Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: But, the benefit is that he can drive out conservative voters to vote for him and then vote conservative down ticket.
If "vote for this zero-chance guy that hardly anyone has heard of" is enough to get people out to vote then why aren't they voting already? You can still vote in all the other races even if you leave the presidential spot blank. I seriously doubt that adding one more irrelevant fringe candidate to the race is going to make any meaningful difference.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
skyth wrote: So you continue to ignore my point that there is no proof that the money is intended to support terrorism?
Could it be that donating to the local churchs is so ingrained in the culture that they do that and if they didn't they would face a revolution with a worse outcome?
The whole 'funding terrorists' is a dishonest argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And quite frankly, terrirists would be supporting a Trump presidency. Predident Trump would be one of the best recruiting tools they could ask for...
No it is nothing like donating to a local church. The Saudi family/monarchy spends millions of dollars deliberately spreading Wahhabism and Salafism, building madrassas that preach it and funding the support network that creates and perpetuates Islamic terrorism around the world. It's not members of the general populace tossing a couple of bucks into the collection plate on Sundays. This is an established fact. The evidence is in the 9/11 Comission Report, it's in the background of the known terrorist leaders and clerics, we know where they're from, the schools they attended the mosques they go to, we know who paid to build the mosques and schools who pays the clerics and let's them preach openly for a fundamentalist sect that encourages violence and terrorism. It's the same system that created Osama bin Laden. Look at the leaders of the Islamic terrorist groups in North Africa, Somalia, Indonesia and the Middle East and you'll find that they're wahhabistsband Salafists who received their religious indoctrination from the schools, mosques and clerics funded by the Saudis. The monarchy is knowingly and willing funding the spread of a fundamentalist sect of Islam whose purpose is creating zealots that are violently opposed to any other form of Islam or religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists but the zealous fundamentalist ones that are, those are the Wahabbists and Salafists, that sect and terrorism are inseparable and the Saudi monarchy has been supporting them since their inception.
So totally ignore what I said and keep on regurgitating the same irrelevant thing that doesn't even address my point.
Besides, this is like complaining that Chik-fil-a donated money to Trump and they support Christian groups in Africa trying to kill homosexuals, so Trump is trying to kill homosexuals. There is no real connection between supporting terrorists and supporting Clinton. All this is is a continuation of overblown stories with little basis in reality that certain people have been trying to smear Clinton with for the last 20 some years.
No this is you choosing to ignore the fact that the Clintons are willing to take money from a monarchy that funds terrorists and their support network that creates more terrorists and terrorism. You know that terrorists are created by clerics and fundamentalists that go to areas with impoverished and disillusioned young people and radicalize them. Those clerics and the madrassas and mosques they build are funded by the Saudi monarchy. The Saudis are not people our leaders should be getting in bed with. There is already documented evidence of Hillary using her SecState position to help the Saudis after taking millions of dollars from them and evidence of Clinton staffers getting big money contracts for their businesses from the Saudis. There is more evidence and stronger evidence of the Clintons being tied to the Saudis than there is of Trump being tied to Putin.
This is not conspiracy theories or partisan smear campaigns this is factual provable connections. The same dangerous corrupting relationship that the Bushes started with the Saudis was picked up and continued by the Clintons then Bush again then Obama and now we'll have Clinton again. This is what makes Clinton a bad candidate. She's more of the same old bad politics. Clinton gives us more partisanship more polarization more obstructionism in congress more short sighted alliances more pandering more platitudes hiding problems more evasive answers and more solutions that are just spin doctoring. Clinton is more status quo with all of our current problems continuing to snowball and be ignored for the sake of political gamesmanship.
But hey she's better than a narcissistic self promoting lying bigot so we should all just ignore her glaring flaws hold our noses and vote for her because we should totally keep doing what we've been doing while expecting to get a radically different result.
whembly wrote: there are better things to call out Trump... like his Russian connections... for cripes sake.
To borrow a line from Ouze... no Lucy, we're not going to take a run at that ball just so that in a couple of posts you can go "but it's not really that bad, something-something-Clinton-charity-group-really-conspiracy-money-for-them-something".
I didn't pay much attention in 2008, so I wasn't outraged then. But that was a mighty stupid "foot in mouth" disease statement on her part.
Is it because you automatically assme the '2nd Amendment people' are violent?
