chenGOD
-
Posts
20,652 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by chenGOD
-
-
On 9/11/2023 at 2:59 PM, Ivan Ooze said:
Just hang out at the station at night, plenty watmmers there
Will you be there?
-
2 hours ago, droid said:
The events leading up to the war are complex, but I don't think there's any serious commentator who claims that political repression in the South was not a major factor. At least 30,000 dead at Jeju, hardline crackdowns of labour movements and protests, the 1948 election mired in violence, murder and boycotts, and ofc Rhee was responsible for the deaths of at least 200,000 between 1948 and 1954, the victims of massacre and political murder, which is strong indication of the character of his regime. It is in this context that the invasion took place, as the North (rightfully) viewed the south as a client state of a foreign power that was hellbent on opposing anything other than the most modest of socialist and political reform, which, as elsewhere in Asia, was wildly popular amongst the population. For the North (as with Vietnam) it was seen as a war of liberation against another set of colonial invaders and their quislings. That said, ofc I don't think the SK right wanted war, but I do think it fits very well historically into the US mode of operation.
I think there are lots of serious commentators who disagree with that analysis. Cumings himself (good use of the word quislings by the way - Cumings loves it) has written that he sees the war as an extension of Kim Il Sung fighting the Japanese, and especially to seek vengeance on the Koreans who collaborated with the colonizers. Don Oberdorfer digs in to Soviet archives and finds repeated requests from Kim Il Sung to Stalin to authorize the invasion, with no mention of the Cheju massacre. This is hardly surprising, as Cheju is as far away from Pyongyang as it is possible to be, but still be in Korea. North Korea had no interactions with nor provided support for the leftists in Cheju. The overall repression of leftists was perhaps a factor, but not a major one. Kim Il Sung saw himself as some divinely ordained leader who would reunite the peninsula (interesting there was an attempt to remove him from power in 1956), and that was really the driving force for the war. The North even made economic plans that were based on them winning the war and including the southern output in their economic considerations.
I'll attach a paper by Don Baker that discusses the collective memory of the four major events of the 20th century (the Cheju uprising is not one of them, but it is discussed).
5 hours ago, droid said:Oh yeah, Im well aware of NK's long history of espionage, but I was thinking of the constant surveillance of NK by UC spy planes and satellites, the time honoured deployment of CIA spies with weapons inspectors and the more recent sabotage of NK missile tests by the US.
Yes, I agree that if NK had spent less on defence they would have had more money for everything else, that's precisely my point. Whatever about the appalling internal policies of the country, they have had a real and legitimate fear, articulated repeatedly by the US of total atomic annihilation.I mean NK did a little bit more than espionage (assassination attempts, landing submarines on SK shores, digging tunnels under the DMZ, kidnapping Japanese citizens etc.) and it looks like NK has gotten around the US cyber program that was sabotaging their missile tests.
The US has only ever threatened retaliation should the North Korean military launch another invasion. I find it a little odd that you're willing to wave away plans for invasions sent to the Chinese in the 1960s, as well as the creation of offensive missile capabilities. Maybe if the North Koreans spent less on their aggressive military posturing (it is not about defence - it is about controlling the young male population and posturing to the North Koreans about the strength of their military - they are very proud of it), they would have more money for economic development.
Anyhow, we're far off the topic of central planning vs capitalism, and their outcomes.
-
-
30 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:
ah yes USSR is to blame for imperial russia and china is to blame for what was done centuries before. they started with fucking nothing. they started with a plow and were left with nukes because of marxism-leninism
They didn't start with nothing. The USSR literally took over the land that was accumulated during Russian Imperialism. China started with less than the USSR, to be fair, but it wasn't nothing. Mao's planning made things infinitely worse for the Chinese population, and it wasn't until Deng Xiaoping's reforms came into effect (accounting for the lag effect of economic policy) that Chinese quality of life started turning around. China hasn't been communist for a long time, they have followed the developmental state model, and now have a mixture of State-owned enterprise and private enterprise. Xi especially has increased the amount of FDI in the country, and reduced the number of SOEs, increasing the number of firms who have private property.
