U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[make total destroy]

 

It's basically an admission of sexual assault, though.

 

The husband of one challenger for the position of US president is an alleged rapist.

The other challenger has openly confessed to committing sexual assaults.

Old friend... actually in the tape he says very clearly "they let you do anything". This indicates a consensual act. So what is it that you guys don't understand? The term 'sexual assault' or the word 'consensual'?

 

I suppose if I were to punch you square in the face, and you did nothing to block or dodge the punch, we can assume you consented to being punched in the face?

Edited October 11, 2016 by make total destroy

[dice]

He is literally the one advocating keeping foreigners out of 'Merica, condemning an entire nationality as a group of rapists, praising the dictator that is Putin, saying that ISIS can be solved by nuking it, preaching discrimination against other religions via his Muslim registry plans, and on and on. Those don't really scream "peace in our time". Now imagine a loudmouth like that with actual power backing his words and thoughts.

I don't really care about his situation with Mexico or the US internal problem with terrorists, when it comes to foreign interventions based on his non generalizing comments he is the least worst candidate. There wont really be a nuclear holocaust thanks to deterrence theory and while Putin isn't exactly a role model president I do want the US to have better relations with Russia for the sake of EU. This demonising of Putin and Russia from the US really is hypocritical given the fact the US itself is an open ally with countries like Saudi Arabia

 

 

Those "geopolitical" reasons at least have their basis in the accepted norms of strategic theory. The fact these factors drive strategic decision making does not render the decision-makers less informed or experienced than Trump. Do you really believe his foreign policy ideals are going to be less driven by self-interest, in his case economic, than anyone elses?

He definitely will be driven by self-interest, to what extent I do not know. I do believe with better relations with Russia there would also be less conflict, for example I do believe the whole Syrian fiasco has more to do with the pipelines and different economic interests than the actual civil unrest itself

 

 

How? That's boots on the ground, and all of a sudden you're invading another Middle Eastern country and creating the prospect of another fifteen year clusterf*ck. You can't rally against military interventionism in principle then immediately afterwards advocate it.

How I don't know, as long as that's his only plan. My guess is don't have weapon deals with governments known for supporting terrorism and work together with the country fighting it and stop toppling foreign governments without any thoughtful post-war planning. Again with better relations with Russia this may be easier achievable, running constant proxy wars won't really bring you anywhere Edited October 11, 2016 by  dice

[Chiarii]

 

Old friend... actually in the tape he says very clearly "they let you do anything". This indicates a consensual act. So what is it that you guys don't understand? The term 'sexual assault' or the word 'consensual'?

Consent is explicit and active; implied consent was removed from the judicial system of Western countries decades ago. Not preventing someone from doing something is not consent. Thinking women will let you do anything to them is very different from women actually doing so.

 

Methinks you need to become more versed on the legal concept of consent.

Typical inaccurate bullsh*t from you lol. He said they allow it, not that he thinks they allow it. This means his hypothetical is not referring to assault. Also, implied consent still exists in an array of situations. Are you willing to admit the truth when it doesn't suit your narrative? Of course you aren't.

[ULPaperContact]

 

 

Consent is explicit and active; implied consent was removed from the judicial system of Western countries decades ago. Not preventing someone from doing something is not consent. Thinking women will let you do anything to them is very different from women actually doing so.

 

Methinks you need to become more versed on the legal concept of consent.

 

Remind me what this entire argument has to do with the Presidential Election?

 

I find it funny when people think Trump's actually going to go through with all this crap he says he will. Checks and Balances keep him in his place. Some of these things he'll probably do, but most certainly not all of them. Not even close.

 

EDIT: Damn, people reply fast.

Edited October 11, 2016 by ULPaperContact

[Svip]

 

Consent is explicit and active; implied consent was removed from the judicial system of Western countries decades ago. Not preventing someone from doing something is not consent. Thinking women will let you do anything to them is very different from women actually doing so.

 

Methinks you need to become more versed on the legal concept of consent.

Typical inaccurate bullsh*t from you lol. He said they allow it, not that he thinks they allow it.

 

Sure, and we can argue from now and to forever over semantics, but it's pretty clear he means that they let him get away with it after the fact. Or do you think he asks before he grabs them by the pussy?