It's because when a plain spoken "tell it like he means it" candidate says that the election will be rigged and there will be no way to prevent Hillary from appointing justices, except with the 2nd amendment, then it is probably OK to make an assumption of what he is talking about.
Or were all the times that you and others have made the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to secure our rights really just arguments that we just need to give more money to PACs to secure our rights?
whembly wrote: there are better things to call out Trump... like his Russian connections... for cripes sake.
To borrow a line from Ouze... no Lucy, we're not going to take a run at that ball just so that in a couple of posts you can go "but it's not really that bad, something-something-Clinton-charity-group-really-conspiracy-money-for-them-something".
I didn't pay much attention in 2008, so I wasn't outraged then. But that was a mighty stupid "foot in mouth" disease statement on her part.
It wasn't that dumb... it was obviously spoken as someone who wanted to remain relevant in that election season.
Is it because you automatically assme the '2nd Amendment people' are violent?
It's because when a plain spoken "tell it like he means it" candidate says that the election will be rigged and there will be no way to prevent Hillary from appointing justices, except with the 2nd amendment, then it is probably OK to make an assumption of what he is talking about.
Or were all the times that you and others have made the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to secure our rights really just arguments that we just need to give more money to PACs to secure our rights?
Nah, Trump just has a habit of being vague and it's interesting to see folks interpret this.
I guess in the future I will be sure to ask everyone that posts that the 2nd amendment is needed for a reason if they are talking about using the political influence of gun-related money and a big gun-related lobbying group to keep the government in line or if they are talking about using the actual guns themselves to kill politicians and civil servants who step over the line.
Since saying things like this are so "vague" and confusing and open to interpretation.
d-usa wrote: I guess in the future I will be sure to ask everyone that posts that the 2nd amendment is needed for a reason if they are talking about using the political influence of gun-related money and a big gun-related lobbying group to keep the government in line or if they are talking about using the actual guns themselves to kill politicians and civil servants who step over the line.
Since saying things like this are so "vague" and confusing and open to interpretation.
Or, you could trying to give these folks the benefit of doubt.
whembly wrote: Or, you could trying to give these folks the benefit of doubt.
"Benefit of the doubt" does not mean "ignore it when someone tells you something awful in plain and simple language". There's nothing ambiguous here, at all.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Or, you could trying to give these folks the benefit of doubt.
"Benefit of the doubt" does not mean "ignore it when someone tells you something awful in plain and simple language". There's nothing ambiguous here, at all.
Well if you believe that... by all means, get someone to charge him then...
whembly wrote: Well if you believe that... by all means, get someone to charge him then...
As you should know very well given your complaints about Clinton there is a huge difference between "this person did something wrong" and "there will be criminal charges".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Sarouan wrote: I know I'm an outsider, but I wonder...don't you think the simplicity in Trump being just a bully with lots of money more believable than thinking he is "smarter than the average" to explain why he went so far?
I understand some people may have difficulties to believe someone who is rich may not mean he has really done something worthy to earn it, but most of the time the simpler answers are closer to the truth.
I think you're assuming my comment about 'smarter than average' as something more than it is. 'Smarter than average' means a 101 IQ. It means if you grab 50 random people random off the street then Trump will probably be smarter than 25 of them.
Obviously the primary source of Trump's wealth was being born the son of a very successful, well connected property developer. That meant Trump had the seed capital to start some developments, the financial guarantees to allow him to access bank money, and the support on hand when some deals went bad, That's why Trump is worth many hundreds of millions, or possibly billions, while all the other 'smarter than average' people have a car and a house that the bank owns about half of.
I mean, there is nothing to believe that Trump is really behind all the strategies that made him go that far in the race for Presidency. Given all the stupid things he says when he's alone makes me doubt he is actually smarter than most people...quite the opposite.
He says countless dumb things and has an amazing lack of knowledge about the world. But remember there is a big difference between being ignorant and being stupid. Trump is the former.
And this doesn't mean I think Trump is potentially smart enough to be president. 'Smarter than average' doesn't mean 'smart enough to do one of the toughest jobs in the world'.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Well if you believe that... by all means, get someone to charge him then...
As you should know very well given your complaints about Clinton there is a huge difference between "this person did something wrong" and "there will be criminal charges".
And considering Al Baldasaro who said "Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot" never saw any charges, I highly doubt this will. Oh, btw, Baldasaro is still working for the Trump campaign.
