• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pigeon

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
I'm kind of wondering whether the "Ryan is muzzled by the Romney camp" stories are coming from conservatives to protect his national ambitions. Even if that is true and Ryan isn't truly being himself, I don't even see a hint of a good politician there. He's not energetic on the stump, he seems a tad awkward, and has been exposed to more analysis from the media - who before apparently endorsed all his plans without running numbers. I just can't see him being the messiah republicans pretend he is

And even if he runs in four years will that magically make powerpoints and chalk boards popular on the stump? Of course not. And his Medicare plan will still be toxic
Click to expand...

I agree with this reasonable and accurate post. Are you having some kind of McCain moment?

syllogism said:
This needs to be a real thing

http://www.slate.com/articles/video...yan_campaigns_told_in_video_game_fights_.html
Click to expand...

My favorite part of this is the character selection stances for Paul and Obama.
 
G

gcubed

Member
PhoenixDark said:
I'm kind of wondering whether the "Ryan is muzzled by the Romney camp" stories are coming from conservatives to protect his national ambitions. Even if that is true and Ryan isn't truly being himself, I don't even see a hint of a good politician there. He's not energetic on the stump, he seems a tad awkward, and has been exposed to more analysis from the media - who before apparently endorsed all his plans without running numbers. I just can't see him being the messiah republicans pretend he is

And even if he runs in four years will that magically make powerpoints and chalk boards popular on the stump? Of course not. And his Medicare plan will still be toxic
Click to expand...

or he is muzzled because the man simply can not tell a story without fabricating inane details that are bullshit at face value. I mean, everyone has one of Ryan in their group of friends... the bullshitter that no one takes seriously because he one ups everyone with over the top details that aren't true.

He's THAT guy, and every time he speaks he loses another few points of "wonkishness" from his stats.
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
I'm kind of wondering whether the "Ryan is muzzled by the Romney camp" stories are coming from conservatives to protect his national ambitions. Even if that is true and Ryan isn't truly being himself, I don't even see a hint of a good politician there. He's not energetic on the stump, he seems a tad awkward, and has been exposed to more analysis from the media - who before apparently endorsed all his plans without running numbers. I just can't see him being the messiah republicans pretend he is

And even if he runs in four years will that magically make powerpoints and chalk boards popular on the stump? Of course not. And his Medicare plan will still be toxic
Click to expand...

Being on the ticket has hurt him. The loser stigma is hard to wash off even when you are fairly popular amongst the base. Edwards (pre-affair stuff) in 2008 had the 2004 loser stigma. Assuming Romney loses I don't see many paths for victory in the GOP primary if your name isn't Marco Rubio.
 
B

Black Republican

Member
looks like the final final final PA voter ID decision will come today via twitter

Peter Hall @phall215 The Pennsylvania voter ID decision will be announced via tweet by @PACourts. Judge Robert Simpson's decision could come as early as today.
Click to expand...
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
pigeon said:
The ncredible volatility of the market is the sleeper story this year. Nobody who took their money out is actually doing anything with it -- you can tell from the huge pops that people are just waiting for an economic boost they can trust to start reinvesting. Unfortunately, that very nervousness is the problem.
Click to expand...

The problem is on the demand side, not the supply side. The supply side will always follow the demand side, and needn't ever be worried about.

Speaking of, the New York Times has an article out today on the expiration of the poll tax holiday with some good and terrible journalism. The good:

Regardless of who wins the presidential election in November or what compromises Congress strikes in the lame-duck session to keep the economy from automatic tax increases and spending cuts, 160 million American wage earners will probably see their tax bills jump after Jan. 1.

That is when the temporary payroll tax holiday ends. Its expiration means less income in families’ pocketbooks — the tax increase would be about $95 billion in 2013 alone — at a time when the economy is little better than it was when the White House reached a deal on the tax break last year.