 

 

 

Consent is explicit and active; implied consent was removed from the judicial system of Western countries decades ago. Not preventing someone from doing something is not consent. Thinking women will let you do anything to them is very different from women actually doing so.

 

Methinks you need to become more versed on the legal concept of consent.

Remind me what this entire argument has to do with the Presidential Election?

 

In most elections, nothing. But Trump has made this a different kind of election.

 

Sure we have checks and balances, but one must remember that the President is also Diplomat in Chief. And the US' strong diplomatic ties are rather paramount. If Trump goes off like a lose cannon as President, you can be sure that other nations won't take it lightly, and they will demand concessions.

 

Negotiations will become extremely difficult for US diplomats.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Svip

[Raavi]

He said they allow it, not that he thinks they allow it. This means his hypothetical is not referring to assault.

 

Using celebrity status to coerce and/or intimate into 'not protesting' the groping of genitalia != consent.

[El Dildo]

notice how - 3 pages later - and none of Trumps supporters can actually answer the question...

 

how does Bill Clinton's past history of allegations (all of which have already been dealt with legally) affect how Hillary Clinton performs in the role as President? none of you can link A to B and yet we're still harping on this issue as though it's some kind of smoking gun for the Trump campaign

[jatiger13]

notice how - 3 pages later - and none of Trumps supporters can actually answer the question...

 

how does Bill Clinton's past history of allegations (all of which have already been dealt with legally) affect how Hillary Clinton performs in the role as President? none of you can link A to B and yet we're still harping on this issue as though it's some kind of smoking gun for the Trump campaign

Delusional people gonna be delusional.

They love that Trump-Bill false equivalence.

 

Trump is doing what a small child does if they get in trouble. "So-and-So did it first."

As if that's makes his actions even remotely justified.

 

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." - Napoleon Bonaparte

Edited October 11, 2016 by jatiger13

[gooeyhole]

Have you guys seen this yet?

 

 

[X S]

That was the first leak from James O'Keefee. He has a habit of heavily editing his videos, so just take it with a grain of salt.

[Typhus]

notice how - 3 pages later - and none of Trumps supporters can actually answer the question...

 

how does Bill Clinton's past history of allegations (all of which have already been dealt with legally) affect how Hillary Clinton performs in the role as President? none of you can link A to B and yet we're still harping on this issue as though it's some kind of smoking gun for the Trump campaign

If Trump was arguing that morality is irrelevant to actually governing well, I could see his point - as what a man does behind closed doors does not dictate his ability to actually run a nation. After all, many Presidents have been bad human beings. Warren G. Harding had extramarital relations with a woman in a White House closet. George W. Bush enjoyed torturing small animals and mocking the Death Row inmates whose executions he ordered. Teddy Roosevelt was a shameless freebooter, enlisting mercenaries to help him win military glory in Cuba.

Do these myriad of moral failings have much bearing on the ability of these men to actually perform the duties of their office?

In fact, haven't leaders who are too bound by petty morality, like Jimmy Carter, actually done a worse job than their more ruthless counterparts?

 

But that's not what Trump was arguing, is it?

[sivispacem]

Typical inaccurate bullsh*t from you lol. He said they allow it, not that he thinks they allow it.

No, he said "I dont even wait. And when youre a star, they let you do it. You can do anything...Grab em by the p****. You can do anything".

 

That's not a statement of fact, that's a man asserting that his stardom means he can do whatever he wants to women and they let him. It doesn't actually mean that women have let him do whatever he wants to them, though. Even if it did, though, it wouldn't be consent.

 

A simple failure to react does not mean consent. Tolerance of someone else's actions does not mean consent. The mere suggestion that his stardom allows, nay, entitles him to behave in such a manner makes him sound like a sexual predator.

 

Also, implied consent still exists in an array of situations.

Sorry, thought I'd caveated that comment with something along the lines of "in rape and sexual assault cases".

[Saggy]

I could entertain the fact that Trump was talking in jest and din't actually do these things he said, if he had anymore to say than "It's just locker room talk". I know what he means, but not everyone hangs around with chauvinistic womanizers, especially not people on the left, so that just makes it that much more meaningless. Obviously we can decipher it, and gather that what he is saying is that men use this type of degrading and exaggerated language about women with each other in private in order to feign prowess and power with women.

