What does this mean?
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT3| You know what they say about big Michigans - big Florida
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
What does this mean?
BlackClouds
Member
Five or six years ago, I had a shit ton of respect for Cenk, even if I disagreed with a lot of his critiques of Obama.
Now?
Fuck both him and everyone on that piece of shit network.
Cenk and TYT was the "professional left" that really got President Obama's goat. I felt Cenk went beyond criticism, more irrational hate, and probably wishes buyer's remorse for Obama would take over the Democratic party so much he'd do anything to get it.
RustyNails
Member
Nope, that bit by sanders isnt opportunistic at all.
What does this mean?
they explain it in the link
So today, I am going to teach all of you how to use the benchmark system to follow along on election night. There are three key take home points that you should know before you consider.
- In early elections, benchmarks are not predictions. This is a common misunderstanding. Benchmarks won’t differ that far from polls, and over time, the benchmarks will be more accurate in calling a race before the race begins.
- On that same note, benchmarks allow you to make accurate projections with minimal precincts reporting. Benchmarks let you follow along with the election returns in a knowledgeable fashion. Rather than guessing how a candidate is doing based on early returns, you can make calls based on how they are expected to do in later ones.
- With this system, you can make an accurate call with 10-20% precincts reporting. It’s simple really. If 10 counties come in and 5 show Sanders doing 10% worse than expected and 5 show him doing 2% better than expected, you can feel solidly convinced that Sanders will lose by a 6% worse margin than expected in the benchmarks.
User 463088
Banned
Nope, that bit by sanders isnt opportunistic at all.
Fair play to his campaign for FINALLY figuring out how to tailor your message to a news cycle, though.
ugaboga232
Member
Also why is AIDS/HIV any more of a moral crisis than hepatitis C?
We have a hep c cure! It is just absurdly expensive.
Because it's "scarier." Zika is s joke compared to malaria but people are mobilized on it. Because deformed babies!Also why is AIDS/HIV any more of a moral crisis than hepatitis C?
We have a hep c cure! It is just absurdly expensive.
We also have pretty effective treatment for HIV. It's also incredibly expensive. In fact, Truvada and Sovaldi/Harvoni are both made by Gilead! Why focus on HIV? Why not just make every drug free to all?
ugaboga232
Member
If Trump succeeds in imposing a fascist regime I feel like the Bernie bros would be the first to collaborate and point out where the minorities are hiding.
Are you just projecting all of your hate onto bernie bros?
vicissitudes
Banned
What is Trump to the left of Hillary on besides trade (which I argue is not a left-right position in the first place)?
Well, trade is a huge part of his platform, but I would argue campaign finance reform (which is also not exactly a left-right position). He's also less hawkish than Hillary when it comes to foreign policy. And I suspect he is more progressive than Hillary on some aspects of healthcare.
what do you think conservatives picture in their heads when you say "muslim"?
can you think of an external trait that might serve as differentiation between their in-group and their prototypic image of "muslims" - these are the people who think sikhs and hindus are "muslims", what could their reason be for that?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
That's the point. They can't just ban anyone who "looks" Muslim. It's not real policy. It's rhetoric designed to evoke a certain imagery in the minds of certain voters and elicit an emotional response.
If Trump succeeds in imposing a fascist regime I feel like the Bernie bros would be the first to collaborate and point out where the minorities are hiding.
This is really unnecessary. Stop it.
lastflowers
Banned
Haven't paid much attention to the primaries since Super Tuesday... Does Clinton still have a lock on the nomination?
almost guaranteed.
ugaboga232
Member
We also have pretty effective treatment for HIV. It's also incredibly expensive. In fact, Truvada and Sovaldi/Harvoni are both made by Gilead! Why focus on HIV? Why not just make every drug free to all?
I feel like this is a trap (i feel most people would not support public creation of drugs cuz of free market or something dumb) because I would have had CDC/NIH develop key drugs and sell them at cost for stuff like this. I guess HIV has cultural significance due to all the fear and history behind it. HIV patients have I think average life expectancy now, and theres still decent research on it. I would say we should focus on mental illnesses because of how much economic damage it causes, how its only getting more common (gonna overtake heart failure for DALY loss), and how we have absolutely shit treatments (plus suicide is a real problem).