Independent analysts say that the expiration of the tax cut could shave as much as a percentage point off economic output in 2013, and cost the economy as many as one million jobs. That is because the typical American family had $1,000 in additional income from the lower tax.​

The terrible:

The original point of the payroll tax holiday was to stimulate consumer spending and aid middle-income households. But now Congress needs the money as it struggles with vast deficits and believes the economy can withstand the expiration.​

That's like saying a perpetual motion machine needs an external energy supply as it struggles to move. Something is amiss here. Either what we have is not a perpetual motion machine, or it does not need an external energy supply. But the sentence as it stands is totally incoherent. Likewise either what we have is a fiat monetary system or Congress is not in need of money as it struggles with vast deficits. Because we do have a fiat monetary system in which all base money is created by the government at the stroke of a key, the sentence is nonsensical. Yet, there it is, asserted as bald fact in our national newspaper of record.

Obama's treasurer is on record supporting the expiration of the holiday.

“This has to be a temporary tax cut,” said Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee this year and voicing the view of many in the White House and on Capitol Hill. “I don’t see any reason to consider supporting its extension.”​

Apparently, economic growth and one million jobs are not reasons. Repeal the tax on work, demand equal or higher health care and retirement benefits, and demand that the fiscal space for paying these benefits be created, if necessary, through democracy-enhancing progressive taxation on income. Looks like we're all getting a tax raise instead. Or, as I like to describe it, looks like the government is putting the brakes on your spending (and on the economy), for no reason relating to the real world at all.
 
C

codhand

Member
empty vessel said:
The problem is on the demand side, not the supply side. The supply side will always follow the demand side, and needn't ever be worried about.

Speaking of, the New York Times has an article out today on the expiration of the poll tax holiday with some good and terrible journalism. The good:

Regardless of who wins the presidential election in November or what compromises Congress strikes in the lame-duck session to keep the economy from automatic tax increases and spending cuts, 160 million American wage earners will probably see their tax bills jump after Jan. 1.

That is when the temporary payroll tax holiday ends. Its expiration means less income in families’ pocketbooks — the tax increase would be about $95 billion in 2013 alone — at a time when the economy is little better than it was when the White House reached a deal on the tax break last year.

Independent analysts say that the expiration of the tax cut could shave as much as a percentage point off economic output in 2013, and cost the economy as many as one million jobs. That is because the typical American family had $1,000 in additional income from the lower tax.​

The terrible:

The original point of the payroll tax holiday was to stimulate consumer spending and aid middle-income households. But now Congress needs the money as it struggles with vast deficits and believes the economy can withstand the expiration.​

That's like saying a perpetual motion machine needs an external energy supply as it struggles to move. Something is amiss here. Either what we have is not a perpetual motion machine, or it does not need an external energy supply. But the sentence as it stands is totally incoherent. Likewise either what we have is a fiat monetary system or Congress is not in need of money as it struggles with vast deficits. Because we do have a fiat monetary system in which all base money is created by the government at the stroke of a key, the sentence is nonsensical. Yet, there it is, asserted as bald fact in our national newspaper of record.

Obama's treasurer is on record supporting the expiration of the holiday.

“This has to be a temporary tax cut,” said Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee this year and voicing the view of many in the White House and on Capitol Hill. “I don’t see any reason to consider supporting its extension.”​

Apparently, economic growth and one million jobs are not reasons. Repeal the tax on work, demand equal or higher health care and retirement benefits, and demand that the fiscal space for paying these benefits be created, if necessary, through democracy-enhancing progressive taxation on income. Looks like we're all getting a tax raise instead. Or, as I like to describe it, looks like the government is putting the brakes on your spending (and on the economy), for no reason relating to the real world at all.
Click to expand...

You're like a drone strike of truth. ;)
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
empty vessel said:
The problem is on the demand side, not the supply side. The supply side will always follow the demand side, and needn't ever be worried about.

Speaking of, the New York Times has an article out today on the expiration of the poll tax holiday with some good and terrible journalism. The good:

Regardless of who wins the presidential election in November or what compromises Congress strikes in the lame-duck session to keep the economy from automatic tax increases and spending cuts, 160 million American wage earners will probably see their tax bills jump after Jan. 1.

That is when the temporary payroll tax holiday ends. Its expiration means less income in families’ pocketbooks — the tax increase would be about $95 billion in 2013 alone — at a time when the economy is little better than it was when the White House reached a deal on the tax break last year.