I will say this for Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping, at least they reversed the privatization of health services in China. Healthcare in China in the 90s was stupid expensive (worse than the US), but they've gradually expanded universal healthcare and coverage by the state. I believe it's up to about 70% of all costs are now borne by the state, which is certainly impressive in a country with China's population. Now if they could allow actual unions, that would be a good turn for the Chinese population. Something the US and China have in common!
-
1 hour ago, zlemflolia said:
without requiring centuries of imperialism and slavery to accumulate stolen wealth, same as china,
Both the USSR and China have engaged in centuries of imperialism, not sure what you're on about. USSR expropriated the wealth and territories accumulated under Imperial Russia, and Chinese history of expansionism speaks for itself - and continues to do so (see Tibet, reneging on the HK treaty, border disputes with India/Nepal/Bhutan).
-
6 hours ago, droid said:
I appreciate the reasoned response, but I think you are overlooking something critical. Constant attack does not necessarily have to come in military form. It can come as sanctions, economic pressure, espionage, sabotage, or even the threat of attack, which can often, in of itself massively distort economies, as Im sure youre aware as NK currently spends about 25% of its annual budget on the military.
I don't particularly want to get in the intricacies of post-colonial asian geo-politics, but the only way this would seem vaguely plausible is if you completely ignore what happened in the years prior to each war, which in both cases were preceded by endless broken pledges by the US and its clients, manipulated or cancelled elections and labour crackdowns, state terror and massacres like the Jeju uprising. The US wanted to eliminate socialism in Asia and fold the region into a US dominated economic order and did everything they could to achieve this aim, including the escalation of atrocities to provoke military responses, at which point they would annihilate their opponents. Korea was in this sense a test run for Vietnam. I honestly would have thought this was uncontroversial at this point.
Of course constant attack is not necessarily in military form. I think US sanctions have been a massive failure with respect to North Korea, and wish they would reconsider the targets of those sanctions. I do find it somewhat ironic you consider espionage, or the threat of attack when the majority of those pressures come from North Korea (see assassination attempts such as the Blue House Raid, the bombing in Yangon that attempted to assassinate the SK president Chun Doo-Hwan, the targeting of North Korean defectors), or look at this long list of provocations and see how many originated with North Korean soldiers/agents infiltrating the South: https://beyondparallel.csis.org/database-north-korean-provocations/. This interview for the BBC from a defector provides some interesting insight: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58838834
Perhaps if the North had spent less of their budget on the military and more on economic development, they might not be in the state they are in today - but of course, the ultimate goal of juche thought was really about keeping the Kim family in power, and not about creating a centrally planned economy that was beneficial for all North Koreans.
The US/USSR both wanted to form a trusteeship to govern Korea, as they both believed Korea wasn't ready for self-rule, despite centuries of self-governance in Choseon Korea. For all his faults, Rhee at least opposed this. The Communists in the North supported it (btw, I'm sure we are in agreement that North Korea post-1950 was not communist?). Regardless, the lack of support in the South led to the withdrawal of American forces by the end of 1948, and the same with Russian forces in the North in the same year. I am curious though how you think the repression of Communists in the South caused the North Korean military to invade? Do you honestly believe that the right-wing factions in the South wanted to cause the invasion?
Speaking of reading history, while Cumings is great, he does make some very specific leaps of faith in his writing, and continues to deny that the DPRK initiated the Korean War (which started when North Korean troops rolled across the 49th parallel on June 25th, 1950) - but at least he finally alludes to both the Soviet Union and the US in being culpable in their roles, instead of just blaming the US.
All of these events took place against the economic backdrops of central planning and capitalism. And there is no doubt which one ended up providing more for its citizens. And yes, even while capitalism does have many failings, it has been better than any implementation of central planning we have seen to date.