Even science/medicine is not fully immune from emotion/lack of logic/efficiency. I guess that's what happens when you are dependent on an underfunded government agency for your livelihood (can't wait to join in a few short years).
If Drumpf succeeds in imposing a fascist regime I feel like the Bernie bros would be the first to collaborate and point out where the minorities are hiding.
...Are you serious right now. The narrative of: "You can't be a minority and support Bernie" continues.
User 463088
Banned
For me, the HIV/AIDS issue is far more cultural (I guess is the word I want?) than practical. The ways in which the LGBT community was just ravaged by the epidemic was horrible. The ways in which we're still vilified by it are wounds that take time to heal. My parents who never gave a shit that I was queer were terrified that I'd fail to be careful and end up exposing myself.
So, I think thats why, for me at least, Hillary's idiotic statement was just painful. I think it's why it's more of an issue for me than diseases like Hep C or other STDs/STIs. It's just the historical significance of the entire thing. That's just me though. I can't speak for anyone else.
So, I think thats why, for me at least, Hillary's idiotic statement was just painful. I think it's why it's more of an issue for me than diseases like Hep C or other STDs/STIs. It's just the historical significance of the entire thing. That's just me though. I can't speak for anyone else.
Macho Madness
Member
I'll give you trade and campaign finance (though I expect this changes when he gets the nom)Well, trade is a huge part of his platform, but I would argue campaign finance reform (which is also not exactly a left-right position). He's also less hawkish than Hillary when it comes to foreign policy. And I suspect he is more progressive than Hillary on some aspects of healthcare
The rest, no way. He wants to send tens of thousands of troops to the Middle East and bully the world into imposing his will. That's way more hawkish.
On healthcare, it used to seem that way but his actual plan is just as shitty as any other "republican free market" bullshit thing. It's way worse than the ACA.
ugaboga232
Member
I'll give you trade and campaign finance (though I expect this changes when he gets the nom)
The rest, no way. He wants to send tens of thousands of troops to the Middle East and bully the world into imposing his will. That's way more hawkish.
On healthcare, it used to seem that way but his actual plan is just as shitty as any other "republican free market" bullshit thing. It's way worse than the ACA.
IM DUMB, trump's healthcare and foreign policy sucks.
User 463088
Banned
Wut on foreign policy
On health care its not way worse than the ACA or republican free market bullshit (which ACA basically is one step above). If you wanna quote the thorpe analysis go for it but its an ok plan (won't get voted in but its still decent).
They're talking about in what ways is Trump more left than Hillary.
vicissitudes
Banned
Looking at target delegates for Trump on Tuesday (from 538), he needs to win 272/367 delegates. To break it down by state, he needs to win both Florida and Ohio, which are WTA.
Right now he's looking good for Florida, but probably won't win Ohio. If he loses Ohio to Kasich, I'm trying to draw up a best possible scenario for Trump. He's leading in all the other states iirc.
Florida (WTA): Trump wins 99/99
Illinois (WTM): Trump wins ~60/69
Missouri (WTM): Trump wins ~40/52
North Carolina (proportional): Trump wins ~40/72
Ohio (WTA): Trump loses to Kasich 0/99
In such a scenario where polls mostly hold, he would win ~239 delegates, still falling short of his target. It would give him about 700 total delegates our of 1237 needed.
It seems like he would need to win Florida and the other 3 big states by a substantial margin to be on track to actually win the nomination. If he loses Florida, or if he loses 1-2 of the other states, he's in big trouble.
Right now he's looking good for Florida, but probably won't win Ohio. If he loses Ohio to Kasich, I'm trying to draw up a best possible scenario for Trump. He's leading in all the other states iirc.
Florida (WTA): Trump wins 99/99
Illinois (WTM): Trump wins ~60/69
Missouri (WTM): Trump wins ~40/52
North Carolina (proportional): Trump wins ~40/72
Ohio (WTA): Trump loses to Kasich 0/99
In such a scenario where polls mostly hold, he would win ~239 delegates, still falling short of his target. It would give him about 700 total delegates our of 1237 needed.
It seems like he would need to win Florida and the other 3 big states by a substantial margin to be on track to actually win the nomination. If he loses Florida, or if he loses 1-2 of the other states, he's in big trouble.
