in point, I'm not going to try to be perfect. I just want to help people. I undecided on if politics will be fulfilling in that regard or if it is too much kissing ass and playing with others who are clearly in it for money. If I do run, I'm not accepting a single dollar from a business. It's either my own money or it's money from regular people. I don't want the perception of me being bought out or in the pocket of greedy coporations. My mom would totally disown me and be ashamed of me. That isn't gonna happen :P: if I got elected, I swear secret service couldn't protect me from her even if they are armed. She'd still find me and whup my ass if she knew I took money from bad people.

Edited by Tediz64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I think it's unfair to hold one to that standard you describe. Ideally yes we'd want someone to be good at it but I don't think demanding or expecting someone to be really proficient is going be achieved any time soon. I saw a live feed of a senator giving a speech that was supposed to be in recognition of someone's service now that thy have passed. But that senator butchered it up nasty. Not only did he stutter a few times but he also pronounced a few words wrong. It was missing so much sincerity it felt degrading almost. Poor deceased guy. Plus I also saw back in 2016 the debates between Beto and Cruz and I saw them slip up numerous times. I honestly felt at that time even I could speak publicly better than them. But then I remembered I get shy and nervous sometimes too which I guess would explain why maybe some people slip up. I'd grow grey hairs just wondering if I sounded stupid or not after any event. This is why I dunno if I'm fit for office.

Someone who's already elected has the job.  You, as a newcomer, would need to convince people to change from whoever's elected to you.  If you're in a place that embraces change, and the incumbent is a terrible person, then you might have a chance.  In my area, people aren't going to change, short of a disaster, so getting a foot in is a lot harder.

2 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Also I think it is inevitable someone would not like to hear me talk and will already go into an event to hear me thinking from the onset that I'm whatever name in the book you want to call me. Once my psych teacher challenged us to listen to some speeches and asked us to write our interpretation of what we heard. The class shared papers the following week and quite honestly the results were amusing and interesting. Some of us couldn't even believe we attended the same event and walked away with such different attitudes toward it. The teacher revealed to us that some people come in with a predisposition to certain things like public speeches and it effects how we remember them and feel about them. So case in point, I'm not going to try to be perfect. I just want to help people. I undecided on if politics will be fulfilling in that regard or if it is too much kissing ass and playing with others who are clearly in it for money. If I do run, I'm not accepting a single dollar from a business. It's either my own money or it's money from regular people. I don't want the perception of me being bought out or in the pocket of greedy coporations. My mom would totally disown me and be ashamed of me. That isn't gonna happen :P: if I got elected, I swear secret service couldn't protect me from her even if they are armed. She'd still find me and whup my ass if she knew I took money from bad people.

Good from an idealistic standpoint, really hard from a practical one.  Speaking of practical. . .you can start by attending your local neighborhood board meetings.  Once you get a feel for what's happening in your area, try running there if there's a slot open!

If that's too stressful, then politics is probably not for you.  But that's okay, because the world is full of things to do.  Find something that you're comfortable with, and go~!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I actually haven't gotten to the stage where I decided if I want to run. I'm still wondering if I can handle the position with my current level of maturity and my known flaws in character. I need more peace within before I can contemplate jumping in. I need to learn to accept things I can't control. Otherwise I'll make myself lose sleep and suffer not being able to solve problems. There is more I could mention but I think that is sufficient enough for the basis of this post. 

Right, well. Do join a party. That's the only realistic way of ever running for an election.

Getting involved in party politics is also a good place to learn about stuff like compromising, working together with people you completely disagree with, and how you like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally I think there's two types of people who run for office:  

People who do it because they're civically-minded and have ideas about what good public policy should be and want to be the changemakers that move the country in the direction they think it should go.

And people who do it because they have an appetite for the lifestyle. They want the public spotlight. Their name in the headlines. Their face on the news. The crowds chanting their names, the influence-peddlers competing for their favor, the "donors" paying for their luxuries... 

Polished public speaking and the ability to perform under stress are all well-and-good; but those are abilities to be cultivated over the course of a lifetime and that come with maturity and experience. 

The threshold place you gotta start is: Why do I want to do this? What when I look out at my country stands out to me as the great unresolved issues in need of redress? What are the worthy causes I want the spotlight to give voice to? What are the wrongs I want the influence to set right?  

Tell me you have spent every waking moment pondering those questions and can answer them anytime, anywhere, straight-from-the-gut.

Then tell me you want the public speaking skills and the ability to perform under stress to run for office. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, eclipse said:

If that's too stressful, then politics is probably not for you.  But that's okay, because the world is full of things to do.  Find something that you're comfortable with, and go~!