-
47 minutes ago, droid said:
OK, so you know your stuff, but to claim so glibly that SK and NK both 'started from the same place', whilst ignoring the unimaginable, genocidal destruction wreaked on the North and then the most profound impact on the economy the dissolution of the Soviet Union - seems remarkably disingenuous, I mean, how precisely could NK have '80% of the peninsula's heavy industry' when virtually every single target in NK was destroyed by US bombing? If you have read Cummings you will know just how devastating the bombing campaign was. Even as you acknowledge the complexity of the issue you then dismiss the disastrous 1997 recession as a 'hiccup', ignoring the gargantuan structural problems at the heart of SK's capitalist economy that caused the recession.
The problem with every critique of left economies is that it ignores an indisputable historical fact. From Russia, to Chile, Vietnam and the Congo, virtually every single state that seriously attempted to adopt communist or socialist economic models was either smothered in its cradle or attacked with such overwhelming force that it faced total destruction. You cannot assess the economic validity or potential of any group or organisation if they are subject to constant attack and undermining by vastly more powerful opponents, it would be like asking you to complete your tax return and plan your finances whilst someone burns your house down and beats you to a pulp.Ugh I'm going to bed sorry for not being more clear, I meant to convey that NK had 80% of the peninsula's heavy industry before the war, so the South had 20% and much of that was wrecked during the war. Ultimately they really started from the same place.
Look - here's a series of pictures of Cheonggyecheon (a stream that runs through Seoul) from 1950s, 1961, 1980s, 2007. You can see the South started from the same place - it all looked like that. The 1997 crisis really was a hiccup - and it wasn't capitalism - it was the lack of regulation that had been imposed on capital flows combined with investors' tendency to panic in the face of uncertainty, as well as regional contagion. The IMF prescriptions made things worse.
North Korea hasn't been under constant attack since the end of the Korean War, and were actually planning to start a second war with Chinese support in the 1960s: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/sino-dprk-relations-and-kim-il-sungs-militant-strategy-1965-1967
I'm not versed enough in African history/political economy to pass any verdicts there, but I'd point out in Vietnam, just as in Korea, the initial aggressors were the Viet Cong, who were supported by the North Vietnamese.
-
2 hours ago, droid said:
Im sorry but this is completely insane, NK & SK did not start from the 'same economic/industrialised base'. In the Korean war, more bombs were dropped that in the entire pacific theatre of WWII. Virtually every single structure in north Korea larger than a hut was bombed or burnt out of existence, with up to 90% of North Korean cities destroyed, millions killed and the entire country essentially moved underground, a campaign that has been creditably described as genocidal. Despite this, NK somehow managed to rebuild the county in an unprecedentedly swift modernisation and the conventional wisdom is that per capita income in North Korea exceeded that of South Korea well into the 1970s.
Indeed as well as being governed by a succession of military juntas, SK was considered an economic basket case for decades after the war despite significant US investment and support and their integration in the US dominated asian economic sphere. The decline of NK since has as much to do with the fall of the soviets as mismanagement due to central planning, and there are a multitude of other historical, economic and political factors which have led to this situation, most notably the continued refusal of the US to enter in detente despite numerous attempts by successive SK and NK administrations, and indeed historically high support for unification amongst South Koreans.
You guys really need to read some history.
Thanks for this - I majored in Asian Area Studies with a specific focus on the Korean peninsula (wanted to make use of my 10 years living in South Korea).
Who would you suggest I read? Bruce Cumings for his revisionist history (The Origins of the Korean War Vol.I is outstanding, Vol.II not quite as good, and Korea's Place in the Sun also very good), or should I read Andrei Lankov's Crisis in North Korea: The Failure of De-Stalinization, 1956 (particularly relevant to this topic), or his earlier From Stalin to Kim Il-Sung? Maybe Balazs Szalontai's Kim Il Sung in the Khrushchev Era: Soviet-DPRK Relations and the Roots of North Korean Despotism, 1953-1964 (which is incredible and everyone should read it), or maybe Don Oberdorfer's The Two Koreas? Or the large number of Korean historians who write in both English and Korean - especially economic historians?