Independent analysts say that the expiration of the tax cut could shave as much as a percentage point off economic output in 2013, and cost the economy as many as one million jobs. That is because the typical American family had $1,000 in additional income from the lower tax.​

The terrible:

The original point of the payroll tax holiday was to stimulate consumer spending and aid middle-income households. But now Congress needs the money as it struggles with vast deficits and believes the economy can withstand the expiration.​

That's like saying a perpetual motion machine needs an external energy supply as it struggles to move. Something is amiss here. Either what we have is not a perpetual motion machine, or it does not need an external energy supply. But the sentence as it stands is totally incoherent. Likewise either what we have is a fiat monetary system or Congress is not in need of money as it struggles with vast deficits. Because we do have a fiat monetary system in which all base money is created by the government at the stroke of a key, the sentence is nonsensical. Yet, there it is, asserted as bald fact in our national newspaper of record.

Obama's treasurer is on record supporting the expiration of the holiday.

“This has to be a temporary tax cut,” said Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee this year and voicing the view of many in the White House and on Capitol Hill. “I don’t see any reason to consider supporting its extension.”​

Apparently, economic growth and one million jobs are not reasons. Repeal the tax on work, demand equal or higher health care and retirement benefits, and demand that the fiscal space for paying these benefits be created, if necessary, through democracy-enhancing progressive taxation on income. Looks like we're all getting a tax raise instead. Or, as I like to describe it, looks like the government is putting the brakes on your spending (and on the economy), for no reason relating to the real world at all.
Click to expand...

So glad you are back.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
empty vessel said:
The problem is on the demand side, not the supply side. The supply side will always follow the demand side, and needn't ever be worried about.

Speaking of, the New York Times has an article out today on the expiration of the poll tax holiday with some good and terrible journalism. The good:

Regardless of who wins the presidential election in November or what compromises Congress strikes in the lame-duck session to keep the economy from automatic tax increases and spending cuts, 160 million American wage earners will probably see their tax bills jump after Jan. 1.

That is when the temporary payroll tax holiday ends. Its expiration means less income in families’ pocketbooks — the tax increase would be about $95 billion in 2013 alone — at a time when the economy is little better than it was when the White House reached a deal on the tax break last year.

Independent analysts say that the expiration of the tax cut could shave as much as a percentage point off economic output in 2013, and cost the economy as many as one million jobs. That is because the typical American family had $1,000 in additional income from the lower tax.​

The terrible:

The original point of the payroll tax holiday was to stimulate consumer spending and aid middle-income households. But now Congress needs the money as it struggles with vast deficits and believes the economy can withstand the expiration.​

That's like saying a perpetual motion machine needs an external energy supply as it struggles to move. Something is amiss here. Either what we have is not a perpetual motion machine, or it does not need an external energy supply. But the sentence as it stands is totally incoherent. Likewise either what we have is a fiat monetary system or Congress is not in need of money as it struggles with vast deficits. Because we do have a fiat monetary system in which all base money is created by the government at the stroke of a key, the sentence is nonsensical. Yet, there it is, asserted as bald fact in our national newspaper of record.

Obama's treasurer is on record supporting the expiration of the holiday.

“This has to be a temporary tax cut,” said Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee this year and voicing the view of many in the White House and on Capitol Hill. “I don’t see any reason to consider supporting its extension.”​

Apparently, economic growth and one million jobs are not reasons. Repeal the tax on work, demand equal or higher health care and retirement benefits, and demand that the fiscal space for paying these benefits be created, if necessary, through democracy-enhancing progressive taxation on income. Looks like we're all getting a tax raise instead. Or, as I like to describe it, looks like the government is putting the brakes on your spending (and on the economy), for no reason relating to the real world at all.
Click to expand...

So you don't support ending the Bush tax cuts then, correct?
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
PhoenixDark said:
So you don't support ending the Bush tax cuts then, correct?
Click to expand...

I do not support ending them, at least not in their entirety. The only thing I would support is raising taxes on the highest income earners (and that includes capital gains tax rates). But in truth I would like to add brackets to hit really high income earners very hard. But I support those measures for reasons independent of any concerns about the budget, debt, or Congress "needing" money (I have no concerns at all about any of that).
 