Wut on foreign policy
On health care its not way worse than the ACA or republican free market bullshit (which ACA basically is one step above). If you wanna quote the thorpe analysis go for it but its an ok plan (won't get voted in but its still decent).
What? Isn't he talking about areas in which Trump is further to the right than Hillary?
Looking at target delegates for Trump on Tuesday (from 538), he needs to win 272/367 delegates. To break it down by state, he needs to win both Florida and Ohio, which are WTA.
Right now he's looking good for Florida, but probably won't win Ohio. If he loses Ohio to Kasich, I'm trying to draw up a best possible scenario for Trump. He's leading in all the other states iirc.
Florida (WTA): Trump wins 99/99
Illinois (WTM): Trump wins ~60/69
Missouri (WTM): Trump wins ~40/52
North Carolina (proportional): Trump wins ~40/72
Ohio (WTA): Trump loses to Kasich 0/99
In such a scenario where polls mostly hold, he would win ~239 delegates, still falling short of his target. It would give him about 700 total delegates our of 1237 needed.
It seems like he would need to win Florida and the other 3 big states by a substantial margin to be on track to actually win the nomination. If he loses Florida, or if he loses 1-2 of the other states, he's in big trouble.
Can't he afford to slightly miss his delegate target on Tuesday because he's slightly ahead now?
ugaboga232
Member
They're talking about in what ways is Trump more left than Hillary.
Oh god sorry, my brain is super fried, had an all day science retreat (not really a retreat lol). Thanks for the catch. Yea trumps healthcare and foreign policy is crap.
What has Trump said he'll do on campaign finance reform? He just shit talks people with PACs. He hasn't proposed any legislation to curb it and his SCOTUS nominees (which he's said would follow a Thomas-Scalia template) wouldn't overturn Citizens United.
He hasn't even ruled out taking external money for the general.
He hasn't even ruled out taking external money for the general.
eBay Huckster
Member
...Are you serious right now. The narrative of: "You can't be a minority and support Bernie" continues.
your responses to cerium highlight that whole "either stop posting in poligaf or chill out immensely" point someone brought up a week or two ago in response to a few of your posts
because he does this partly to get a rise out of OT, and if you frequented this place instead of passive-aggressively referencing it whenever it fits an argument of persecution you'd know this
vicissitudes
Banned
Can't he afford to slightly miss his delegate target on Tuesday because he's slightly ahead now?
Well he was 113% after Super Tuesday and now he's down to 104%. Cruz has been gaining more momentum and overperforming ever since Nevada (when I think Trump was strongest). If Trump underperforms again this Tuesday I think it will be very difficult for him to win the nomination outright.
What has Trump said he'll do on campaign finance reform? He just shit talks people with PACs. He hasn't proposed any legislation to curb it and his SCOTUS nominees (which he's said would follow a Thomas-Scalia template) wouldn't overturn Citizens United.
He hasn't even ruled out taking external money for the general.
I think the assumption is that he's going to dissolve Congress before his first term ends and never face reelection himself. Campaign finance won't be an issue without campaigns.
your responses to cerium highlight that whole "either stop posting in poligaf or chill out immensely" point someone brought up a week or two ago
because he does this partly to get a rise out of OT, and if you frequented this place instead of passive-aggressively referencing it whenever it fits an argument of persecution you'd know this
This reminds me of some posters in OT who are conspiracy theorists over the fact that some of us call Hillary our queen.
She's actually our empress.
because he does this partly to get a rise out of OT
I'm 100% sincere and could go on at length about why I believe that, but Y2Kev doesn't want this to become an extended topic of discussion.
Where did you see this?Except there's nothing pointing to Bernie being on Drumpf's end of that curve at all. The studies I've seen point to him being equal with Hillary on the Libertarian/Authoritarianism curve.
It's the populist vs establishment curve that Drumpf and Sanders share, not libertarian vs authoritarian.
Well he was 113% after Super Tuesday and now he's down to 104%. Cruz has been gaining more momentum and overperforming ever since Nevada (when I think Trump was strongest). If Trump underperforms again this Tuesday I think it will be very difficult for him to win the nomination outright.
I think Cruz has been outperforming relative to Rubio for sure. Last Tuesday seemed pretty strong for Trump.