You are right, North Korea was bombed much more extensively than South Korea. However, North Korea also contained around 80% of the peninsula's heavy industry, and so the South and North were essentially starting from the same industrial base. They were both fairly egalitarian at the start, as the decades of Japanese colonization had removed much of the land from the landowners.
North Korea received massive aid from the Soviets, Eastern Bloc members, and China, which arrived in the form of monetary aid and consumer and industrial goods. While North Korea maintained good relations with the Soviet Union their economy did grow very quickly, faster than the South until the 1970s for sure (but probably not by as much as is made out - official statistics from North Korea then (and now) remain limited). South Korean growth was limited largely because in the immediate aftermath of the Korean War, the South Korea president Syngman Rhee chose a path of import substitution industrialization, which limited growth opportunities for South Korea. As well, US aid was largely conditional on maintaining stability rather than promoting growth.
When Park Chung-Hee took over control of the South Korean government as dictator, there was ironically a large degree of government intervention in economic policy, but not anywhere close to the central planning of North Korea. Instead, South Korea pursued an export oriented industrialization that promoted state-backed companies (chaebol) or in the case of POSCO (the steel company) actual state-owned enterprise. But instead of setting quotas and guiding development of specific industry (apart from steel), the South Korean government intervened by setting prices through the use of subsidies with performance bonuses (hyper simplified but it'll do).
North Korean economic policy as dictated by Kim Il-Sung was the introduction of juche, with clearly laid out ideals that were established with the goal of making the country independent, self-confident, and self-sufficient. Yes they were overly reliant on the Soviets, but the central planning that originated in the aftermath of the Korean War and continues to the present day has led to much of the disparity between the two countries. An example of central planning that failed even during the period of good relations between the Soviets and North Korea is the chollima movement. Increased quantity to meet quotas, but killed the quality of goods being produced, and then directed resources to certain sectors at the neglect of other sectors.
I could go on and on, but at the end of the day - the central planning in the DPRK remains to this day and continues to be a failure, while South Korea encouraged state-managed capitalism in the 1970s and even with hiccups like the 1997 recession (the so-called IMF recession) or the 2008 recession, the difference in the two economies is stark.
QuoteThe continued refusal of the US to enter in detente despite numerous attempts by successive SK and NK administrations, and indeed historically high support for unification amongst South Koreans.
The North Koreans have never bargained in good faith, and they have arbitrarily ended economic arrangements that had been put in place. As to support by South Koreans for unification - it waxes and wanes.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, zlemflolia said:
ur really gonna sit here and say food output would be better if they left land distributed into small landholding manual labor peasants? give me a break. if they did not take these type of measures they would have been decisively genocided by the nazis
u think ur advocating for capitalist economic planning when ur actually advocating feudal economic relations which is hilarious as fk, you think youre comparing equivalent countries where only capitalism vs "central planning" are the differences but instead comparing undeveloped rural nations, and one literally imperialized for centuries, to the most industrially advanced imperialists LMAO
u think ur talking about capitalist nations non-collectivized non-centrally planned vs centrally planned but ur really talking about exploiter nations that imported basically stolen goods for centuries
youre acting like these things exist in a vacuum with no other history influencing it
cant make this shit up
Why can't you stick to the question that you asked me instead of taking a gish gallop approach to this? Why don't you come up with a counter-example where a centrally planned economy has resulted in better outcomes than one which uses capitalism as its basis?
There's a perfect example - North Korea vs South Korea. Both created at the same moment in time, with the exact two approaches we're discussing being used, both starting from the same economic/industrialized base. So why don't you tell me why you think North Korea's central planning and devolution to a fascist state with autarky is the better option than South Korea?
Quoteu think ur talking about capitalist nations non-collectivized non-centrally planned vs centrally planned but ur really talking about exploiter nations that imported basically stolen goods for centuries
This shit is particularly hilarious, as if any of the nations that have tried to implement communism haven't engaged in the same practices (stolen goods, human trafficking, exploitation of labour, etc.)