 

But see that's the thing, is the issue really that Trump ever did this to a woman? I mean, I really honestly doubt that he ever went up and grabbed anyone by the pussy. On the other hand, I would also very much doubt anything besides the human resources department is keeping him from going and cupping a woman's ass. Is there a really big difference between the two? Yeah, grabbing a woman by her genitals couldn't be misconstrued as anything but blatant sexual assault, whereas one could suggest that cupping a woman's ass might be some kind of "compliment", lame as that might sound. I think that's why Trump said it, because it has that shock factor, it adds the exaggeration effect of what he is saying.

 

I think the real point is that this is precisely the reason why sexism and chauvinism still has its little incubation chambers. "Locker room talk" is the incubation chamber of sexism. Trump keeps denying the supposed sexual assault that nobody even thinks happened, and then seems to just dismiss the "locker room" talk as if it was not a problem at all. It just represents a fundamental lack of understanding about the issues facing women, and at worst seems like he's endorsing this type of behavior.

 

 

Now the whole Bill Clinton thing I can't even fathom how people are taking this sh*t seriously. Bill Clinton has been hounded by baseless accusations like this throughout most of his political career, mostly actually accounting to nothing more than rumors, and do you think it's really likely that Trump would have just went and rounded these women up who just happened to want to share their story? You'd have to be pretty damn gullible to not at least suspect that he paid these women. Does that mean they've never lodged those allegations anywhere else? No, not necessarily, they've probably sold it to any two-bit tabloid publication that would pay for the story. However, with as many years these accusations have followed him and the amount of times this kind of scandal could have been used against him ( *cough* his impeachment *cough* ) you don't think they would have come back on him yet if they bared any truth whatsoever?

 

Beyond that though it's pretty transparent that Trump is just trying to use the same less than stellar reputation Bill Clinton has in Washington to deflect from what he is saying on these tapes. The only problem is that recorded audio is a lot more damning than rumor and heresay, and one or two completely incredulous accusers. Those women would have been better suited on the front page of a tabloid than at the debate, which is why the presscore was completely astounded by that move.

[sivispacem]

He definitely will be driven by self-interest, to what extent I do not know.

He's a man whose entire life has been driven by ruthless financial self-interest above all else. With the corporation he heads a global one, I can scarcely think of a country on earth where he would not run into an immediate conflict of interest between his duties as President and his personal empire.

 

I do believe with better relations with Russia there would also be less conflict

You're talking about a state with a pretty much explicit aspiration to reintegrate numerous nations that used to be part of their empire and are now strategic allies and partners of the US into a single monolithic political entity commander from the Kremlin. I agree diplomacy needs to be the main driving force behind relations with Russia but I struggle to see how to address expansionist and imperialist aspirations and constant interference in the sovereign affairs of neighbouring states other than by standing firm. Remember what happened the last time a European power with expansionist desires was allowed to seize the sovereign territory of other nations in order to appease its leader?

 

for example I do believe the whole Syrian fiasco has more to do with the pipelines and different economic interests than the actual civil unrest itself

There's an element of truth to this. The conflict as it currently stands is influences heavily by the strategic desires of third parties. For some, that might be the financial gains of a friendly government and the economic benefits that brings. Forotherss that might be power projection.

 

My guess is don't have weapon deals with governments known for supporting terrorism

That doesn't really work. The fun thing about the arms trade is that if one state won't sell to you, another fifty are lined up outside the door to replace them. Ones whose products you might not know how to circumvent, or whom might be selling their top-drawer kit rather than nocked-down leftover 20 year old bits.

[860]

Twitter is now telling people that Wikileaks is like a totes spooky website please don't go there.

 

 

EDIT: sh*t. I should have read the previous page where this was already posted.

Edited October 11, 2016 by 860

[sivispacem]

In all fairness, Wikileaks is full of malware. There were something like 3,000 malware laden emails amongst the ones dumped from the AKP alone.

[El Dildo]

yeah this isn't China.

Twitter doesn't censor things or edit content based on politics. Google search results and the Firefox browser have the same malware warnings.

 

also Ken Bone has gone gold.

 

http://www.glamour.com/story/ken-bone-debate-memes

Edited October 11, 2016 by El Diablo

[trip]

As far as debate memes go I'm still shocked that the fly in the beginning of the debate didn't get any meme time. No lie.