Yeah, but what keeps bringing me back to this topic is the part of me that is who i am by nature. I've made sacrifices in the past before to accomplish things if i knew it benefited others. I don't want or need a thank you let alone to be acknowledged for it. I simply have peace of mind knowing i did something good, people are happy now, and a problem is fixed. I also think that in order to move forward as a country and go back to things like space exploration, advancements in medicine, and advancements in technology that help daily life become simpler, we need more heavy weights in politics (metaphorically speaking) that can power house and push us forward. I see progressive movements and causes that otherwise help people and not even negatively impact anyone else being pushed aside. As if their voice isn't loud enough. As if they aren't getting across to others. We need someone who can champion the little guy/girl. If changing who i am and doing whatever is necessary to get us going in that direction is what needs to be done, i'm more than happy to lend my entirety over to the cause that needs strength. There are only 3 fields and lines of work that let me become a civil servant to the public and i have the skill sets for to do effectively. I'm already in one but i'm contemplating switching over to politics simply because i can do even more. The deadline to get on the ballet isn't till like early December so i have time to keep thinking about it and the primaries aren't till March. I'll keep learning in the mean time. 

10 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Getting involved in party politics is also a good place to learn about stuff like compromising, working together with people you completely disagree with, and how you like it.

Yeah. I'm not proficient at playing mind games with others. I really suck at it. Like real bad. It isn't hard to con me. The more i feel i have a connection to someone simply for them liking the same things as me such as games or anime, the easier it is to pull one over me. You could talk about my favorite anime and i'd totally think you're a saint capable of no evil and then an hour later after briefly dropping my guard and leaving my wallet unattended and now i'm missing money, i'd think it was my fault. I'd never suspect the person who just talked about Angel Beats! with me. If someone showed me a photo of them with my wallet in their hand, i'd say it was forged and isn't real. There is no way they'd do that to me. They loved Clannad! How could they steal? Especially if they liked my loli(s) Nowi, Naah, Myrrh, Fa (Fazilla), and Tiki. I'd swear up and down it was a ninja using a disguise trying to frame them. If you are Team Sena from Boku wa Tomodachi, it isn't scientifically, physically, or feasibly possible you'd commit a crime. Absolutely not. I'd reject that logic or whatever proof you have of that person being bad. God forbid you could sing the Pokemon rap with me. You'd be my bff for life. If i found out you are a fan of Yui Horie (the singer and voice actor) i'd totally believe you are my chosen soul mate no matter what.

So in conclusion, i need by my side cynical friends i can trust that will protect me from being played. Since i have no skill in mind games. It is way to easy to manipulate me if you know what i like. So.....yeah.....i'm worried about me going into politics. I lack skills in judging character objectively after i know you like anime/games. 

8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Generally I think there's two types of people who run for office:  

People who do it because they're civically-minded and have ideas about what good public policy should be and want to be the changemakers that move the country in the direction they think it should go.

The threshold place you gotta start is: Why do I want to do this? What when I look out at my country stands out to me as the great unresolved issues in need of redress? What are the worthy causes I want the spotlight to give voice to? What are the wrongs I want the influence to set right?  

Tell me you have spent every waking moment pondering those questions and can answer them anytime, anywhere, straight-from-the-gut.

Then tell me you want the public speaking skills and the ability to perform under stress to run for office. 

I'm definitely the former. 

Done. The longest i've ever gone without thinking about there is a problem that seriously needs addressing is probably at most 72 hours. My field of work not only reminds me about it, but i grieve and hurt inside for those that suffer and how nothing anytime soon will be done to alleviate the millions that are enduring what is happening. But i learned some years ago, i can't fix it on my own. I need everyone to work together with me to help fix the problem. So until everyone  can say enough is enough, i'm waiting eagerly, patiently, and excitedly to take us in the direction that many i feel believe doesn't exist or isn't feasible. I know we can make it a reality. 

I'm watching too much anime. Can you believe that words coming out of my mouth. Holy crap i sound cringe inducing :>_<: Time to go look at the local news and come back down to reality. Where people get shot at during baby showers. 40+ year old men are taking trips with 15 year old girls. Did i forget a father beating his child to do death for not doing homework? Yeah....change isn't coming any time soon but i can dream right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Yeah, but what keeps bringing me back to this topic is the part of me that is who i am by nature. I've made sacrifices in the past before to accomplish things if i knew it benefited others. I don't want or need a thank you let alone to be acknowledged for it. I simply have peace of mind knowing i did something good, people are happy now, and a problem is fixed. I also think that in order to move forward as a country and go back to things like space exploration, advancements in medicine, and advancements in technology that help daily life become simpler, we need more heavy weights in politics (metaphorically speaking) that can power house and push us forward. I see progressive movements and causes that otherwise help people and not even negatively impact anyone else being pushed aside. As if their voice isn't loud enough. As if they aren't getting across to others. We need someone who can champion the little guy/girl. If changing who i am and doing whatever is necessary to get us going in that direction is what needs to be done, i'm more than happy to lend my entirety over to the cause that needs strength. There are only 3 fields and lines of work that let me become a civil servant to the public and i have the skill sets for to do effectively. I'm already in one but i'm contemplating switching over to politics simply because i can do even more. The deadline to get on the ballet isn't till like early December so i have time to keep thinking about it and the primaries aren't till March. I'll keep learning in the mean time.