P

Patriots7

Member
I think some people are getting ahead of themselves, partly because of they 538 blog. It's a long road to election day and the race is still up in the air.

Not only that, some are overestimating Obama's debate skills and underestimating Romney's. Everyone thought Sarah Palin would flop and she surpassed nearly everyone's expectations. Debate prep can be useful, especially going up an incumbent who has to spin his accomplishments amidst a stagnant economy.

Though conservative, I dislike Romney and hope Obama wins, but it's far from guaranteed.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
empty vessel said:
I do not support ending them, at least not in their entirety. The only thing I would support is raising taxes on the highest income earners (and that includes capital gains tax rates). But in truth I would like to add brackets to hit really high income earners very hard. But I support those measures for reasons independent of any concerns about the budget, debt, or Congress "needing" money (I have no concerns at all about any of that).
Click to expand...

If you could change the tax rates, what would they be for people making $250,000 and over - as well as those making a million and over. Currently it's about 35%
 
T

Tim-E

Member
Patriots7 said:
I think some people are getting ahead of themselves, partly because of they 538 blog. It's a long road to election day and the race is still up in the air.

Not only that, some are overestimating Obama's debate skills and underestimating Romney's. Everyone thought Sarah Palin would flop and she surpassed nearly everyone's expectations. Debate prep can be useful, especially going up an incumbent who has to spin his accomplishments amidst a stagnant economy.

Though conservative, I dislike Romney and hope Obama wins, but it's far from guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Joe Biden played nice so he wouldn't come off as a bully. He basically just let he talk the entire time so the media wouldn't hound him for being mean.
 
G

gcubed

Member
Patriots7 said:
I think some people are getting ahead of themselves, partly because of they 538 blog. It's a long road to election day and the race is still up in the air.

Not only that, some are overestimating Obama's debate skills and underestimating Romney's. Everyone thought Sarah Palin would flop and she surpassed nearly everyone's expectations. Debate prep can be useful, especially going up an incumbent who has to spin his accomplishments amidst a stagnant economy.

Though conservative, I dislike Romney and hope Obama wins, but it's far from guaranteed.
Click to expand...

as of today the race is definitely not "up in the air".

I don't see any mistake Obama can realistically make that would change the trajectory of this race enough to overcome the insanely difficult electoral math that Romney has. Obama is leading in enough states to reproduce 2008 results, but if you start considering Ohio moving into the upper edges of the Lean Obama category there simply is such a statistically insignificant path to victory for Romney by EC votes that its hard not to be confident. It was hard not to be confident in February due to the EC paths... and that was before how poor a candidate Romney has become.

This is barring some insane shit like Euro collapsing in the next 30 days... which if you are counting on that, its putting you in the "worry wort" category.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Patriots7 said:
I think some people are getting ahead of themselves, partly because of they 538 blog. It's a long road to election day and the race is still up in the air.

Not only that, some are overestimating Obama's debate skills and underestimating Romney's. Everyone thought Sarah Palin would flop and she surpassed nearly everyone's expectations. Debate prep can be useful, especially going up an incumbent who has to spin his accomplishments amidst a stagnant economy.

Though conservative, I dislike Romney and hope Obama wins, but it's far from guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Everyone thought Palin would start yelling the n-word or take a dump on the podium so yes, technically she did better than expected but she was DREADFUL by any serious measure.

Also the idea that Obama is overrated as a debater comes from the teleprompter bubble - not reality.
 
T

thefro

Member
Obama campaign just announced that they did hit their goal and are over 10 million donations in 2012.

Their September numbers are going to be massive, I predict.
 
Z

Zabka

Member
Sarah Palin surpassed expectations by not spontaneously combusting on stage.

When it comes to substance she was horrible, throwing out tired zingers and completely ignoring questions to "speak directly to the American people".
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
PhoenixDark said:
If you could change the tax rates, what would they be for people making $250,000 and over - as well as those making a million and over. Currently it's about 35%
Click to expand...