 

Cant wait for the next debate. Next Wednesday - right?

 

All disappointment in the system and my fellow Americans aside...this is without a doubt the most entertaining general election ever. EVER!

[TheFrank]

 

Don't worry, they are on the case.

 

 

Yea, except Slick Willie was a frequent guest of Epstein's too.

[jatiger13]

 

Don't worry, they are on the case.

 

Yea, except Slick Willie was a frequent guest of Epstein's too.

Aaaand your point is.....

Im guessing... irrelevant?

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by jatiger13

[Triple Vacuum Seal]

If Trump was arguing that morality is irrelevant to actually governing well, I could see his point - as what a man does behind closed doors does not dictate his ability to actually run a nation. After all, many Presidents have been bad human beings. Warren G. Harding had extramarital relations with a woman in a White House closet. George W. Bush enjoyed torturing small animals and mocking the Death Row inmates whose executions he ordered. Teddy Roosevelt was a shameless freebooter, enlisting mercenaries to help him win military glory in Cuba.

Do these myriad of moral failings have much bearing on the ability of these men to actually perform the duties of their office?

In fact, haven't leaders who are too bound by petty morality, like Jimmy Carter, actually done a worse job than their more ruthless counterparts?

 

But that's not what Trump was arguing, is it?

 

Interesting you say that because there is somewhat of a political advantage to amorality perhaps more so than immorality. The Trump campaign has subtly enabled the "but he's our piece sh*t" narrative. Especially with the perceived success of Putin on the right, his supporters seem to be buying into this idea that world leaders are getting meaner....so we too need a brute NYC/NJ Mafioso-in-Chief at the helm.

 

 

It's quite the balancing act because at the same time, he has to make HRC the supervillain. I guess this is why she's the crooked and untrustworthy "career politician" while only Mr. Trump gets to be the "bad" and imposing protector from ISIS, terrorist immigrants, and all that jazz. The alt-right is longing for an American tyrant to rival Putin. Trump groupies forget one thing though. DJT is a pompous snob who's probably never endured a day of hard physical labor or any humbling adversity for that matter in his entire life. Trump doesn't have the ruffian mentality that he projects. And there's no shortage of American leaders out there who could make Putin look like Jimmy Carter. We just don't need them in office...especially not at these interest rate$.

 

 

Given the chaotic situation our next POTUS will inherit, Trump's lack of stoicism is what scares me most at the moment. His persona always reminds me of this scene...

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Not A Nice Person]

 

This is by far my favorite moment out of watching CNN for the past year or so for this election.. this even tops Kayleigh McEnany's endless defense in support of Trump (which is honestly quite saddening sometimes).

 

You'll love this then, someone went on CNN and misquoted Beyonce lyrics and the Beyhive is attacking her facebook with emojis of bees, lemons, and shrimp.

https://m.facebook.com/BetsyMcCaughey/posts/1526321380715251

 

I'll try to find a video.

https://youtu.be/y74WcNFsIdU

Edited October 12, 2016 by Mion

[El Dildo]

[Creed Bratton]

Wow

 

 

[dice]

You're talking about a state with a pretty much explicit aspiration to reintegrate numerous nations that used to be part of their empire and are now strategic allies and partners of the US into a single monolithic political entity commander from the Kremlin. I agree diplomacy needs to be the main driving force behind relations with Russia but I struggle to see how to address expansionist and imperialist aspirations and constant interference in the sovereign affairs of neighbouring states other than by standing firm.

Whilest much of this is true efforts were made in the past by Russia for joint cooperation and dismissed by western forces. Interference with other nations isn't something exclusive to Russia, while they do like to cause a stir or two in the middle east to benefit their oil and gas sales other world powers have or still are exerting their influence for the same political gains. In the case of Crimea you could argue it was driven by its own (UN backet) right of self determination (judging by mostly independent polls.

 

While Russia is far from a role model country I do believe efforts are made by the US to hinder more tight cooperation between Moscow and the EU

which causes Russia to seek out alternative (non US) allies for cooperation, all whilest using practically the same foreign strategies to maintain its political influences in various regions. You could argue a joint EU and Russia would become a rivaling ecomonic (and military) threat to the US and at which are not in the best interest.