I'll warn you again, it's not going to be easy.  But if that's how you truly feel, start with your neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/24/2019 at 9:29 PM, Time the Crestfallen said:

the Dems are in an awful spot right now. Not only does this validate the Fake News rhetoric for Trump and his supporters, but now Dems and especially the Centrist/Liberal media have a lot of egg on their faces

22 Days Later

[Trump]: "Great report. Completely exonerated. No collusion!"

[Everyone]: "Show us. Show us the report."

[Trump]: *Autistic Screeching*
_____________

They're validating that Trump is still acting like a man who's guilty as sin. 

Whole thing is supposedly going to drop tomorrow. Minus whatever 'redactions' Barr needed to spend three (3) weeks reviewing and preparing. (PRO TIP: It doesn't take an attorney 3 weeks to review a report)

I'm only half-joking when i say I expect we're going to get something along the lines of: 

Image result for barr redactions



If this winds up looking terrible for the Democrats, it will be because it turns into yet another instance of them being feckless and impotent as an opposition party.

What needs to happen next if they get handed a document with pages and pages of full  redactions and Barr refuses to produce an unredacted copy is that The House Oversight Committee needs to subpoena a full-and-complete copy of the original document. 

Take the fight to the Supreme Court if the White House tries to fight the subpoena.

Seek a declaratory judgment for injunctive relief.

Cite United States v. Richard Nixon as binding precedent for why injuncitve relief must be granted. 

And put the president in a position where he either must comply with the subpoena, or engage in such blatantly impeachable defiance of law that not even the staunchest Senate bootlicker can ignore it.

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:


Whole thing is supposedly going to drop tomorrow. Minus whatever 'redactions' Barr needed to spend three (3) weeks reviewing and preparing. (PRO TIP: It doesn't take an attorney 3 weeks to review a report)

 

Well. . .not for a normal case.

But this IS a sitting president of the USA, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were some things that needed to be checked against national security.  Wouldn't do to accidentally leak top secret info~!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, eclipse said:

Well. . .not for a normal case.

But this IS a sitting president of the USA, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were some things that needed to be checked against national security.  Wouldn't do to accidentally leak top secret info~!

We can stop speculating now. Here it is:

https://www.scribd.com/document/406725640/Mueller-Report#fullscreen&from_embed

The (Redacted) Mueller Report. 448 Pages.

Read it while its hot 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright so this is whats jumping out at me on first-impression (reading through it so I can give my own analysis instead of having to rely on TV pundits and commentators)

"A possible remedy of impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a president leaves office. Impeachment would remove a president from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law...Recognizing  an immunity from prosecution for a sitting president would not preclude such prosecution once the president's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment." (Mueller; Page 390)

"Because we determined not to make traditional prosecutorial judgments, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the Presidents conduct...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice we would so state. Based on the facts and applicable legal standard, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." (Mueller; Page 394)

(the preceding ~200 pages lay out acts by Donald Trump and legal theories that Mueller believes could form the basis of an obstruction-of-justice prosecution)
___________________

A few very important things here:

(1) Mueller is saying the reason Trump was not charged with a crime is because he decided to recognize an immunity from prosecution for sitting presidents and not make any "prosecutorial judgments" as to the criminality of Trump's conduct; not because he lacks evidence that Trump committed crimes.

(2) He just laid out the case for impeachment.

(3) He made the case for (and left the door open to) criminally prosecuting Trump on obstruction-of-justice charges after his term in office ends, and he becomes a private citizen again + loses presidential immunity. 


...there's ALOT to work with here...

Balls in Congress's Court now to decide what they want to do with impeachment proceedings.

Call your Congressmen. Call your Senators. Give them an earful. It sounds tripe and jaded--but they DO take notice if enough angry constituents flood their phone lines.

They're partisan hacks, but they're also cowards. They'll act when they fell pressured to act. Spread the word to everyone you know: bring the pressure.  