Breotan wrote: I remember someone saying that there really weren't any Hillary supporters posting in this thread yet it seems many people are posting exclusively anti-Trump posts. Except for myself, Whembly, and one or two others, it is rare to see an anti-Hillary post.
I know a great many people love dog piling on Whembly but can we have some discussion about qualifications and failings of some other candidate in the race that isn't Trump? Just for a couple of pages or so?
I'm asking for too much, aren't I?
I lurk this forum, because posting about politics is a great way to lose an evening that I could otherwise spend working on models and is even more futile than arguing whether the latest model is overpriced or not
However, I am an avid politico, spend many endless hours of my real life discussing politics, go all nuts every 4 years for the US presidential races (and to a lesser extent on midterms), and scour both left and right-wing websites.
So that being said, #ImWithHer -- and if I weren't, I would certainly be #NeverTrump.
Why: Sure, Hillary Clinton isn't the pillar of altruism. By her own admission, there are a lot better politicians out there with better oratory and other skills. But at the end of the day, looking at her record, she has generally fought for worthwhile causes (like children, families, and healthcare), represented her constituency well. During her time of service as Secretary of State and Senator, she was well-regarded, and objectively, one cannot argue that she was a hard worker and a pretty smart woman. So I'm willing to look past her mistakes, and accept someone I see as hard-working, smart, and generally a good person.
I do not believe Benghazi is her fault, any more than I believe that any of the 20 attacks on US consulates and embassies that resulted in 66 deaths which occurred on Bush 43's watch were the fault of Condi or Colin Powell. I don't believe that the US Libya or Syria strategy was flawed, but rather that these were pretty much the only strategies that made sense for a war-weary country that wanted to still do the right thing during the Arab Spring. I think her using her own email server was a pretty dumb thing. I don't like every part of her economic plan, and I don't believe all the infrastructure spending will happen if she is elected, because it's something that every nominee says and something that is prioritized to the bottom of the budget when they're elected.
But we don't live in a world where we get to build a candidate out of puzzle pieces. In a "binary choice" as people like to say that we have these days (and let's be honest, it's not going to be President Stein or President Johnson), Clinton is infinitely better than Donald Trump. I mean, really, there's no contest. As many prominent people in his own party have stated, like Susan Collins or General Hayden, Trump exhibits little understanding of international affairs and tends to lash out without much forethought, in a way that is likely to make a perilous world much more dangerous. He says kind things about enemies of Western democracies, like Putin, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong-un, while putting allies like NATO, Mexico and Japan on the pillory. His way of conducting business is not compatible with mine -- I pay vendors, don't look at bankruptcy as a successful exit, try to source local, and don't import workers if I don't have to.
Beyond all that, perhaps most importantly, Trump, I feel, is a nasty narcissist who enjoys lashing out viciously at critics. He revels at diminishing others and so very rarely displays any sign of empathy, especially to the weakest and most vulnerable.
So it's an easy pick for me. Trump went from a Jon Stewart punchline novelty to someone I really, genuinely dislike, whereas Clinton went from someone I thought was inferior to Barrack Obama as a choice in 2008, to someone who is a good choice today, and certainly the best of the 4 choices on the ballot in November. If the polls hold up, apparently, it will be an easy choice for voters in general; it's looking like an epic landslide at the moment. With Arizona and Georgia polling blue right now, what's next -- Texas?
And by the way: though I live in Canada, I'm a US citizen. Ok, now back to models
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 03:22:17
Christ, there really are people who would defend Trump calling for people to use guns to oppose Hillary if he loses the election.
I guess Trump was right when he said he could should someone and he'd still have support. Good luck America.
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
whembly wrote: He's media/business savvy... so in that respect, yes he's intelligent.
He's certainly very media savvy, he's built himself a huge brand. And he's an excellent negotiator, the guy got an international resort conglomerate to agree to put up the cash to build a Trump managed casino, with Trump taking a large % of ownership, and this was before Trump had ever worked in casinos.
But he is not business savvy, not good at the art of executing a profitable business project. Taking on 14% junk bonds to fund Trump Taj Mahal, which would only cannabilise the two Atlantic City casinos Trump already owned... not smart business. Trying to build a luxury airline brand around the Washington to New York shuttle... I mean who cares about gold taps in the bathroom of a one hour flight? Trump set up his bank in 2006 - after housing had already begun it's fall - sure not many saw the GFC coming, but Trump was basically alone in thinking it was a good time to increase exposure to housing prices.
