BaalChatzaf

BREXIT and Trump

Recommended Posts

I see a possible connection with the BREXIT vote in Britain  to leave the EU.  The literati, the glitterati, the brainiari  of Britain all favored staying  in the EU.  But the ordinary folks in Britain,  responding to basic patriotism  and a loathing of  the foreigners now infiltrating Europe  have said  No More.  It is a rejection of liberal-progressive thinking. 

Now if that happened in Britain,  is it just possible that  something like that could happen in the U.S.   If so, that is good news for the Trumpeters.    Donald has been pushing on nativist buttons.  Dislike of foreigners from dreadful portions of the world has always been a fixture in U.S.  politics.  Recall, if you will, the history of the Know Nothing movement.   Something like a populist right wing reaction could happen also in the U.S.

This is just a thought,  a hunch if you will.   Who knows what this could mean for US in the U.S.????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Scottish Independence Stirring

"sacred right of all free peoples" 

"Come November" sure looks like Americans may well declare their independence of Mr. Trump to the tune of about 60% if he wins, even more if he loses. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I see a possible connection with the BREXIT vote in Britain  to leave the EU.  The literati, the glitterati, the brainiari  of Britain all favored staying  in the EU.  But the ordinary folks in Britain,  responding to basic patriotism  and a loathing of  the foreigners now infiltrating Europe  have said  No More.  It is a rejection of liberal-progressive thinking. 

 

That's well said, I do think there was much gut reaction against and rejection of the collectivist-altruist, centralized control by Brussels. Again "the establishment", many of whom with their noses in the EU trough, are screaming blue murder. Amongst other less salutary causes, some degree of individualist and self-determining motives are showing here. Rather, says the electorate, we keep our own present, sovereign identity than see it imposed upon arbitrarily without our sayso by 'crats elsewhere, eventually to be blended into the statist, demographic and economic tumble dryer which is Europe.

I think the EU has served its original purpose, in those days basically to obviate internal wars and to put a united front against the danger of USSR. But why oh why it needed to devolve into a central Parliament and the most suffocating regulations stamped on all the member nations, is beyond me. Far better, a "common market" of voluntary trade agreements, combined defence alliances, and free movement of goods and people through borders - of course, but with citizenship (or temporary permits) required to be employed in any other country.

(I think Scotland is an oddity and contradiction: wanting autonomy from UK -on the cards again - but also needing to keep dependence on the EU. Tribalism runs deep).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthony said:

. Tribalism runs deep).

That is Good News and Bad News.  Think of Germany between 1925 and 1945. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

That is Good News and Bad News.  Think of Germany between 1925 and 1945. 

It's never good. There's a fine line between personal or national identity/autonomy and "tribalism" which only individualism and individual rights can easily cross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mikee said:

Mike,

I'm going to go ahead and post the text in your link:

Quote

- JUNE 24, 2016 -

DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT REGARDING BRITISH REFERENDUM ON E.U. MEMBERSHIP

The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.

Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.

Also, here is Trump talking about the Brexit vote (which he likes), David Cameron (who he also likes), etc.

I, for one, am happy with the result.

We need sovereign countries as a check and balance on the others so that no one becomes a super centralized government.

And voting in a super centralized government ruled by technocrats (like the European Union, or eventually a one world government) to offset the danger of a sovereign country going nuts and waging wars of expansion (like Germany did in the 20th century world wars) is merely choosing to become an indentured servant in perpetuity to avoid becoming a conquered slave, or better, committing suicide to avoid being murdered.

Technocrats are humans, not gods. Power goes to their heads, too. And gobs of power always results in gobs of stupid shit on an unbelievably large scale.

On a tangent, I need to look at The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper. The reason is that George Soros named his head political organization after it (Open Society Foundations, formerly Open Society Institute) and Soros is no freedom lover--in fact he relishes his power. (He once said he loves playing God with others.) I have a feeling Popper's work is used as a subtle kind of Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky for technocrats, i.e., essentially a blueprint for taking power by using dirty tricks to destroy those already in power, then taking over. I am actually going to read it. I've already read Rules for Radicals.

It will be interesting to see if Alinsky's tactics for lower class or oppressed folks to take power from elites by using obvious dirty tricks to destroy them has a correspondence for technocrats taking power from sovereign nations by using sophisticated dirty tricks to destroy them. I might be wrong, but my gut is saying after one removes all of Popper's big words, name-dropping and sophistry, one will be appalled on translating his underlying recommendations into plain language. That book might be a wolf in sheep's clothing and one of the intellectual cornerstones of the globalization movement and how the European Union (all of which is dictatorship by technocrats at root) came into being.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

That is Good News and Bad News.  Think of Germany between 1925 and 1945. 

No thank you. 

