TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- 2024 US Election Thread? 2024 US Election Thread
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

why can't Ukraine join NATO? From my limited knowledge, it was because they didn't want to upset Russia.

Well, right now, basically because Ukraine joining would immediately trigger article 5. They'd only be a risk to NATO, not a contributor to the overall security of all member countries. There are also some other criteria that Ukraine might not meet right now. Countries like Hungary, Slovakia, and now most importantly the US, would probably vehemently oppose Ukraine's accession too. All member states have to accept for a country to be accepted.

Around 2013 the people of Ukraine wanted to form closer ties to the West (to eventually join the EU and NATO), and to essentially escape Russia's sphere of influence. Their fraudulently elected Russia-aligned then-president Viktor Yanukovych single-handledly put an end to those plans. This led to big protests and violence (Euromaidan), Yanukovych's ousting, and to Russia supporting pro-Russian separatists and sending in their "little green men" (professional armed troops clad in dark green camo with no insignia) into Ukraine's easternmost parts, and invading Crimea.

There's a great series of videos by Vice News called Russian Roulette covering the events from back then, up close, if you're interested. I've seen the whole series at least twice, and I really recommend it. It sometimes also shows one of Russia's most effective long-term means for expansion: their dumb-as-shit, violence-loving population and moving as many of them to contested areas to play the role of a discriminated Russian-speaking minority in order for Russian troops to step in to protect this "minority" at some point.

quote:

Originally posted by ziptnf Did Putin win by Donald Trump getting elected?

We did have a Ukraine thread, so I'll quote what I wrote last February, since it still holds up:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I still care, but the war has stagnated into a largely attritional stalemate and Putin is playing the long game of hoping Trump regains power in the US so Ukraine's military aid dries up. The Ukrainian counter-offensive last summer was never realistically going to throw Russia out of the country: conventional military doctrine is that you need a 4:1 ratio of offensive power to overcome a defending force and Ukraine simply didn't have anything close. They had a rag-tag handful of different battle tanks sent from different NATO countries and no airpower. So where do we go from here? Russia seems prepared to lose an endless amount of young men and suffer endless economic sanctions to grind away ceaselessly until the West gets tired of sinking money into a fruitless forever war. I think the best possible outcome is a ceasefire that permanently cedes occupied Ukrainian territory to Russia and then a fast-track of Ukraine into NATO so we can station armed forces there and get them underneath our nuclear umbrella before Russia invades all over again. The problem is that Zelensky has been too bolshy on this and seems to believe he can throw Russia out completely, including Crimea. That may prove to have been a grave strategic error in the long run. And if Trump wins next year, it's really all over.

quote:

Originally posted by 72hrpartyanimal why can't Ukraine join NATO? From my limited knowledge, it was because they didn't want to upset Russia.

If they joined right now they would immediately bring Russia into conflict with NATO, which would be a fast track queue jump to nuclear war.

The bigger question, which is worth asking, is why Putin has always been so trenchantly opposed to Ukraine (and other former Eastern Bloc nations) joining NATO. After all, that's what this war is about. Putin decided to invade before Ukraine got chance to join. But why does he care so much?

The reason Russia always gives is that they view a build-up of NATO forces close to their border as a provocation, but everyone knows NATO aren't going to invade Russia. As long as nuclear weapons are on the table, no NATO member will ever go to war with Russia and vice versa. The real reason seems to be more that Russia fears the alignment of former Soviet satellites with the West, diminishing Russia's political and economic influence. The really cynical reading, which I've heard a few experts venture, is that Putin is an aspiring empire builder who wants to restore the reach of the former USSR by military force.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J If they joined right now, they would immediately bring Russia into conflict with NATO, which would be a fast-track queue jump to nuclear war.

Oh, hi! Nice to see us on the same page

Now, I guess the following is the only substantial disagreement on Ukraine we still have:

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J The bigger question, which is worth asking, is why Putin has always been so trenchantly opposed to Ukraine (and other former Eastern Bloc nations) joining NATO. After all, that's what this war is about. Putin decided to invade before Ukraine got a chance to join. But why does he care so much? The reason Russia always gives is that they view a build-up of NATO forces close to their border as a provocation, but everyone knows NATO aren't going to invade Russia.