It's worth noting that since he (somehow) escaped complete financial ruin in the early 90s, Trump doesn't actually do a lot of business of his own. He made a lot of money from his TV show. And he sells his name to property developments with none of his own money, and none of his own time in the project - they pay him some millions, the name attracts attention, and then the project succeeds or fails and Trump probably never even finds out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you have many, many foreign nationals donating to the Clinton Foundation... a foundation mind you that's been accused of being a "slush fund" for the Clintons and her cronies, it isn't hard to see nefarious quid pro quo relationships.
Yeah, I love this. The accusation is that there's been accusations, and apparently that's enough to count as a serious stain on the Clinton record. I don't think anything could more perfectly capture the nasty, baseless nature of the Republican attack machine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Still, if ever there were a chance for a 3rd party person to make the debates, this is the year.
Johnson is at 8% and is trending downwards, from a peak of 10% in July. If he was going to reach 15% by the cutoff for the debates, he'd have to do something very soon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Not to mention her ghoulish history, in which her opponents seem to die at just the right moment.
Ridiculous nonsense linking the Clintons to dead bodies? Welcome back 1990s!
The problem with having a 15% tax on business income and limits on the estate tax is that, even if they are the best ideas ever, they directly benefit Trump in a big way.
Trump's economic speech is just all kinds of weird as a political strategy. As a piece of policy, it's almost beyond boring, it's the same old run of the mill tax cuts for the rich that defines Republican fiscal policy. It could have been the tax policy of McCain or Romney. It practically is the tax policy of Paul Ryan.
But Trump beat out the rest of the Republican field because on issues like this he made it clear he wasn't just another Republican. He talked about making sure people would keep their benefits, he had a 0% tax rate for families up to $50k. It was ridiculously stupid, but it had a resonance with conservative voters, who clearly weren't as dedicated to Republican dogma as people had assumed.
But now Trump has basically just given this up to the Republican power brokers. The populist elements are gone, now it's back to serving the donor class. Trump, the racist populist that hardly anyone believes is capable of running the country, is slowly losing the populist element of his platform. That doesn't leave much.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 04:03:48
When you have many, many foreign nationals donating to the Clinton Foundation... a foundation mind you that's been accused of being a "slush fund" for the Clintons and her cronies, it isn't hard to see nefarious quid pro quo relationships.
Yeah, I love this. The accusation is that there's been accusations, and apparently that's enough to count as a serious stain on the Clinton record. I don't think anything could more perfectly capture the nasty, baseless nature
Frazzled wrote: Thats not what ,millions of underlempoyed and discouraged workers say. Oh and do we even make anything in this country any more?
You are the second largest manufacturing economy in the world. And on top of that... why in the hell is everyone so keen to have national manufacturing? It's this weird kind of mercantilism, except instead of placing strange and magical powers on to gold, instead the magical powers are placed on assembly lines.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Heh... I guess the poll testers came back negatory:
Liz KreutzVerified account
@ABCLiz
Update on Seddique Mateen's appearance at HRC's rally: Spox @NickMerrill says Clinton "disagrees with his views and disavows his support
."
EDIT: FWIW... I agree with prestor... this is breathtakingly dumb.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 04:24:40
whembly wrote: Frankly, the UN need to make itself useful and setup refugee camps imo.
Dude, there's no shortage of refugee camps in the world. A lack of camps is zero percent of the problem.
The problem is that once you're in a camp, then sitting in a tent, surrounded by a sea of other tents, waiting for daily aid packages is a really terrible way to live. In many cases it isn't possible or safe for people to ever return home, and there are simply millions more people in these camps than there are places in re-settlement programs around the world.
Increasing the number of re-settlements would reduce the problem, but for the most part countries don't want to do that. Even if they did, it'd be impractical to increase it to the levels needed to remove the refugee problem entirely.
So the reality is that children are going to be born in camps, and live their lives in camps. It sounds dramatic, but there are camps right now with third generation refugees in them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The popularity that allowed him to maul 11 of the biggest names in the GOP during the primaries. That popularity.
You might find that says a lot more about the 'big names' of the GOP than it does about Trump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 04:29:38
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: The popularity that allowed him to maul 11 of the biggest names in the GOP during the primaries. That popularity.
