Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[TwiceHorn 31184]

55 minutes ago, bolverk said:

That would be ironic if Trump were your typical "small government" conservative, but it's been fairly apparent for a while that he's anything but that, and neither are his most ardent supporters in Congress or among the laity.

I know you realize this, but it still bears repeating that Trump is an autocrat followed by authoritarian-minded people.

It's not just Trump.  The irony is small, but it's there.

Edited January 18 by TwiceHorn

[hobbes2702 12771]

45 minutes ago, safe sex said:

It's kinda like how people in one forum on this site are apparently held to different standards of behavior than others for...some reason

[TwiceHorn 31184]

58 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Funny enough, Trump did make the argument for QI.  

All immunity is really the same:  the privilege of the government or government officials to carry on unmolested by pesky individuals and their rights.

As I said, that was one of his more cogent screeds, if still off-base.

[locodos 5329]

Toxic shock syndrome?

Edited January 18 by locodos

[Gil Bang 25865]

Judge in GA case has set a 2/15 hearing about alleged misconduct by Fani Willis.

[cactusflinthead 27593]

 

[Rimbo 25752]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

And they.  Don't.  Care.  

Always bet on authoritarianism.  It's the side that doesn't give a FUCK about the rules.  It's kinda like how the smart bet is to bet on the team that holds on every play (since the refs don't call holding) vs. the team that plays by the stupid "rules."  "Rules" are for pussies.

You think they'd choose Trump's authoritarianism over their own health and safety? Interesting hypothesis.

I am betting that they would recognize that they are literally allowing any president to have people shoot them with a ruling in Trump's favor, and choose life.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think most of them would prioritize "live another day" over "give Trump absolute authority."

 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

30 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

That's about what I figured would come out.

There is one thing that that particular analysis doesn't address, but may be addressed elsewhere.  And that is, to a greater or lesser extent, every filing Smith/the government makes imposes some degree of work on Trump's lawyers:  they don't have to respond, because of the stay, but they do have to expend some amount of energy on it.  That could rightfully be considered a "burden of litigation," which the inherent appellate stay protects against.

It's kind of an interesting question.  

[Huckleberry 32685]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ironically, the arguments in favor of immunity, of virtually any kind, are an explicit elevation of the government over individual rights in a way rarely encountered in the judicial system.

To believe this is ironic would require believing that the Republican Party actually gives a shit about individual rights. Or that it's actually cared about them at any time in the last half century. You can't possibly still believe that. 

[Rimbo 25752]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

They may not be explicitly above the law, but cops are practically above the law. That's good enough for trump - being authority figure pig that's above consequence is right up his alley

And that's why cops LOVE Trump, btw. And will become his henchmen if he gains power again, the ones ensured with "disappearing" critics.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

To believe this is ironic would require believing that the Republican Party actually gives a shit about individual rights. Or that it's actually cared about them at any time in the last half century. You can't possibly still believe that. 

Well it is ironic in the sense that they continue to claim to be the party of small government and individual rights.  Whether you believe it or not.

[texasdago 7550]

8 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I am betting that they would recognize that they are literally allowing any president to have people shoot them with a ruling in Trump's favor, and choose life.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think most of them would prioritize "live another day" over "give Trump absolute authority."

You're using logic.  Logic does not apply here.

[Pig Bellmont 8679]

54 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Judge in GA case has set a 2/15 hearing about alleged misconduct by Fani Willis.

Assuming it’s not an evidentiary hearing I can’t imagine the court doing anything other than denying it 

[Rimbo 25752]

8 minutes ago, texasdago said:

You're using logic.  Logic does not apply here.

Again: You do understand that the scenario I'm describing WILL BE PRESENTED TO THEM?

And, again, the fact that Trump has already encouraged people to attack judges, so that it's clear that this is a thing that will happen to them.

I'm not showing this to you to win an Internet argument; I'm showing you the sorts of things that those making the case against Trump are going to show SCOTUS directly if they're even slightly more competent than Habippityboppityboo.