I've explained this in the Ukraine thread: that's not how Russian nationalists (claim to) think... especially those calling the shots. This is why I�m trying to say Putin cares so irrationally much.

To them, NATO isn�t a defensive alliance. It isn�t a collection of states bound by mutual promises and diplomatic red tape. It isn�t what Europeans, North Americans, or I � distant from both Kyiv and Kentucky � think it is.

To the Russian elites that matter, NATO is a spectre. This great, hulking force, pressing against Russia�s borders, swallowing its neighbours, waiting. It is the thing that generations before them feared, the thing that whispered in the ears of tsars and commissars alike. It is the West, but not just the West. It is something older, deeper, woven into the very fabric of Russian historical consciousness (hence Alexander Dugin�s appeal among certain nationalist circles).

And so the fear spreads, not like wildfire, but like damp creeping through the cracks. Unshakable. Unstoppable. Present even when you try to ignore it. Here�s why:

1. The Weight of History: To Russian nationalists, NATO is simply the latest face of an ancient enemy. They see history as an unbroken line of Western attempts to crush Russia, to carve it into pieces and take its soul. Napoleon came from the West. The Germans came from the West (twice!). The Cold War, the dissolution of the USSR, the economic chaos of the �90s � Western hands in everything. NATO, then, is not just a military alliance. It is a continuation of a war that never truly ended.
   
   
2. A Slow but Unstoppable Encroachment: Every time NATO expands, it is seen as another noose tightening around Russia�s neck. Poland. The Baltic states. Former Soviet republics. One by one, slipping out of Russia�s orbit and into NATO�s embrace. To a European (or an American), this is sovereignty, self-determination, a choice. To a Russian nationalist, this is theft. A betrayal. A slow-motion invasion that doesn�t need tanks or missiles, because the mere fact of NATO�s presence is already a provocation.
   
   
3. The Colour Revolutions - A New Kind of War: When Ukraine revolted in 2014, Russian nationalists didn�t see young people fighting for democracy. They saw NATO�s invisible hand. Another domino falls. A carefully orchestrated plot designed to install a Western puppet on Russia�s doorstep. Kyrgyzstan, Georgia (another country with a frozen conflict), Belarus � the story repeats. The West doesn�t need boots on the ground when it can simply turn Russia�s neighbours against her.
   
   
4. The Ukraine War - The Phantom Enemy Becomes Real: This is where the nightmare manifests. The tanks roll, the shells fall, the blood soaks the earth. And there, behind the Ukrainian forces, they see NATO. Not just as an idea now, but as a force arming, training, advising. They are not fighting Ukraine � not really. They are fighting something much larger, something vast and faceless and relentless. To the Russian nationalist, this is not an invasion � it is a counterattack. A desperate attempt to push NATO back before it is too late. Hence Zelenskyy�s eagerness to join all things Europe as soon as possible and frustrate Putin�s endgame.
   
   
5. A War of Civilisations: This is about more than borders, more than soldiers. To people like Putin, it seems to be about survival. Many Russian nationalists do not just see NATO as an enemy, but as the agent of something deeper: the Western �disease.� Liberalism, decadence, weakness (and I�m a liberal myself, so I say this despite the fact that I couldn�t disagree with them more). They do not see Europe as Europe sees itself � a collection of free nations� but as a civilization in decline, dragging everything with it. They�re the red-pillers in Red Square (and people with red baseball caps), if that helps. Russia, to them, is the last bastion, the final redoubt against a corrupting tide.

The wide Russian support for expansion is rooted in nostalgia for the USSR, revanchism, and "protecting Russian speakers", not a fear of a "naively benevolent West", as a Russian might put it.



The "fear of NATO" only resurfaces when Russia itself invades its neighbors, and that's the Russian mind for you.



Putin cares because he's got nothing else than an ever larger Russia to achieve, a greater Russkiy mir, with him going down in history as the man who returned Russia to its height, as "cynical" as that idea might sound to some. Unfortunately, a vocal part of Russians want Russkiy mir too, and after that there aren't many questions left to ask regarding why something like the war in Ukraine is happening. Especially when the West, in its weakness, lets these things happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Now, I guess the following is the only substantial disagreement on Ukraine we still have: I've explained this in the Ukraine thread: that's not how Russian nationalists (claim to) think... especially those calling the shots. This is why I�m trying to say Putin cares so irrationally much.