I probably wouldn't change much for anybody making under 300k, or even under a million. People making multiple of millions of income in a year (mostly corporate executives and people working in finance) would be hit at rates upwards of 80 or 90 percent on somewhere above 1-5 million. That's just thumbnail. If I were actually implementing it, I would spend more time figuring out what rates at what income points.
 
S

SouthernDragon

Member
eBay Huckster said:
48 other posters got banned right before EV got unbanned.

Obviously this means EV is worth 50 normal GAF posters.
Click to expand...

Tamanon said:
It really doesn't matter how much a poster is worth, NeoGAF determines that. It can just create more posters with the push of a button.
Click to expand...

eBay Huckster said:
Taking this further: if we raised the effective tax rate of the most prolific posters, to (let's say) 40%, does that mean we'd be able to reduce posting inequality?

(Does this mean we won't all be hopelessly out-posted by PD and Aaron Strife?)
Click to expand...

This is an amazing exchange.
 
T

Tim-E

Member
pigeon said:
But that wasn't hard, because, as you note, the expectation was that she would flop.
Click to expand...

It's why every candidate uses their surrogates pre-debate to lower expectations. If everyone thinks that one candidate is going to be awful in comparison to the other and they manage to not fall asleep during the debate, then people will think they did a decent job because their expectation was that they would fall asleep.
 
A

adamsappel

Member
pigeon said:
I agree with this reasonable and accurate post. Are you having some kind of McCain moment?
Click to expand...

See what you've done to yourself, PD?

TacticalFox88 said:
Heineken is probably the grossest beer on earth. Disgusting.
Click to expand...

Heineken was pretty good when I was actually in Holland.

Rocket Scientist said:
Geithner continues to prove he was one of Obama's biggest mistakes.
Click to expand...

I think Geithner would have been gone a long time ago if the appointment didn't need Senate approval. Giving the Republicans an open forum to rake someone over the coals about Obama's imagined and real fiscal policies would be political theater of the worst kind. And who knows how long confirmation would take. Treasury Secretary isn't a position that should be vacant for months.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
If you could change the tax rates, what would they be for people making $250,000 and over - as well as those making a million and over. Currently it's about 35%
Click to expand...

I think those rates are fine, but they need to be applied to the actual income of those people-- we need to get raise capital gains and get rid of carried interest.
 
G

GhaleonEB

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
I think those rates are fine, but they need to be applied to the actual income of those people-- we need to get raise capital gains and get rid of carried interest.
Click to expand...

Yup. I'm dubious we'll get that any time soon, but it should be a point of public pressure on Congress in particular.


Nate Silver does love his sports analogies. Entertaining read and good context on the weekend polls. Bottom line:

My impressionistic view is that Mr. Obama’s polls have not been quite as strong over the past three or four days as they were early last week, but the FiveThirtyEight forecast does not yet record any signs of a turnaround. Mr. Obama’s position held steady in the “now-cast,” our estimate of what would happen in an election held today. And he gained slightly in the Nov. 6 forecast, as he is likely to do on most days in which the polling is neutral or ambiguous, since time is running off Mr. Romney’s clock.

But time in a presidential campaign is not linear. By this point next week, two of Mr. Romney’s best remaining opportunities to change the game will have come and gone.
Click to expand...
If Romney's numbers don't show an unusually large and rapid move after the debates and the jobs numbers this Friday, he's toast.
 
R

Rocket Scientist

Member
adamsappel said:
I think Geithner would have been gone a long time ago if the appointment didn't need Senate approval. Giving the Republicans an open forum to rake someone over the coals about Obama's imagined and real fiscal policies would be political theater of the worst kind. And who knows how long confirmation would take. Treasury Secretary isn't a position that should be vacant for months.
Click to expand...
While you certainly have a point, I'm not sure if the people would have accepted Republican obstruction to that particular post. It would have been seen as very clear malicious intent and an attempt to ruin the country even more over political reasons. That might not have stopped them, and Obama was definitely being his pragmatic self back then, but the country desperately needed someone else on that spot it seems. I agree it could have caused other major problems however.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
adamsappel said:
I think Geithner would have been gone a long time ago if the appointment didn't need Senate approval. Giving the Republicans an open forum to rake someone over the coals about Obama's imagined and real fiscal policies would be political theater of the worst kind. And who knows how long confirmation would take. Treasury Secretary isn't a position that should be vacant for months.
Click to expand...