 

Trump, being surprisingly anti-EU, claiming it was formed 'to beat the US at making money', would also cause closer EU-Russian relations which is a positive from my view, although I'm not sure why reaching out towards Putin in the first place then

[Eutyphro]

So a man whose received one allegation of rape, one allegatuon of sexual harassment and one of exposure is inarguably guilty, but two years-old outstanding allegations against another person are somehow "politically motivated" and the alleged perpetrator "might be innocent"?

 

I'd say you couldn't make this sh*t up, but you just did. That's just flabbergasting.

 

I mean, didn't X S just post an article about how politically motivated that accusation is, or how it might otherwise be aimed at sensationalistic and profit driven purposes? It might be. But suggesting rape accusations against someone you don't like named Trump might be politically motivated is completely ridiculous to you, because after all, you don't like him.

And the list of allegations against Bill is really longer than that. But hey, you like him kinda, so he couldn't be a rapist could he?

 

You might want to, y'know, go and actually listen to the tape, or read the transcript, before you start coming up with horsesh*t like this. It wasn't general crass discussion, Trump was talking about actively sexually assaulting women and you'd have to be either stupid or in denial to think otherwise.

All I'm left really concluding from yyour normalising things like this is that your circle of friends are vile c*nts.

 

I listened to the tape. I heard a guy in his 50's that made the type of joke that proved he's not really the presidential type.. But I didn't hear a guy giving a guide on rape, which is how the media interprets it. It's good someone pointed out he said they LET you do anything. He was just bragging about getting around and at the same time turning it into an offensive joke. It had nothing to do with sexual harassment, or rape, at all.

 

People can make jokes about sexual assault. The more taboo a subject the more potential for humor. And yeah, my circle of friends don't give a sh*t about being prude politically correct boring c*nts. Because we know about one another that we don't condone sexual assault or rape by using it for dark humor. But I think it might be different for a man in his 50's with a family to make certain jokes, than some kids in their 20's. And apart from that, the way Trump joked was not really that funny, but mainly pretty disgusting.

 

 

 

 

Consent is explicit and active; implied consent was removed from the judicial system of Western countries decades ago. Not preventing someone from doing something is not consent. Thinking women will let you do anything to them is very different from women actually doing so.

 

I imagine you with a contract going up to a girl in a bar "if you consent to me entering your oral cavity with my tongue you may sign here".

 

 

notice how - 3 pages later - and none of Trumps supporters can actually answer the question...

 

how does Bill Clinton's past history of allegations (all of which have already been dealt with legally) affect how Hillary Clinton performs in the role as President? none of you can link A to B and yet we're still harping on this issue as though it's some kind of smoking gun for the Trump campaign

 

I'm not a Trump supporter, obviously, but to be fair, you can also ask, how does Trump's history of being a complete jackass who says disgusting things about women affect how he performs in the role of president? I'don't have an answer to that either, but maybe people just rather not have a president that is married to a rapist, or who is a complete and utter dick.

 

 

Anyway:

 

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

Whilest much of this is true efforts were made in the past by Russia for joint cooperation and dismissed by western forces.

That's not really accurate. Back in 1998 when Putin actively mooted Russia joining NATO it was welcomed by members. It was initially abandoned unilaterally by Russia as a response to the NATO intervention in Kosovo, which was seen by Russia as interfering in the affairs of nations inside its sphere of influence, then mooted again a few years later. Given that Russia and NATO signed a formal pact and ran joint limitations exercises as recently as 2011, with suspension of cooperation only being fully suspended in 2014.

 

Laying blame solely at either side is simply an exercise in cognitive bias. Both have their share of blame to shoulder.

 

Interference with other nations isn't something exclusive to Russia

In Europe since the end of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, it has been.

 

In the case of Crimea you could argue it was driven by its own (UN backet) right of self determination (judging by mostly independent polls.

Except the original plebescite was conducted under a military occupation, condemned as illegal by the UN as an institution and polling conducted after the fact has systematically ignored the sizeable Tatar minority and therefore cannot be argued to be reflective of wider opinion. I don't doubt that there's widespread support for Russian reintegration in Crimea, but if there was actually a plurality then why was the result of the initial plebescite completely falsified?