Logic has nothing to do with what I'm saying. It's an emotional argument: "Do you, the members of SCOTUS, value your own lives?"

Pretending this won't be brought up or matter is just being deliberately obtuse.

You and Brisket have embraced defeatism for its own sake at this point.

Edited January 18 by Rimbo

[Brisketexan 104465]

20 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

You and Brisket have embraced defeatism for its own sake at this point.

I've just embraced the concept of "assume evil people will do evil things."  That assumption has a pretty goddamned good track record this past decade or so.  Not perfect.  But goddamn, a lot closer to perfect than anyone would like it to be.

[texasdago 7550]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I've just embraced the concept of "assume evil people will do evil things."  That assumption has a pretty goddamned good track record this past decade or so.  Not perfect.  But goddamn, a lot closer to perfect than anyone would like it to be.

I'm also assuming people will tolerate some abhorrent things or just stay silent so that their team wins and they own the libs.

[Gil Bang 25865]

40 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Assuming it’s not an evidentiary hearing I can’t imagine the court doing anything other than denying it 

It is. Related to a nasty divorce

 

https://www.ajc.com/politics/fulton-trump-judge-schedules-february-hearing-on-willis-allegations/VCDYL4JFGNE4VKPNDYR26POXQU/

 

[SydneyCarton 47809]

35 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Again: You do understand that the scenario I'm describing WILL BE PRESENTED TO THEM?

And, again, the fact that Trump has already encouraged people to attack judges, so that it's clear that this is a thing that will happen to them.

I'm not showing this to you to win an Internet argument; I'm showing you the sorts of things that those making the case against Trump are going to show SCOTUS directly if they're even slightly more competent than Habippityboppityboo.

Logic has nothing to do with what I'm saying. It's an emotional argument: "Do you, the members of SCOTUS, value your own lives?"

Pretending this won't be brought up or matter is just being deliberately obtuse.

You and Brisket have embraced defeatism for its own sake at this point.

Funny thing about emotions, it allows people to dismiss all kinds of things they logically don't like. If the SCOTUS dismisses that argument as over the top, or unlrealistic, no matter how obviously realistic it is after the past 4 years, what happens? 

No one should be able to deny what's happening in the courts and this country the last 8 years, but it's happening anyway and Trump might get elected again. This is also the same court that is about to dismantle all government regulation. Do you think they're making that argument based on logic, or emotion?

[Captainant 27311]

4 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

It is. Related to a nasty divorce

 

https://www.ajc.com/politics/fulton-trump-judge-schedules-february-hearing-on-willis-allegations/VCDYL4JFGNE4VKPNDYR26POXQU/

 

Wow that's a wild article. Trumpco must be desperate to be getting this dirty this early

In a court filing earlier this month, Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for Trump codefendant Mike Roman, contended that Willis is having an improper, romantic relationship with Wade. Merchant also alleged, without proof, that Willis has benefited financially from the relationship, with the DA going on “lavish” vacations paid by Wade with money he made as a special prosecutor.

Thursday’s motion filed on Willis’ behalf contends that Wade’s estranged wife, Joycelyn Wade, “has conspired with interested parties in the criminal election interference case to use the civil discovery process to annoy, embarrass and oppress District Attorney Willis.” The DA stated that Joycelyn Wade is also “obstructing and interfering with an ongoing criminal prosecution.”

The DA’s filing said the Wades’ marriage was irretrievably broken and there is no hope of reconciliation. For this reason, Willis’ deposition is not needed to resolve the divorce case, the motion said.

Willis’ motion also said the Wades’ marriage was broken after Joycelyn Wade confessed to having an adulterous relationship with a longtime friend of Nathan Wades’s.

 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

And that's why cops LOVE Trump, btw. And will become his henchmen if he gains power again, the ones ensured with "disappearing" critics.