 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Alright so this is whats jumping out at me on first-impression (reading through it so I can give my own analysis instead of having to rely on TV pundits and commentators)

"A possible remedy of impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a president leaves office. Impeachment would remove a president from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law...Recognizing  an immunity from prosecution for a sitting president would not preclude such prosecution once the president's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment." (Mueller; Page 390)

"Because we determined not to make traditional prosecutorial judgments, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the Presidents conduct...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice we would so state. Based on the facts and applicable legal standard, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." (Mueller; Page 394)

(the preceding ~200 pages lay out acts by Donald Trump and legal theories that Mueller believes could form the basis of an obstruction-of-justice prosecution)
___________________

A few very important things here:

(1) Mueller is saying the reason Trump was not charged with a crime is because he decided to recognize an immunity from prosecution for sitting presidents and not make any "prosecutorial judgments" as to the criminality of Trump's conduct; not because he lacks evidence that Trump committed crimes.

(2) He just laid out the case for impeachment.

(3) He made the case for (and left the door open to) criminally prosecuting Trump on obstruction-of-justice charges after his term in office ends, and he becomes a private citizen again + loses presidential immunity. 


...there's ALOT to work with here...

Balls in Congress's Court now to decide what they want to do with impeachment proceedings.

Call your Congressmen. Call your Senators. Give them an earful. It sounds tripe and jaded--but they DO take notice if enough angry constituents flood their phone lines.

They're partisan hacks, but they're also cowards. They'll act when they fell pressured to act. Spread the word to everyone you know: bring the pressure.  





 

That first point is huge, it means they're not even going by the law in this case but the stupid DOJ memo that says a sitting president cannot be indicted and in the supreme court you have a Supreme Court Justice there who posted that same opinion setting up greater chances for Trump to win when this goes to the Supreme Court.

I don't understand how this could even be a stupid memo to establish protocol for special counsels given how Impeachment is a tool used to remove a president deserving of it. It's literally establishing that if there's enough corruption seeded in congress, the President is immune from prosecution for the duration of his term. If a majority of Americans now want Trump impeached but the votes just aren't there because of these corrupt Republicans, what happens if they refuse to give in to the pressure from the constituents? Sounds like a situation for the people to call for those congressmen's heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

It's literally establishing that if there's enough corruption seeded in congress, the President is immune from prosecution for the duration of his term.

...that's one way of looking at it...yes...

Alternatively:  if there's enough corruption seeded in congress that the president is immune from prosecution for the duration of his term and voters are sufficiently pissed about it, its the entire House and Senate that gets taken to task for it on election day. 

Get mad. Stay mad. Vote. 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like it's the end for William Barr

Reading through the report now, seems most/all news outlets are missing the big asterisks to "not enough evidence to try and convict". From what I'm reading it's more along the lines of "we're certain that this happened, we've proven intent, the problem is that you also have to know that it's illegal in the first place to get a conviction. And folks like Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr and the orange idiot himself can all reasonably claim that they didn't"

Edited by Excellen Browning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Looks like it's the end for William Barr

Reading through the report now, seems most/all news outlets are missing the big asterisks to "not enough evidence to try and convict". From what I'm reading it's more along the lines of "we're certain that this happened, we've proven intent, the problem is that you also have to know that it's illegal in the first place to get a conviction. And folks like Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr and the orange idiot himself can all reasonably claim that they didn't"

To Capitol Hill, that doesn't matter, and more than likely, they're gonna do all that they can to nail those 3 and anyone else involved to the wall that he so desperately wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

To Capitol Hill, that doesn't matter, and more than likely, they're gonna do all that they can to nail those 3 and anyone else involved to the wall that he so desperately wants.

If Trump doesn't pardon himself and his family, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the republicans continue to back Trump there's no chance of impeachment to begin with. And considering their track record I don't think that's going to change.

Getting any normal stuff done in Congress still depends in large part on bipartisan support, and I guess it's important not to poison the well too much, in a sense.

Edited by Excellen Browning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't even know who he was until I googled him

He's a generic Democrat that won't win in an already cluttered field

Calling it now the Democrats are either going to put up Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden

EDIT: Did a little bit more research. He's "bipartisan" which is a very very dirty word in this day and age

Edited by Pixelman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Pixelman said:

I didn't even know who he was until I googled him

He's a generic Democrat that won't win in an already cluttered field

Calling it now the Democrats are either going to put up Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden

EDIT: Did a little bit more research. He's "bipartisan" which is a very very dirty word in this day and age

I'm not sure what makes him bipartisan, other than not being willing to increase taxes. His voting record is pretty solid. https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/146299/seth-moulton/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

I'm not sure what makes him bipartisan, other than not being willing to increase taxes. His voting record is pretty solid. https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/146299/seth-moulton/

If by "solid" you mean "everything is inferred". That doesn't give me a lot of hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

I'm not sure what makes him bipartisan, other than not being willing to increase taxes. His voting record is pretty solid. https://votesmart.org/candidate/political-courage-test/146299/seth-moulton/

Right. Which begs the question: of all the Democrats running, why is he unique?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...