Are you actually disagreeing with me? Do you believe that Putin genuinely thinks NATO will start a war with Russia?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Are you actually disagreeing with me? Do you believe that Putin genuinely thinks NATO will start a war with Russia?

I mean, sure, there could be other explanations. But, do I believe it�s plausible that the amateur historian running the Kremlin � the boy who grew up hearing war stories about the Siege of Leningrad from a wounded father who buried a son before his second birthday, the man who once loosed a hound on a defenceless Angela Merkel, like a ghost slipping through a cracked window � might genuinely think NATO would start a war with Russia under the right circumstances?

I find it as baffling as you do. And yet, all signs seem to point to da. It�s not as if this would be the first time reality proved him wrong...

So you think it makes no sense at all but you choose to believe it anyway? It's completely obvious Putin knows NATO won't invade Russia, and we've already agreed on the reason why: Russia's nuclear arsenal. That's why he was sabre rattling with that arsenal a year or two back to deter NATO from becoming more involved in Ukraine. He knew perfectly well that nobody was willing to risk open conflict between two nuclear powers.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J So you think it makes no sense at all but you choose to believe it anyway?

I think it�s perfectly reasonable to believe that people hold beliefs that don�t align with our own. There�s what we believe (that it�s nonsense), what we think he believes (which is what we�re debating), and what he actually believes (which we can never fully access). But what we do know is that he acts � consistently, obsessively � as if NATO is a threat.

Now, of course, he might not believe it in the way a child believes in ghosts � shivering under the covers, convinced the shadows are shifting. Maybe it�s more like a fisherman who doesn�t quite believe in sea monsters, but still won�t sail beyond the horizon. A fear that isn�t quite rational but isn�t quite fake either. He might be exaggerating the NATO threat for political reasons, but strategic paranoia and personal conviction aren�t mutually exclusive, are they? If he didn�t think NATO was a long-term danger to Russia�s position, why go to such extreme lengths to stop its expansion? Why not just tolerate it and focus on consolidating power at home?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It's completely obvious Putin knows NATO won't invade Russia, and we've already agreed on the reason why: Russia's nuclear arsenal. That's why he was sabre-rattling with that arsenal a year or two back to deter NATO from becoming more involved in Ukraine. He knew perfectly well that nobody was willing to risk open conflict between two nuclear powers.

Right, I don�t think he�s pacing the halls of the Kremlin at night, convinced NATO tanks will roll into Red Square (that would be quite the view though). But nuclear deterrence only stops a full-frontal invasion � it doesn�t stop what he might see as NATO�s "creeping war", which I mentioned above: former Soviet states slipping through his fingers, Russian influence dissolving one election at a time, Ukraine choosing Brussels over Moscow. A country can be taken without a single shot fired, and if he believes NATO�s expansion isn�t just a security policy but a centuries-old pattern of encirclement, humiliation, and eventual dismantling, then his paranoia starts to look less like a performance and more like a worldview.

(That said, I feel like this thread was meant to be about American democracy, and we�ve hijacked it into a debate on Russian strategic paranoia. Not that I don�t enjoy a good detour, but maybe this isn�t the road we should be going down right here)

quote:

Originally posted by Lira But nuclear deterrence only stops a full-frontal invasion � it doesn�t stop what he might see as NATO�s "creeping war", which I mentioned above: former Soviet states slipping through his fingers, Russian influence dissolving one election at a time, Ukraine choosing Brussels over Moscow.

But that was the whole point of my original comment you claimed to disagree with. You cut off your quote right before this bit:

quote:

The real reason seems to be more that Russia fears the alignment of former Soviet satellites with the West, diminishing Russia's political and economic influence.

The trouble is, that doesn't cut it in matters of international law, does it? "We had to invade a sovereign nation because we were losing influence over our former puppet states" doesn't exactly wash with the United Nations, so instead we get this obvious nonsense implying there's a genuine existential threat to Russia's national security from NATO.

Christ, this post turned out to be longer than I had originally planned...