There are roughly 3X active duty + reserve personnel in the United States, and they're not even remotely biased hard towards Trump.  I'm pretty sure they can handle the subset of cops willing to be Trump's "henchmen".

[Pig Bellmont 8679]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Trumpco must be desperate

Oh for sure. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Wow that's a wild article. Trumpco must be desperate to be getting this dirty this early

In a court filing earlier this month, Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for Trump codefendant Mike Roman, contended that Willis is having an improper, romantic relationship with Wade. Merchant also alleged, without proof, that Willis has benefited financially from the relationship, with the DA going on “lavish” vacations paid by Wade with money he made as a special prosecutor.

Thursday’s motion filed on Willis’ behalf contends that Wade’s estranged wife, Joycelyn Wade, “has conspired with interested parties in the criminal election interference case to use the civil discovery process to annoy, embarrass and oppress District Attorney Willis.” The DA stated that Joycelyn Wade is also “obstructing and interfering with an ongoing criminal prosecution.”

The DA’s filing said the Wades’ marriage was irretrievably broken and there is no hope of reconciliation. For this reason, Willis’ deposition is not needed to resolve the divorce case, the motion said.

Willis’ motion also said the Wades’ marriage was broken after Joycelyn Wade confessed to having an adulterous relationship with a longtime friend of Nathan Wades’s.

 

Given that Wade and Willis are aligned irrespective of any romantic relationship, I can't see how this creates any conflict of interest that concerns the defense(s) of the 1/6 case.

There may be some ethical impropriety somewhere along the line, but it doesn't seem to be anything actionable by 1/6 defendants.

[Rimbo 25752]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I've just embraced the concept of "assume evil people will do evil things."  That assumption has a pretty goddamned good track record this past decade or so.  Not perfect.  But goddamn, a lot closer to perfect than anyone would like it to be.

"Evil" isn't a concept that exists in reality, though. "Self-interest," enlightened or otherwise, is. And you can chart where all these characters are pursuing what they believe to be their own self-interest.

Trump wants to be president so he can pardon himself and make sure he's above the law for the rest of his life. That's it.

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Funny thing about emotions, it allows people to dismiss all kinds of things they logically don't like. If the SCOTUS dismisses that argument as over the top, or unlrealistic, no matter how obviously realistic it is after the past 4 years, what happens? 

No one should be able to deny what's happening in the courts and this country the last 8 years, but it's happening anyway and Trump might get elected again. This is also the same court that is about to dismantle all government regulation. Do you think they're making that argument based on logic, or emotion?

 

If the state's attorneys are worth a damn, they'll make both the emotional and logical appeals. And not be limited to that. But it takes a certain level of deliberate willful ignorance to assume SCOTUS will align with Trump on this.

Or absolute malpractice on the part of the federal attorneys.

 

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

There are roughly 3X active duty + reserve personnel in the United States, and they're not even remotely biased hard towards Trump.  I'm pretty sure they can handle the subset of cops willing to be Trump's "henchmen".

I live in SoCal. I assure you there are no cops here voting for Biden.

[wildcat09 29187]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

There are roughly 3X active duty + reserve personnel in the United States, and they're not even remotely biased hard towards Trump.  I'm pretty sure they can handle the subset of cops willing to be Trump's "henchmen".

Really? How do you see that playing out in your mind? If a bunch of cops just start running wild arresting every minority and Democrat they see, are active duty troops going to take it upon themselves to illegally deploy to bust people out of jail? to shoot cop death squads who are in the middle of murdering Trump's enemies?  To depose Trump?

Fuck no. They'll sit around and do nothing. 

[Brisketexan 104465]

12 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

"Evil" isn't a concept that exists in reality, though. "Self-interest," enlightened or otherwise, is. And you can chart where all these characters are pursuing what they believe to be their own self-interest.

Trump wants to be president so he can pardon himself and make sure he's above the law for the rest of his life. That's it.