If Rubio drops, I really don't think Trump will have a lot of difficulty mopping up many of the rest of the states. I would expect him to walk away with NY and NJ.
That's the point. They can't just ban anyone who "looks" Muslim. It's not real policy. It's rhetoric designed to evoke a certain imagery in the minds of certain voters and elicit an emotional response.
they can't? says who? what exactly is stopping them from instituting this policy?
human decency was wounded in an explosion meant for the cousins of a terrorist who ran away from home without saying a word, is now being detained, and i've heard is next in line for something "far worse than torture" - so it's not stopping anything
ha, do you really think if trump wins office his supporters will all calm down and enjoy their wonderful liberal healthcare that would benefit "illegals" and "welfare queens"? do you think his supporters are all complete brainless - in the most literal sense of the word lacking a frontal lobe and decision making abilities - idiots who are under the spell of trump, and when he says "oh, lol turns out i can't actually ban muslims" they would be satiated?
eBay Huckster
Member
I'm 100% sincere and could go on at length about why I believe that, but Y2Kev doesn't want this to become an extended topic of discussion.
noted. (i do think you're hamming it up just a little bit, but a) this is neogaf. everyone does that and 2) there's always PMs.)
in unrelated news, i'm gonna be in cleveland until the 17th and in chicago from then until sunday, so posting's probably not gonna be a thing from me for a while.
(though i might pop in on tuesday night and will make no promises about sobriety regardless of how those primaries go)
brainchild
Banned
It looks like Tyler is going to be revising his projections, as the data has already changed (Sanders/Clinton tie in IL, Sanders slightly leads in MO). He accredits phonebanking for the shift in variables, and sees a similar pattern of surging interest as he saw with Michigan.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor...ler_here_again_illinois_now_tied_bernie_lead/
It should be noted that Tyler does not post his final projections until the day of the respective primary, presumably because his model depends on the data being as recent as possible.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor...ler_here_again_illinois_now_tied_bernie_lead/
It should be noted that Tyler does not post his final projections until the day of the respective primary, presumably because his model depends on the data being as recent as possible.
Well, trade is a huge part of his platform, but I would argue campaign finance reform (which is also not exactly a left-right position). He's also less hawkish than Hillary when it comes to foreign policy. And I suspect he is more progressive than Hillary on some aspects of healthcare.
Okay, argue it. You can look up Hillary's campaign finance reform positions on her website. What positions do you think Trump would be to the left of, specifically? Why do you think he'd take those positions?
Your "suspicions" on Trump's healthcare positions are just you projecting the policies you want onto an ignorant racist, unless you have some actual evidence.
That's the point. They can't just ban anyone who "looks" Muslim. It's not real policy. It's rhetoric designed to evoke a certain imagery in the minds of certain voters and elicit an emotional response.
First off, obviously, you can in fact discriminate (and imprison, and indeed murder) people based on their religion, even if you're judging that religion based on totally unreliable evidence like external appearance or last names. Once you have already violated the basic tenets of human decency enough to start rounding people up, little details like accuracy in judgement are just not that important. I'm honestly depressed that I even have to say this, but it's definitely possible.
Secondly, even if you were correct, I have no idea why you would think this was some kind of defense. Offering xenophobic fascist policy suggestions that you also know are impossible is in no way better than offering xenophobic fascist policy suggestions that you think can actually be carried out! Why would that make any difference? The fundamental problem here isn't that Donald Trump might not understand how government works very well (I mean, although that's not great either), it's that Donald Trump is suggesting it would be a good idea to discriminate on a state level against all Muslims, and that's horrendously immoral, deeply anti-American, and frankly dangerous.
RustyNails
Member
Who's making the townhall thread?
ugaboga232
Member
So Greenwald is RTing Bernie supporters who have been harrassed by Hillary supporters. But why? I thought one of his original points on the BernieBro narrative was that people are mean in any movement?
Maybe to support that point? Maybe someone was saying that Hillary or XXXX group doesn't have that type of person.
User 463088
Banned
Let's be honest:
Trump's slogan of "Let's make America great again" is just code for "Let's make America white/straight/Christian again."
No more. No less.
Trump's slogan of "Let's make America great again" is just code for "Let's make America white/straight/Christian again."