Let us avoid both Godwin's Law and reductio ad Hilterum just this once.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is one of the original canaries in the coalmine chirping up a storm.

I'm not so sure that looks like a canary, though.

More like a buzzard in the coalmine.

:)

But right all the same on the one-world government hidden agenda of many elites, despite all his excesses over the years.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just had a thought. 

I bet the next place for an Islamist terror attack (or at least one of the next coming up soon) will be London.

I suspect the new Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, will release vigilance on terror watching to make a statement to the world and the inevitable result will follow.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are Rush Limbaugh's thoughts on the BREXIT vote.

Brexit: A Revolt Against the Cronyism of the Elites -- and a Cry for Nationhood

The reason I am posting this is because Rush  just came out with one of the simplest explanations of foreign trade agreements I have ever heard.

Blessed simplicity.

Duh level simplicity.

And 100% accurate.

My bold in the excerpt below:

Rush Limbaugh said:

The European Union is not about the economic advancement for everyone.

These trade deals, I've often asked people why do they need to be so complicated? What is free trade? Like this Trans-Pacific Partnership, why do you need thousands of pages so secretive that even members of Congress are not allowed to have a copy? They have to go over to some private room, go down in the basement, read it. They can't take notes. They can only read it and chalk it up to memory and then leave. What in the world could possibly be free in that? And why does anything called "free trade" require any more than one page?

Well, I know, the question answers itself. I'm trying to illustrate that genuine free trade would take one sentence. Nation A will have no tariffs on the imports of goods and services from nation B. Nation B will not charge nation A any tariff or additional tax. You want to trade with us, fine. But no, they don't end up that way, because free trade deals don't end up being trade between nations. They end up being trade deals between cronies.

That says it all.

(btw - That entire Rush transcript is worth reading. He's on his game with that one.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rush Limbaugh was also wise to point out that this isn't over with the vote.  As he stated, it will take years to untangle the UK-EU mess and during that whole time the progressives will do everything they can to make the exit into a failure, or paint it as the cause of every negative event that comes along.  A surge in STDs?  Must be due to Brexit!

Global governance, elite bureaucrats free to regulate from a distance with little to no restrictions, open borders, an end to nationhood... those are among some of the Holies of progressivism.  They will not lie down.  I suspect that Cameron's stepping down will be to enable him to be the leader of an active opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PDS said:

No thank you. 

Let us avoid both Godwin's Law and reductio ad Hilterum just this once.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  

Santanna said: Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the Brits set off their "freedom nuke", there may be FIVE other nations... France, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, and Hungary fo follow with their own referendums.

So... what are the producer nations doing that sounds so strangely Atlas Shrugged???...

Why they're... GOING ON STRIKE. :lol:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/683224/END-OF-THE-EU-Germany-France-Austria-Hungary-Finland-Netherlands-Europe-Brexit

(this pleases me to no end...  :)  )

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad it is an English speaking country that has  tipped over the dominoes.  Sort of like V  in the movie,  V for Vandetta...

It is very interesting when the shit hits the fan, isn't it??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Hitchens:  First thoughts on the Referendum

"The referendum achieved, by a dangerous short cut, something I have been hoping for and arguing for and seeking for many years – an alliance between the social conservatives trapped and ignored in a liberal Tory Party and the social conservatives trapped in a liberal Labour Party. I had long believed (since the isolated example of a November 2004 referendum on regional government in the North-East) such a combination would throw the ghastly forces of Blairism into the sea.

The problem is that this potent temporary alliance has dissolved now that the referendum is over."

Casting doubt on whether the referendum will actually be implemented or politics as usual prevent it.  The people be damned if they decide differently than their betters.  What better way to prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2016 at 6:53 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

But the ordinary folks in Britain,  responding to basic patriotism  and a loathing of  the foreigners now infiltrating Europe  have said  No More.  It is a rejection of liberal-progressive thinking. 

I have never believed in "ordinary folks," but I think you identified a fear and loathing aspect of incoming which propelled the Leave to the historic 52%. What will be interesting is if the same ordinary 52/100 are happy with the settlement negotiated to complete the divorce. 

In the meantime, Europe is telling Britain to hurry up, and hit the button that starts the 2-year negotiation clock for a 'friendly' divorce. Finances and borders first.  Re-negotiating trade deals to replace EU deals next, or at the same time.  De-integration and replacement of libraries of (European) laws and standards on a separate stream.  And then the devolved legislatures and the new debate over citizenship/s.

On 6/24/2016 at 8:31 AM, anthony said:

I think the EU has served its original purpose, in those days basically to obviate internal wars and to put a united front against the danger of USSR. But why oh why it needed to devolve into a central Parliament and the most suffocating regulations stamped on all the member nations, is beyond me.