The "self interest" here is that they want their side 1) to have absolute power, 2) forever.  That means they openly favor an authoritarian state supplanting and replacing our Republic.  Stop thinking they want anything less than that.  And yes "I want complete and total power, that can never be taken from me, so I can impose my will on you without being answerable for it or suffering any repercussions" is fucking evil.

[Brisketexan 104465]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Really? How do you see that playing out in your mind? If a bunch of cops just start running wild arresting every minority and Democrat they see, are active duty troops going to take it upon themselves to illegally deploy to bust people out of jail? to shoot cop death squads who are in the middle of murdering Trump's enemies?  To depose Trump?

Fuck no. They'll sit around and do nothing. 

This.  Local PDs (think those under "constitutional sheriffs") will anoint themselves as Trump's Chosen Christian Constitutionalist Shock Troops, Trump will bless them as such, and they'll operate just like every other private/only nominally governmental militant force we've seen employed in fascist states over and over again.  And they'll get away with it because 1) nobody will stop them, and 2) if someone dares try through the courts, we will have already established the law of "if the president orders/allows it, it's legal."  So, mark that down as "done."

[jimmyjazz 45513]

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Really? How do you see that playing out in your mind? If a bunch of cops just start running wild arresting every minority and Democrat they see, are active duty troops going to take it upon themselves to illegally deploy to bust people out of jail? to shoot cop death squads who are in the middle of murdering Trump's enemies?  To depose Trump?

Fuck no. They'll sit around and do nothing. 

LMAO.

[wildcat09 29187]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

LMAO.

What, specifically, do you think they'll do?

[SydneyCarton 47809]

29 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

If the state's attorneys are worth a damn, they'll make both the emotional and logical appeals. And not be limited to that. But it takes a certain level of deliberate willful ignorance to assume SCOTUS will align with Trump on this.

Or absolute malpractice on the part of the federal attorneys.

 

You sound like TwiceHorn saying it's unreasonable to expect that Aileen Canon or whatever the fuck her name is would delay and do Trump's bidding on the document case, and continue to bang that drum as she continues to do what everyone knew she would do to shit all over the most damning case against Trump.

But you somehow think other bought and paid for judges won't do exactly what the fuck they're told by their handlers? Because let's be clear, if they were worried about how they were percieved they would have softened their stances on other things well before now, and they haven't, they've dug in an gotten more extreme. 

I fail to see what federal attornies have to do with influencing the decisions of the Supreme Court...becuase you're assuming they can be appealed to logically, or ethically, or emotionally if they've already made an emotional determination of their own. 

But you keep telling US about willful ignorance, while ignoring your admittedly and repetaedly misplaced optimism. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What, specifically, do you think they'll do?

I think I'd be wasting my time responding to your ridiculous fever dream.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

20 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You sound like TwiceHorn saying it's unreasonable to expect that Aileen Canon or whatever the fuck her name is would delay and do Trump's bidding on the document case, and continue to bang that drum as she continues to do what everyone knew she would do to shit all over the most damning case against Trump.

But you somehow think other bought and paid for judges won't do exactly what the fuck they're told by their handlers? Because let's be clear, if they were worried about how they were percieved they would have softened their stances on other things well before now, and they haven't, they've dug in an gotten more extreme. 

I fail to see what federal attornies have to do with influencing the decisions of the Supreme Court...becuase you're assuming they can be appealed to logically, or ethically, or emotionally if they've already made an emotional determination of their own. 

But you keep telling US about willful ignorance, while ignoring your admittedly and repetaedly misplaced optimism. 

I have never said it's unreasonable to expect that.  I have just said that there are a lot of things at play and other things may explain what appears to those lacking perspective to be her favoritism or bias.  Or it could be favoritism or bias.

Here's the thing.  Those "bought and paid for" justices aren't "bought and paid for."  What they are is specifically selected for their judicial and personal views on conservative issues like abortion.  No one paid for those views, they came to them naturally or through some other mechanism than being bought and paid for.