No more. No less.
brainchild
Banned
So Greenwald is RTing Bernie supporters who have been harrassed by Hillary supporters. But why? I thought one of his original points on the BernieBro narrative was that people are mean in any movement?
I don't see the problem. Just because it's common in any movement doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discouraged or exposed.
Maybe to support that point? Maybe someone was saying that Hillary or XXXX group doesn't have that type of person.
I guess? But it seems kind of silly to RT one person who got called ugly by a Hillary supporter instead of actually talking about why the BernieBro narrative misses the point.
I don't see the problem. Just because it's common in any movement doesn't mean that it shouldn't be discouraged or exposed.
Sure, but I don't think that's the point he's making. I actually can't quite tell what point he's making besides he's mad that he got called a libertarian on MSNBC (fair) and he's saying something about Hillary supporters unable to understand criticism of her? Or something?
Well he was 113% after Super Tuesday and now he's down to 104%. Cruz has been gaining more momentum and overperforming ever since Nevada (when I think Trump was strongest). If Trump underperforms again this Tuesday I think it will be very difficult for him to win the nomination outright.
Cruz has already exhausted his wheelhouse of the Southern Evangelical states and came out behind Trump. Trump is set to do significantly better coming up and Cruz is set to fall off.
Coriolanus
Banned
Right. I was meaning to write a bigass piece on brpol, buuut im fucking lazy and the facebook was kind and decided to throw this in my timeline, which is... surprisingly similar to what i'd write, given my considerably left-wing predisposition, so might as well just link it anyway.
Anyway, that was a month ago. Today we had the largest protest since Diretas Já, and it surpassed that. This means that the president is most likely (eventually) well and truly fucked. It also means that whoever takes over will drink deep from the austerity well. During a (largely) self-induced economic crisis. Joy.
It wouldn't be so annoying if the vice-president's party, which will then take over, hadn't been The Power or a major part of power and deeply involved in corruption scandals since '86, but hey, fuck it, might as well give them direct power again, last time it happened we only had Maduro levels of incompetence.
It also wouldn't be so annoying if the president hadn't pulled a fucking Tsipras, being reelected on an antiausterity platform, then instantly designating a FinMin that was a heavy defender of the practice. He tried to implement it and lo, the economy degraded faster. Dude lasted a year, then got the fuck out, salty that he found pushback against his measures. One of the few advantages of a grotesquely corrupt congress: it quickly realized that if they cut errywhere, they'd have less to steal.
I'd like to say that that was the end of the austerity push, but it wasn't. This year the federal government was already expecting a gdp contraction of 1.8% and (imma asspull the value on this one, just for reference) a targetted inflation of +-6% and announced those values. Then it went and announced that it would reduce government spending by some 38 billions. And revised the gdp contraction number to 2.8% and expected inflation to increase to 7%.
Like. What the fuck. Prez. Why. You're an economist. Wtf are you doing. No one that voted for you wanted this shit. You flat-out state that it will make the economy even worse and you're gonna go ahead with it? Why?
Well. What she's most likely doing is buying support in congress, but i digress.
Then congress changes a law to allow the federal goverment to sell pre-salt petroleum without involving petrobras in the exploration. Which is code for privatizing our oil fields. Which means that they'll sell them. During an economic crisis. While oil is at the lowest value it has been in decades.
Ah hell.
it's... somewhat fascinating to observe the narratives that emerge during this period. An example that readily springs to mind is some days ago, when the ex-president was coercively led by the federal police to provide a statement in a criminal investigation. The price of the dollar went down that day, and the narrative pushed forward was that it was due to that event, couched in terms like "the market sees this as a good sign", completely ignoring that in the previous day service sector reports came out in the US and the dollar was losing value against almost every single currency in the globe. The same happened when a prosecutor asked for his preventive arrest a few days later and the dollar went down again.
it's such a... grotesquely parochial narrative. Gods. Ain't even a new thing. Has been going on since at least the 50's, called our "mutt complex".
I won't see the brunt of it since 0.1% master race ueber allen, but gods damn it. To hope that you're wrong about what's to come when one has been correct nearly every single damn time (locally) isn't exactly enjoyable. Some stuff being left out like the rise of extremism, but that should take a while longer to fester into something genuinely threatening.