i agree. along those lines, i have a Q&A session with larry summers this thursday (along with 15 other students) and i'm already sizing up some questions. mainly regarding HAMP and the stimulus.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
Rocket Scientist said:
Dude that is epic. Are you allowed to voice/video record it?
Click to expand...

the university will be recording it, i believe. and i can easily turn on my iphone voice recorder on.
the last year and half i've had the opportunity to talk to robert gates, paul krugman, david axelrod, jon huntsman, jeb bush and peter orzag. our school does a good job of bringing down a good mix of relevant policy makers and government leaders.
 
E

el retorno

Member
Incognito said:
the university will be recording it, i believe. and i can easily turn on my iphone voice recorder on.
the last year and half i've had the opportunity to talk to robert gates, paul krugman, david axelrod, jon huntsman, jeb bush and peter orzag. our school does a good job of bringing down a good mix of relevant policy makers and government leaders.
Click to expand...

Where do you go to school? Jealous to the max.
 
F

Forever

Banned
We just need one conservative justice to drop dead during Obama's second term.

Preferably fatass Scalia.

Also Ginsburg should retire, she looks ready to keel over any minute.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
The National Organization for Marriage is once again insulting the adoptive relationships of parents who do not have a biological connection with their children. Jennifer Thieme of NOM’s Ruth Institute wrote recently that banning same-sex marriage is the “compassionate choice” for children, ignoring the millions of children already being raised by same-sex couples. In an attempt to raise alarm about what will happen if heterosexual couples no longer have special recognition on government paperwork, Thieme cites the tragic case of Lisa Miller, who embraced an ex-gay identity and kidnapped her daughter away to Central America to prevent her ex-partner, Janet Jenkins, from having legal guardianship:

Conservatives, and libertarians for that matter, should be extremely alarmed at the change from gendered marriage to genderless marriage. How many have heard the story of Lisa Miller, the bio mom who lost custody of her bio daughter to her former lesbian lover due to their civil union? The lover is not related to the child by blood or adoption, and this did not matter to the judge who made the ruling. Lisa escaped with her daughter to Central America. Her name appears on the FBI and INTERPOL Wanted Lists for parental kidnapping, and the Amish pastor who helped her escape has been convicted of “aiding an international parental kidnapping of a minor.” He might be looking at three years jail time.

Lisa’s biological connection to her own daughter was disregarded in favor of a public policy aimed at promoting equality. The objective, natural, and pre-political reality lost, and the subjective, artificial, and state defined reality won.

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has also defended Miller, suggesting there should even be an “Underground Railroad” to kidnap children away — or “escape,” as Thieme writes — from same-sex parents. Both NOM and AFA are so concerned with preserving the special status of heterosexuality that they would abandon the welfare of the children in these cases. Society, through laws and courts, has an obligation to maintain secure, intact families for children in cases of adoption, surrogacy, foster care, same-sex relationships, and even step-parent situations. Prioritizing a biological relationship over keeping a child connected to her home and her parents — whoever they may genetically be — is the very opposite of a “compassionate choice.”
Click to expand...

My mind is full of fuck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eurogamer: Assassin's Creed boss discusses "devastating" impact of Shadows' diversity and inclusivity backlash
Drama 3 4 5 6 7
316
23K
EN250 replied
"We observed Nvidia and decided to wait" (Chief Architect of Gaming at AMD)
2
64
4K
Kataploom replied
[GI.biz] The future of storytelling with Ken Levine
27
1K
mitch1971 replied
[GI.biz] Cheap money and bad bets: How the games industry turned pandemic success into disaster
2
75
4K
sharp weiner replied
  • Poll
Palworld has, once again, highlighted the on going deficiencies in PC Game Pass and the Xbox app on Windows 11 (Windows Central)
Hardware Platform 2 3
111
14K
Unknown Soldier replied
Top Bottom