What they were not selected for is loyalty or obeisance to Donald J. Trump.  They have lifetime appointments, so they don't need Trump anymore, if they ever did (probably any GOP POTUS would have nominated these people, nothing special about Trump).

Moreover, even if they were to personally believe in a strong executive, to the point of authoritarianism, I imagine that belief stops a good deal short of sacrificing the power of their own branch, the judiciary, in bringing the executive to heel.

For these, or other reasons unknown, the Supremes have been quite unsympathetic thus far to Trump's efforts to insulate himself from consequences post-Presidency.  

Edited January 18 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29187]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think I'd be wasting my time responding to your ridiculous fever dream.

I got it, so you're saying that the sort of thing that has happened and still happens elsewhere in the world can't happen here because of reasons. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What, specifically, do you think they'll do?

I think the problem there is that the military will avoid involvement in domestic affairs, either as Trump's minions or, most likely, against pro-Trump "forces."

[Captainant 27311]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think the problem there is that the military will avoid involvement in domestic affairs, either as Trump's minions or, most likely, against pro-Trump "forces."

Or they'll stand by while the capital is attacked, like on Jan 6. Failure to prevent a coup from an internal enemy is a pretty severe breach of duty and their oath. 

[Brisketexan 104465]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think the problem there is that the military will avoid involvement in domestic affairs, either as Trump's minions or, most likely, against pro-Trump "forces."

This.  The military will not save us, because the military will actually follow the law (something that the Trump private/personal gestapo troops will not be burdened by).  The Trump gestapo will be able to do whatever they want with no repercussions because the president told them to, and if the president says it, it's now legal.  And the military will not move 1) without orders from Trump, the CINC, and 2) will not act on US soil because Posse Comitatus. 

We're going to have to save ourselves.  Arm up.  And be prepared to actually pull the trigger.  We're almost there.  Because that's how these insane fascist fuckers want it.  I can't believe it, but they plainly want it that way.

[Gil Bang 25865]

.

 

 

 

Edited January 18 by Gil Bang

[SydneyCarton 47809]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have never said it's unreasonable to expect that.  I have just said that there are a lot of things at play and other things may explain what appears to those lacking perspective to be her favoritism or bias.  Or it could be favoritism or bias.

Here's the thing.  Those "bought and paid for" justices aren't "bought and paid for."  What they are is specifically selected for their judicial and personal views on conservative issues like abortion.  No one paid for those views, they came to them naturally or through some other mechanism than being bought and paid for.

What they were not selected for is loyalty or obeisance to Donald J. Trump.  They have lifetime appointments, so they don't need Trump anymore, if they ever did (probably any GOP POTUS would have nominated these people, nothing special about Trump).

Moreover, even if they were to personally believe in a strong executive, to the point of authoritarianism, I imagine that belief stops a good deal short of sacrificing the power of their own branch, the judiciary, in bringing the executive to heel.

For these, or other reasons unknown, the Supremes have been quite unsympathetic thus far to Trump's efforts to insulate himself from consequences post-Presidency.  

They were elected for their conservative leanings. And then they were bought and paid for by interests who have business before the court. Or did you forget about Harlan Crowe, Alito trips, and Thomas’s free quarter million rv? 
 

as for their record to date against Trump, maybe they’re saving up good will. Or maybe their masters haven’t told them how to vote before. But there’s no reason to trust any compromised Justice to be fair or impartial on any case. 

Edited January 18 by SydneyCarton

[TwiceHorn 31184]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

They were elected for their conservative leanings. And then they were bought and paid for by interests who have business before the court. Or did you forget about Harlan Crowe, Alito trips, and Thomas’s free quarter million rv? 
 

as for their record before Trump, maybe they’re saving up good will. But there’s no reason to trust any compromised Justice to be fair or impartial on any case. 

I am thinking more in terms of the recent appointees, Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh who are more explicitly products of the FedSoc/Leo machine and, although less vocal than the old fucktards Alito and Thomas, probably more actually responsible for the turn of the court.