 

While Russia is far from a role model country I do believe efforts are made by the US to hinder more tight cooperation between Moscow and the EU

 

I'm not sure I agree. There's a clear correlation between acts of Russian aggression and the suspension of economic and political cooperation. Whilst I don't doubt that Western alliances influence the decisions of countries towards Russia, to imply it's a policy if active hindrance conducted by the US is simply not supported by evidence. The Baltic and Nordic security communities have been particularly hostile towards current Russian military action and they're often not NATO/ EU members (and sometimes neither) and are not reliant on US arms or security cooperation for national defence.

 

The EU is already an institution more powerful than the US in economic terms.

 

I mean, didn't X S just post an article about how politically motivated that accusation is

It's hardly convincing though, is it? Correlation does not equal causation and that article was hardly the "debunking" it was professed to be.

 

But suggesting rape accusations against someone you don't like named Trump might be politically motivated is completely ridiculous to you

Pretty f*cking ironic given you dismissed the allegations against Trump yet support those against Clinton for exactly the same reason. As well as astonishing hypocrisy, it's also a straw man because I never made any judgement on the merit or otherwise of either set of allegatuon- just pointed out your double standards in tackling them.

 

But I didn't hear a guy giving a guide on rape

Can you post something other than straw men for once?

 

People can make jokes about sexual assault.

Which would be relevant if it were true, or we were discussing a joke.

 

I imagine you with a contract going up to a girl in a bar "if you consent to me entering your oral cavity with my tongue you may sign here".

For someone with such a high opinion of the value and merit of his views, you sure do make some utterly idiotic comments. You go grab a random women by her crotch without explicit consent and let me know how it goes for you.

[Eutyphro]

I didn't dismiss anything. You may be right. Trump might be a rapist. Who the f*ck knows? Bill Clinton might be innocent, despite the amount of allegations against him. Bill Cosby might be innocent, but really I don't think he is. I'm trying to be objective and judge on the basis of the amount of allegations these people are getting. And on that basis it is almost impossible Bill Cosby is innocent, it's very unlikely Bill clinton is, and Trump's innocence is not unlikely, due to it being only one allegation which is pressed by someone who has a history of pushing allegations against famous people for publicity. Then there is the allegation against Trump of his wife who 'felt violated but not in a criminal sense', which is barely a real allegation. Or the woman who is on and off in her support for Trump, who he supposedly came onto in an inappropriate overly aggressive manner. But it pales compared to rapist Bill.

You go grab a random women by her crotch without explicit consent and let me know how it goes for you.

 

I think you understand, though you seem to deny it, that seduction is a matter of reading social cues right, and not of asking "hey miss, could I please kiss you?" "hey miss, could I please hug you, hold your waist, touch your shoulder etc..". You could do that, and it's an original style I guess, but most people think that's very awkward. Often asking consent explicitly for doing something is the right thing to do. I mean, you shouldn't go in for something that is 50 50 or you might end up looking like a jackass. But the law doesn't require you to get explicit consent for every physical escalation with a female, or male.., because that would in practice be utterly f*cking ridiculous.

Grabbing a female by the c*nt is pretty far up the ladder of escalation I guess.. And if you go do it randomly, you'll end up in jail, and with a kick to the face probably. So don't do it folks! Ask a gal "hey, can I grab your c*nt"? That way you'll know for sure she's into it! What a silly man that Trump is. He genuinely teaches his friends grabbing women by the vagina is cool if you are rich and famous. I heard he is serious about those teachings.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

I didn't dismiss anything.

Yeah, you kind of did. Both figures have claims of sexual impropriety levelled towards them by more than one woman. Neither has been convicted or sanctioned. The question of whether one is more valid than the other is simply a matter of opinion. The only real difference is that one of those individuals isn't actually running for President. And the supposed complicity of Hillary in covering up or enabling Bill is basically just a conspiracy theory at this point. Let's also not forget that Trump aides actually paid victims if sex crimes critical of Hillary Clinton (albeit for other reasons) to be used to score political points.

 

I think you understand, though you seem to deny it, that seduction is a matter of reading social cues right

And this is just my point- a man who believes women will let him do whatever he want because of his fame is not capable of following social clues. The mere statement of the former precludes there from being any expectation that the latter cam be realistically done.

[sivispacem]

Another sh*tty post from either of you and it's bans.