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J But that was the whole point of my original comment you claimed to disagree with.

Oh, my apologies. So, if I understood you correctly, your argument is that Russia�s real concern isn�t security but influence: power slipping through its fingers, the old empire unspooling thread by thread. And because "we invaded to stop losing influence" isn�t a justification that holds up under international law, Putin needs something bigger, something grander. An existential threat. A war for survival. Would that be right?

If it is, I definitely see your point. Our disagreement isn't as stark as the difference between a certain leader and a dissident about to be served Earl Grey Polonium tea or cold-brew Novichok, but more a matter of perception. Because, wouldn�t you agree that for Russia, influence is security? That what we call "NATO expansion" is, for them, a slow-motion dismemberment?

You say this is about power, but maybe we should frame it as permanence, something all states, regimes, and Neo-Platonists seek

Why permanence instead of just power? Because power ebbs and flows�one decade, you�re hosting international sporting events; the next, you�re banned for doping violations and your athletes can't even rally around your flag. One decade, your puppet regimes are thriving; the next, you�re scrambling to prop them up with military contractors who technically don�t exist

But permanence? That�s something else. Power is the game. Permanence is the scoreboard. It�s about making sure you�re still in the room when the next game starts. Like bad sequels to Fast & Furious�no matter how much things change, they�re still there, still shaping the landscape, still impossible to ignore.

And if this were just about power, why go this far? Why risk economic ruin, political isolation, the slow grinding down of his military? Why not just play the long game, like before, waiting for the right moment to tilt Ukraine back into Mother Russia�s orbit � like a guy in the friendzone waiting for his crush to break up, only to find out she�d rather date literally anyone but him

Russia is playing for permanence, but Putin is using a 19th-century strategy in a 21st-century world. The war was supposed to cement Russia�s influence, but instead, it�s accelerating its decline: because military invasions aren�t how great powers secure permanence anymore. Even now, despite the costs, Putin seems convinced that a NATO-aligned Ukraine would be a bigger disaster than a drawn-out war. The question isn�t just whether he miscalculated � it�s whether he even sees an alternative.

You might call it a miscalculation, and maybe it is�a gamble that backfired spectacularly. But to miscalculate this badly, you have to either truly believe in the stakes... or just assume Ukraine would fold like it's 2014 and that, within a few years, you�d still have enough international clout to host a Winter Olympics and a World Cup again.

The first sounds dramatic. The second sounds stupid. And yet, history suggests Russia has done both � like Raskolnikov (from Crime and Punishment?) after his third espresso and a YouTube binge on why Napoleon would have totally justified his crimes.

So no, I don�t think this fear is purely theatre, even if it's mostly a rational pursuit of power. But rationality comes in sets�like a worldview, an ideology, a playbook. Maybe not a rational one, but a deeply held one by those involved, like those incredibly sound and well-founded economic ideas held by the board of directors at Lehman Brothers � who were so sure everything was fine, right up until they looked around and realised they were standing in a burning building with no exits, no fire extinguisher, and someone in the corner playing the violin.

And that brings me back to what we were actually meant to be discussing: American democracy.

Because great powers don�t crumble all at once. They fade in increments. In rationalisations. In stories told so many times they start to sound like truth.

Like stopping steals. Like swarming capitols. Like saying, "it wasn't that bad, was it?"

Oh, right. Trump. Let's get back to him, shall we?

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J I talked about this in the thread Zharen made straight after the election result. The fact Trump convincingly won re-election tells me that the majority of American voters don't believe in the sanctity of democracy anymore. Because this is the man who tried to overturn an election result right in front of everyone's eyes, a man who incited a riot that invaded the very seat of American democracy in an attempt to overthrow that result through physical violence. Everyone saw what happened, everyone knew exactly what they were witnessing. And they still voted for him again four years later.

No, I get it. I do. Watching Trump win again after the 6th of January feels like watching someone walk back into a burning building because they left their phone inside. And not even a good phone � a cracked-screen Samsung from 2015 that barely holds a charge and probably started the fire in the first place.

It�s not just maddening, it�s terrifying. I agree.