-
On 9/10/2023 at 7:18 AM, user said:
This is a very nice photo with a lot of lens flare. But not sure how it relates to my question? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.
-
1
-
-
On 9/7/2023 at 7:49 PM, mcbpete said:
Nah must've been before that - I'm assuming my 'sorry' was in reference to its (then) overuse. It might've come about originally from that guy who posted progress in EKT of construction of wooden acoustic panels, and then ripped into everyone for not appreciating the nulls (and would post continually posts tracks at something like 81% speed for some reason). I could be wrong but I thought it might've been the same person that referred to the Analord .flac releases when they were briefly available on Rephlex as 'digital vinyls/vinals'
Was is maybe this thread ?
Man the OCD on display in the linked autechre thread there was wild. (null)
-
4 hours ago, zlemflolia said:
you think imperialism and foreign policy designed to maintain global capitalism are not economic
That isn't what I said, at all. Certainly they have an impact, but they are not inherent features of capitalism (especially imperialism). Central planning is an inherent feature of Communism. The question we were discussing, was whether I thought that that all implementation of central planning on a national scale has been a failure to date, in comparison to capitalism.
If you would like to talk about foreign policy of the US and China, we can certainly do that, but I think there's another thread for that discussion.
-
12 hours ago, zlemflolia said:
look at US death tole bombing entire cities and countries, genociding people by poisoning their farmland, enforcing "intellectual property" (always somehow the property of some company rather than the workers who invented that shit) to prevent other countries from getting access to ag/med tech, look at the domestic US death tole of over 1m preventable deaths due to covid, and youre going to complain about early 19th century post-colonial decolonial movement mistakes?
what about US deaths due to weapons exports and funding genocidal states like israel?
ur just gona come say "great leap forward" and u think that refutes socialism? ur rhetoric borders on cia level disinfo
What in the actual fuck are you talking about? I’m talking about the failure of central planning as an economic policy, not foreign policy, domestic health policy, or anything else.
The simple fact is that all efforts at central planning and collectivization on large scales have been a failure. This is not to say that everything is perfect with capitalism (in its many iterations), far from it, but you asked if communism as tried so far was a failure in comparison to capitalism. So far the answer is yes.
Also, toll, not tole.
-
Any watmmers in Paris and have a heads up on goings on on the 22nd? I’ll be there and that’s the only night I have some free time.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, zlemflolia said:
failures in comparison to what? capitalism which centuries after its dominance still cant even solve homelessness and feed people and give them healthcare in the wealthiest nation in human history? that capitalism?
Yes. As bad as shit is right now, every communist effort to date has been even worse. Look at the numbers of how many died under the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution. Look how many died of starvation in Stalin’s Soviet Union, or the numbers of people living on subsistence-level rations, while working insane hours to meet centrally planned quotas.
Comparative poverty in the US/Canada/Western Europe is shitty, but nothing compared to those examples above, and certainly nothing compared to the centrally planned economies that exist today (Cuba, North Korea, etc.)
-
9 hours ago, zlemflolia said:
you think you cant have central, even decentralized, economic planning understanding X and Y and what processes need them?
You can, but they don't work as well as market economies.
9 hours ago, zlemflolia said:u really gonna just say "people have to stick to one job for life, just look at the great leap forward" lol
That's clearly what I said. People can change careers, obviously, but it takes time to become proficient to where you're as productive in your new field. That's simple. All efforts to date to centrally dictate where capital should go have been failures for a number of reasons.
-
16 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:
bartering N bananas for M apples will naturally result in a highly liquid and fungible commodity emerging as money, read capital section on money
who makes the plan? people, workers.
Therein lies the rub - you need X number of widgets to complete project Y. You don't have those widgets, but someone in the neighbouring town does. But they need them to complete their own project W. You can offer to trade them for something else so they can complete a different project, they will evaluate the opportunity cost of completing project W later and determine if the trade outweighs the cost.