There's also minimal evidence that they are "bought and paid for."

So, you have Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, and they only need two other rationals, one of which is likely Roberts, to turn Trump away, so that just leaves one.  Sure, it's not going to be Alito or Thomas, but that leaves three others.

[nbmishoid 930]

Hope.

[SydneyCarton 47809]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I am thinking more in terms of the recent appointees, Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh who are more explicitly products of the FedSoc/Leo machine and, although less vocal than the old fucktards Alito and Thomas, probably more actually responsible for the turn of the court.

There's also minimal evidence that they are "bought and paid for."

So, you have Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, and they only need two other rationals, one of which is likely Roberts, to turn Trump away, so that just leaves one.  Sure, it's not going to be Alito or Thomas, but that leaves three others.

You lost me at minimal evidence. Are you kidding? Thomas has a book of evidence and he’s never recused himself from anything with Harlan Crowes interest or attachment. 

[BamaATL 16592]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am thinking more in terms of the recent appointees, Gorsuch, Barrett, Kavanaugh who are more explicitly products of the FedSoc/Leo machine and, although less vocal than the old fucktards Alito and Thomas, probably more actually responsible for the turn of the court.

There's also minimal evidence that they are "bought and paid for."

So, you have Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, and they only need two other rationals, one of which is likely Roberts, to turn Trump away, so that just leaves one.  Sure, it's not going to be Alito or Thomas, but that leaves three others.

So the three Opus Dei Catholics weren't bought and paid for?  Ok.  

[Superhero 8739]

11 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Well, that settles it then!

-Thomas and Alito, probably.

 

 

Time for Biden to approve an assassination on a political enemy. [/presidentialimmunity]

[otisdog 365]

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

 

I live in SoCal. I assure you there are no cops here voting for Biden.

Wrong....my BIL on the El Segundo force is voting Biden

[Gil Bang 25865]

6 minutes ago, otisdog said:

Wrong....my BIL on the El Segundo force is voting Biden

El Segundo is a cool little town

[TwiceHorn 31184]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

So the three Opus Dei Catholics weren't bought and paid for?  Ok.  

Why would you have to buy and pay for them?  This is what they believe.  Which was my initial point.

At any rate, none of them were bought and paid for to support Donald Trump personally.

[Macanudo 12922]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why would you have to buy and pay for them?  This is what they believe.  Which was my initial point.

At any rate, none of them were bought and paid for to support Donald Trump personally.

Can you prove that in a court of law, counselor?

[Player 4575]

Wrong....my BIL on the El Segundo force is voting Biden

Obviously he’s no dummy then.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

9 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Nobody in the Republican Party pre 2016 was there out of fealty to Donald Trump.  And then 90%+ of those same people (and 99% of the politicians) became Trump apologists who debase themselves in support of all his awfulness.  

The GOP appointed Supreme Court members (or at least enough of them) will thwart his more outrageous gambits as long as he’s out of power.  They won’t if he’s in power or they think he will be.  

I'm not so sure about the "in power" thing.  

They were ok supporting most of Trump's legal policies because they basically align with what they believe and were appointed to implement.

Trump's personal bs doesn't really align with any of that.  And, again, I will reiterate that I think that the notion of creating an executive that is not criminally responsible to their branch is not something they want to do, even if they favored propping up a "conservative" president or candidate.

They generally like elevating the executive over the legislative, the executive over the judicial, not so much.  For example, their assault on Chevron deference hurts the executive to their benefit as much or more than Congress (these are executive agencies, after all, and it is usually an executive-prompted rulemaking over which they intend to exert more control).

Edited January 19 by TwiceHorn

[Upgrayedd 5803]

31 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

El Segundo is a cool little town

It’s where I left my wallet 

Edited January 19 by Upgrayedd
Guh

[TwiceHorn 31184]

5 minutes ago, Upgrayedd said:

It’s where I left my wallet 

Got ta get it I got got ta get it.