And you�re right, there�s no ambiguity about what he is anymore. No one can say they weren�t warned. They saw what happened last time, and they still said, "Yeah, I�d like some more of that, please."

But I don�t think that means the majority of Americans have stopped believing in democracy itself. I think it means they�ve rationalised supporting someone anti-democratic because they care more about something else. Maybe it�s culture wars. Maybe it�s tax cuts. Maybe they just like watching liberals cry on Fox News. But that�s different from explicitly endorsing authoritarianism.

And that distinction matters: because democracy isn�t fully gone yet � but the cost of attacking it has dropped. And the cheaper it gets, the more likely someone else will try. That doesn�t mean institutions will collapse overnight � democracies have survived worse. But history shows that when attacking democracy stops being a career-ending move, it�s only a matter of time before someone pushes further.

And even then�this election wasn�t just about Trump. Biden had a rough presidency�some of it inherited, some of it self-inflicted. Inflation panicked people. The Afghanistan withdrawal was a trainwreck. Post-COVID, we�ve seen a global trend of voters turning against incumbents�Starmer, Lula, Milei, Orsi. But Trump isn�t exactly an incumbent. He�s an ex-incumbent running a revenge campaign. His win is less about continuity and more about a populist comeback: a political sequel nobody asked for but somehow made it to cinemas anyway

So, yeah, Trumpicana is horrifying. But does it mean democracy is already lost? Not yet.

I do think institutions in the US, in Brazil, in South Korea will all hold � but institutions don�t protect themselves. They survive when people fight for them. The biggest risk isn�t that democracy disappears tomorrow: it�s that breaking democratic norms stops carrying consequences. And once that happens, it�s only a matter of time before someone decides to push even further.

That�s why I�m still (cautiously) optimistic. But does this all scare the hell out of me?

Hard yes

Edit: Trimmed the post a bit, it's still too damn long, but it was worse.

Edit 2: Meh, the disagreement is over such a minor point unrelated to the main topic of this thread, so on second thought, we can all move on from that and lead more meaningful lives whether or not the apocalypse is nigh

The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans

Brilliant.

^Of all the "you can't make this up" moments over the past couple months, this one takes the cake. I can't think of a better instance that perfectly illustrates the incompetence of this administration.

quote:

Originally posted by JEO The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans Brilliant.

When asked about the breach, Trump responded: �I don't know anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. To me, it's a magazine that's going out of business. I think it�s not much of a magazine. But I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what?� There is nothing that the administration could say to make the situation better, but this made it worse. As national security specialist Tom Nichols noted: �If the President is telling the truth and no one�s briefed him about this yet, that�s another story in itself. In any other administration, [the chief of staff] would have been in the Oval [Office] within nanoseconds of learning about something like this.�

Zachary B. Wolf of CNN noted that �Trump intentionally hired amateurs for top jobs. This is their most dramatic blunder.� Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA) told Brian Tyler Cohen: �My first reaction... was 'what absolute clowns.' Total amateur hour, reckless, dangerous�. [T]his is what happens when you have basically Fox News personalities cosplaying as government officials.� Foreign policy scholar Timothy Snyder posted: �These guys inherited one of the most functional state apparatus in the history of the world and they are inhabiting it like a crack house.�







From this post:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ASLQPeaZs/

And just think, this happened in Month 2/48. We've barely left the tarmac in America's flight to Hell.

Wuddup TAers,

Just wondering how the rest of you are viewing the US with all the protests, ICE raids, ect. I'm sure it's been on the news in your areas which I apologize for. I know there are many other issues going on in your neck of the woods only to be bombarded by crap that doesn't necessarily concern you.

Just hoping to hear from insights from the rest of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by 72hrpartyanimal I know there are many other issues going on in your neck of the woods only to be bombarded by crap that doesn't necessarily concern you.

It's all right, really, don't worry.

We've had plenty of time to brace ourselves for the chaos, like taping up windows before a hurricane you know will come late and badly dressed. Trump-shaped turmoil isn't unexpected anymore to anyone... what's strange is how little of it actually reaches us, down here in Brazil. Not because we're out of range, but because we've developed this instinct, almost biological, to tune out the avalanche. The gaffes, the chest-thumping, the toddler-king proclamations and all that jazz. Men like Trump and Bolsonaro need to break things just to get the chance to fix them, loudly, badly, with duct tape.

quote:

Originally posted by 72hrpartyanimal Just wondering how the rest of you are viewing the US with all the protests, ICE raids, ect.