Which people and workers?
22 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:you really think free associated labor and reduction of strict division of labor means some random guy is going to be asked by some other random person to "whip something up in python"? no, clearly he is referring to free associated labor and his dream that you can work as a fisherman one day, farmer the next, and something else the next, which is actually very viable and simply involves more investment into human education as you even quoted
Marx literally says: "Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations". Maybe it won't be a carpenter being told to program some accounting software, but carpenters just can't up and magically become electricians or plumbers or farmers.
Chinese history shows it is actually not viable at all. See "the Great Leap Forward" and consequences thereof.
-
26 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:
theres no price without money
Of course there is price without money. When you exchange one good for another you have created a price: "these two bananas are worth 4 apples".
29 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:c) "the communist mode of production"
"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain."
This is Marx describing the communist mode of production. Private property (where property = the means of production) is gone, instead replaced by communal ownership, but since communism is supposed to have a global democratic charter, it will need some management. Indeed Marx acknowledges this:
Quote-20-
What will be the consequences of the ultimate disappearance of private property?
Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society.
...
Industry controlled by society as a whole, and operated according to a plan, presupposes well-rounded human beings, their faculties developed in balanced fashion, able to see the system of production in its entirety.
Question: who makes the plan?
SpoilerAs an aside, Marx also assumes that people will be able to learn entire systems:
QuoteEducation will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations
Can you imagine some git who knows nothing about programming suddenly being told "hey we need you to whip up something in Python"?
-
3 hours ago, zlemflolia said:
chengod: "This is the literal definition of communism according to Marx"
Marx: "no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today"
Also Marx: "the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever." (from the same document as your text above). Marx can't even agree with himself.
I see where the misunderstanding is - you're talking about the abolition of money, I'm talking about the allocation of resources.
2 hours ago, zlemflolia said:Quote"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain. "
The allocation of resources will be in the hands of the nation. Yes no money, hooray, but the state will still be setting out "prices" through whatever exchange is necessary to make a good or provide a service.
So yes communism contains "govt set prices and production quotas".
-
You mean the part where he says:
6 hours ago, zlemflolia said:the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever.
Is that the part where he refutes it?
6 hours ago, zlemflolia said:these are policy proposals for a path to attempt to achieve it
I disagree with this analysis - after laying out the "policy proposals" Marx and Engels write:
QuoteIf the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
They simply state there will be no class division - the notion that central planning will disappear is never stated.
Anyhow, you and I will never see eye to eye, so please go ahead and have the last word (again).
Sorry to all others.
-
How bizarre, I put on "Stars of Ice" today for the first time in a while. A sad loss for music.
-
20 minutes ago, zlemflolia said:
communism is not govt set prices and production quotas its literally the abolition of money, something only conceivable under mature socialism anyway
Points 5,6, and 7 of Marx and Engels 10 point general plan in the Communist Manifesto (Chapter II) describe centralization of those functions quite explicitly:
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan
Point 2 acknowledges the function of income (money) by calling for a tax:
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
So, yes, communism is in fact the controlling of production quotas and prices.
Like I said earlier - I'm sure you can find a collective of like-minded individuals to work towards fully automated luxury communism where money is no longer necessary. Until we have that, let's go with market socialism which acknowledges that private property will exist (owned by collectives) and markets/supply and demand will guide the allocation of capital.
-
14 hours ago, Nebraska said:
And the recovery is slow and ongoing, but at least they have recovered: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2023/08/31/um-report-detroit-economic-outlook-strong-but-only-36-of-residents-make-living-wage/70721676007/
-
3 hours ago, ignatius said:
is she running for president? don't get me wrong.. it'd be hilarious to watch trump debate random people (from his prison cell) over whatever bullshit is going on in his brain..
Let's be honest, he just wants to ogle her.
-
1
-
2020 US Election
in General Banter
Posted
https://www.cbc.ca/1.6961527
he’s a literal toddler with power.