You might find that says a lot more about the 'big names' of the GOP than it does about Trump.
Yeah, it's kind of remarkable how bad those "biggest names" were (and still are). Cruz is an awful person* with awful positions, and the main reason we're not all talking about how he's the worst candidate in recent history is that Trump exists. Kasich is a bland and forgettable "moderate" who only looks at all moderate next to the raving lunatics above him in the polls. Bush/Rubio/etc are legitimate candidates, but they're just bland and forgettable "rich conservative white guy" placeholders that can't even get enthusiasm from their own party. And then you've got the assorted joke candidates like Carson and Fiorina** (and the random zero-chancers who couldn't even manage to get invited to the real debates) who would be within a rounding error of 0% of the votes no matter who else is running. If I'm in the GOP leadership I'd be absolutely terrified about the future of the party when 2016's candidates are the best we can come up with.
*See his presence at the "death penalty for homosexuality" event and endorsement by the guy running it.
**It's sad she's gone, because her and Trump arguing over who sucks more at business when neither of them have any qualifications beyond their business experience was one of the highlights of the debates.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Heh... I guess the poll testers came back negatory:
Liz KreutzVerified account
@ABCLiz
Update on Seddique Mateen's appearance at HRC's rally: Spox @NickMerrill says Clinton "disagrees with his views and disavows his support
."
LOL. This in a nutshell encapsulates why this is a garbage thread and always will be.
"why won't hillary disavow this guy???"
(she does almost immediately)
"she's just saying what the people want to hear"
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
whembly wrote: Heh... I guess the poll testers came back negatory:
Liz KreutzVerified account
@ABCLiz
Update on Seddique Mateen's appearance at HRC's rally: Spox @NickMerrill says Clinton "disagrees with his views and disavows his support
."
LOL. This in a nutshell encapsulates why this is a garbage thread and always will be.
"why won't hillary disavow this guy???"
(she does almost immediately)
"she's just saying what the people want to hear"
Nah, Trump just has a habit of being vague and it's interesting to see folks interpret this.
That's one of the first things you learn when taking courses in rhetoric. It is also something that will usually get you crushed in debate. Unfortunately the first thing you learn in debate courses is that you're appealing to an audience. In Trump's case the audience is rather large, and composed of people that are angry because things don't make sense to them; so throwing reason at them probably isn't going to work.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
whembly wrote: Um... the Clinton Foundation makes a mockery of being labeled as a 'charitable' organization. It's a slush fund for the Clintons and their cronies.
This is straight up nonsense. I know the Republican party has done a lot of work throwing accusations at the Clinton Foundation, and I know that you have believed every single one of those accusations. But they're crap, transparently ridiculous nonsense. The classic is the 6% claim, made by just about everyone who ran for the Republican nomination this year. In it they claim that only 6% of the money raised by the Clinton Foundation was actually used for charity. Except 6% is the figure given by the Clinton Foundation to other charities. The Clinton Foundation isn't actually a distributing foundation, it's an active foundation, directly employing its own doctors and aid workers. The actual figure for the amount spent on aid is 89%.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ouze wrote: "why won't hillary disavow this guy???"
(she does almost immediately)
I guess a full day counts as almost immediately in politics but it's a lifetime in the Twitter-verse. I doubt this was put in front of a focus group but I wonder if the delay had more to do with deciding "should we ignore this and hope it fades away" versus "should we comment and possibly give the story legs".
Ouze wrote: "why won't hillary disavow this guy???"
(she does almost immediately)
I guess a full day counts as almost immediately in politics but it's a lifetime in the Twitter-verse. I doubt this was put in front of a focus group but I wonder if the delay had more to do with deciding "should we ignore this and hope it fades away" versus "should we comment and possibly give the story legs".
Boy, you must have howled when it took Donald Trump 5 days to disavow David Duke, huh?
1 day is a lifetime in the twitterverse
and the bar drops a little lower in this stupid, stupid thread.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 06:40:47
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: "why won't hillary disavow this guy???" (she does almost immediately)
I guess a full day counts as almost immediately in politics but it's a lifetime in the Twitter-verse. I doubt this was put in front of a focus group but I wonder if the delay had more to do with deciding "should we ignore this and hope it fades away" versus "should we comment and possibly give the story legs".
We'll probably never know.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 06:36:19