But still — sending in marines, the National Guard, and cruelly, Fox News anchors — it's a reversal of all the myths you once exported: equality, freedom, the sweet tea-flavoured Protestant ethic, the idea that anyone could make it big if they just worked hard enough and didn't stop to ask too many questions. It's as if the Fanta Menace wants to Make America Great Again by smashing every mirror that still showed something vaguely beautiful.

And yet, there is one thing I believe in, with the kind of certainty usually reserved for gravity or toast falling butter-side down: Trump will screw it up. Always. With astonishing precision. Like a homing pigeon trained to find the worst possible outcome and arrive right on time. I can't help but conclude that the only reason he was voted into office is because news anchors had to say his name as often as Buddhist monks chant a sutra. If there is one thing I learned from that Presidential podcast by the Washington post a decade ago is that he combines Andrew Jackson's temperament with James Buchanan's competence. Nothing new under the sun, just louder and far less effective.

He picked a fight with China and backed off. Then he picked a fight with Harvard and I'm still not quite sure what came of that. So unless the protesters manage to alienate public opinion (which, let's face it: sometimes that does happen), his exaggerated show of force will likely backfire before long.

If there is anything of yours Trump won't keep as a memento of this visit? He won't Take California

I've not followed it closely but they are ugly scenes that will only play into Trump's hands. Vandalising properties and burning cars is only going to justify his narrative that these people are criminals and a threat to society, and of course he gets his show of power which will appeal directly to his core supporter base. Even if 95% of the protests were peaceful, as soon as you get that kind of property damage with those images that can be plastered on the news, it will only go one way.

Thanks everyone. I always value your opinions.

Coincidentally, I took my girls to Costco (big wholesale shopping place) this past Saturday and one of the No Kings protests were occurring right at the corner. I saw some of the protestors heading out to the corner of the street and showed my daughters their signs. I decided to bring them over to see what was happening. Thankfully, it was just the start of the protest and although a lot of people in attendance, the vibe was really awesome. I wanted them to see what it means to stand up for your rights. We read out the different signs people had. We read the signs of these 2, nice older ladies and they told my old daughters "we're fighting the both of you. We won't be here much longer but we want to leave the world a better place for the both of you." I was quite inspired by it all.

So... What's the atmosphere in the States right now? Are these ICE incidents just provocation to trigger mass protests, which would be grounds for martial law? That's what I see people speculating, but I don't know. Seems a bit too calculated for the people in power right now.

It�s pretty chill. It might be different if you�re living in an area where ICE is doming people in the street though.

Well cool.

My wife told me that Bas (an OG TAer on here) actually witnessed ICE abducting/arresting/detaining to people. Instead of calling the cops, he called the news station. I guess one of them was eventually released. Hearing this second hand from her but she's going to show me the IG page this evening after work. Big shoutout to him for doing so. Many people have a tendency to stay complacent. I'm ashamed to say I'd probably not do anything as well.

Here in Los Angeles, I feel like many minorities are on alert. City associated Reddit pages are posting alerts if they see ICE active in certain areas. There's a huge population of minorities here in LA, many legal but many illegal as well. There is definitely a sense of fear and hatred right now.

ICE was very present with their Gestapo commander present earlier last year but I feel like most of their resources are in Minnesota. I feel like it's mostly political as their Governor has been vocal about the president and the "fraud" that's been happening with day cares (or some shit like that).

There certainly are (seemingly) credible allegations of fraud involving Somali daycares, and it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. However, the individual involved in exposing this alleged fraud has a dismally low level of intelligence and can barely cobble together a sentence in his native language. The video he put out "investigating" the fraud proved effectively nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by JEO So... What's the atmosphere in the States right now? Are these ICE incidents just provocation to trigger mass protests, which would be grounds for martial law? That's what I see people speculating, but I don't know. Seems a bit too calculated for the people in power right now.

The ICE incidents are what happens when you mass hire and your only criterion is "wants to hold a gun and beat up some immigrants."

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.