Anyway, that was a month ago. Today we had the largest protest since Diretas Já, and it surpassed that. This means that the president is most likely (eventually) well and truly fucked. It also means that whoever takes over will drink deep from the austerity well. During a (largely) self-induced economic crisis. Joy.
It wouldn't be so annoying if the vice-president's party, which will then take over, hadn't been The Power or a major part of power and deeply involved in corruption scandals since '86, but hey, fuck it, might as well give them direct power again, last time it happened we only had Maduro levels of incompetence.
It also wouldn't be so annoying if the president hadn't pulled a fucking Tsipras, being reelected on an antiausterity platform, then instantly designating a FinMin that was a heavy defender of the practice. He tried to implement it and lo, the economy degraded faster. Dude lasted a year, then got the fuck out, salty that he found pushback against his measures. One of the few advantages of a grotesquely corrupt congress: it quickly realized that if they cut errywhere, they'd have less to steal.
I'd like to say that that was the end of the austerity push, but it wasn't. This year the federal government was already expecting a gdp contraction of 1.8% and (imma asspull the value on this one, just for reference) a targetted inflation of +-6% and announced those values. Then it went and announced that it would reduce government spending by some 38 billions. And revised the gdp contraction number to 2.8% and expected inflation to increase to 7%.
Like. What the fuck. Prez. Why. You're an economist. Wtf are you doing. No one that voted for you wanted this shit. You flat-out state that it will make the economy even worse and you're gonna go ahead with it? Why?
Well. What she's most likely doing is buying support in congress, but i digress.
Then congress changes a law to allow the federal goverment to sell pre-salt petroleum without involving petrobras in the exploration. Which is code for privatizing our oil fields. Which means that they'll sell them. During an economic crisis. While oil is at the lowest value it has been in decades.
Ah hell.
it's... somewhat fascinating to observe the narratives that emerge during this period. An example that readily springs to mind is some days ago, when the ex-president was coercively led by the federal police to provide a statement in a criminal investigation. The price of the dollar went down that day, and the narrative pushed forward was that it was due to that event, couched in terms like "the market sees this as a good sign", completely ignoring that in the previous day service sector reports came out in the US and the dollar was losing value against almost every single currency in the globe. The same happened when a prosecutor asked for his preventive arrest a few days later and the dollar went down again.
it's such a... grotesquely parochial narrative. Gods. Ain't even a new thing. Has been going on since at least the 50's, called our "mutt complex".
I won't see the brunt of it since 0.1% master race ueber allen, but gods damn it. To hope that you're wrong about what's to come when one has been correct nearly every single damn time (locally) isn't exactly enjoyable. Some stuff being left out like the rise of extremism, but that should take a while longer to fester into something genuinely threatening.
So Greenwald is RTing Bernie supporters who have been harrassed by Hillary supporters. But why? I thought one of his original points on the BernieBro narrative was that people are mean in any movement?
To reinforce the point.
I think the assumption is that he's going to dissolve Congress before his first term ends and never face reelection himself. Campaign finance won't be an issue without campaigns.
But even Palpatine had a Senate for a little while!
ugaboga232
Member
I guess? But it seems kind of silly to RT one person who got called ugly by a Hillary supporter instead of actually talking about why the BernieBro narrative misses the point.
At this point in the election, I think everyone is silly. Obama was clean but then his recent comments on encryption dinged his perfect record.
Macho Madness
Member
Okay that Tyler guy's a quack.
Relying on phonebanking and this
Relying on phonebanking and this
I would daresay it would be an indication that Bernie will be the eventual nominee if Bernie beats Hillary in Ohio and especially Illinois.
your responses to cerium highlight that whole "either stop posting in poligaf or chill out immensely" point someone brought up a week or two ago in response to a few of your posts
because he does this partly to get a rise out of OT, and if you frequented this place instead of passive-aggressively referencing it whenever it fits an argument of persecution you'd know this
I mean, this is a pretty bad defense though. "Why would you respond angrily to Cerium when he's just trolling" is not really a reasonable question, that's literally why you troll people. The correct response is for the PoliGAF posters who think it's funny to troll OT to quit doing that shit, the same way Oblivion did because, you know, he kept getting banned for trolling OT.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.