I see an evolution from the first economic integration that pacified Ruhr-centric interests, in the European coal and steel agreements just after the war. In each expansion of commercial integration, a political pacification. Why anything 'needs' regulation is philosophic argument best deployed case by case.  Not beyond you at all.  If one has a regulatory body without an accountable accompaniment, there is a democratic deficit. 

In the EU, the 'cabinet' (the Commission) must be approved by the European parliament. That is pretty small potatoes for accountability.  This parliament does not initiate laws and has no 'naming' rights to any power above it in the EU scheme of things. 

Quote

Far better, a "common market" of voluntary trade agreements, combined defence alliances, and free movement of goods and people through borders - of course, but with citizenship (or temporary permits) required to be employed in any other country.

This is what could be at risk during the settlement negotiations -- on the one side, a nationalist British government might not give a shit about certain aspects of the basic agreements binding EU members:  freedom of labour movement, freedom of investment and return, freedom of residence, freedom of commerce writ large. From the City to the farms, there is already a relationship of these basic freedoms to the nation-states comprising the whole. 

I will find this the most interesting during divorce proceedings.  On the one hand, a completely sovereign Britain could treat an EU private citizen no differently than it does non-EU nationals (eg Norwegians, Swiss) which are enfolded in existing economic-freedoms  agreements. Or, a sovereign Britain could exact an eye for an eye: to the degree European countries (as the non-Brit EU  whole) allow free movement of British travelers, expatriates and workers in their states, the UK would reciprocate.  

Right now, the movement of labour is assured and the rights of residence are clear. But the interregnum will not be conventionally 'good' for all capitalist enterprises.  The loss of wealth is not yet clear.

23 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

Rush Limbaugh was also wise to point out that this isn't over with the vote.  As he stated, it will take years to untangle the UK-EU mess and during that whole time the progressives will do everything they can to make the exit into a failure, or paint it as the cause of every negative event that comes along.  A surge in STDs?  Must be due to Brexit!

Some sad Leave folks are assuming that the divorce negotiations will result in the UK remaining a 'part-member' or 'advanced associate,' because of the economic integration already in place.  He who leads a company that is presently a European entity headquartered or directed from London, for example, what will he want the government to negotiate for his class of business ...? If he were an international investment banker, for example, keeping the EU bona fides might mean he will move to Frankfurt, despite sentiment.

A surge in STDs is the first example that came to mind for me, too. But then I thought of surgeons, students, cheap labour and retirees.  The UK's citizens are among the most 'expatriated' of all nation states.   There are approximately two million within  the confines of the continental EU, let's say.  What happens to their statuses, investments, homes, residency requirements?  

Some of the most interesting post-poll inquiries has been into demographics. The young in the UK voted to Remain.   From one angle this surely must be selfish. If I can be 'free' to come and go and stay and build and live and benefit myself among foreigners in the supra-national state Right Now, what will happen going forward?  It is not known, not yet.

Quote

Global governance, elite bureaucrats free to regulate from a distance with little to no restrictions, open borders, an end to nationhood... those are among some of the Holies of progressivism.  They will not lie down.  

Open borders in the recent European context obviously influenced opinion and led to psychological states more conducive of a Leave decision. As Ba'al has  not exactly put it, loathing of filthy brown hordes leads to walls.   

But I think it pays to put yourself in the shoes of a disappointed young person who now fears a 'wall' keeping her out of Europe. A withdrawal of citizenship freedoms, so to speak. 

If one looks at other recent national referenda, especially in Canada, citizenship is the murky,  fearful, anxious swamp of indecision. The Scots decided narrowly to keep 'open borders' between their political entity and the rest of the UK. In Quebec, an almost meaningless sprawl of a ballot question in the last 1995 referendum seemed to promise a co-citizenship with Canada.  

This was pablum, spun sugar, and was fatal to the project of sovereignty.  

Consider the referenda also in special circumstances in Catalonia and Puerto Rico.   In the first, Spanish law would not recognize the vote as binding (which was known going in) and the eventual outcome with pink ponies suggested an effortless entry of Catalonia into the EU while scraping Spain off its shoes. In the second, what was known was most popular.  The bigger, better passport.

That is what obtains in Scotland.  The first minister there says there will be a new vote on Leaving the UK.  In Ulster, even the very Orange are recommending passports from Dublin. 

Quote

(I think Scotland is an oddity and contradiction: wanting autonomy from UK -on the cards again - but also needing to keep dependence on the EU. Tribalism runs deep).

I strongly agree that Scotland is an oddity (among political 'states'), and I approve.  The Scottish Crown was melded into the United Crown only a few hundred years ago. That personal union was ratified by the then Scots assembly. It was a marriage of two historically distinct 'peoples,' so to speak, under one big Daddy. Odd in a similar way to the state of Catalonia, also personally, royally united and brought under the crown of Castille. Odd too like Quebec, which has a National Assembly and a national day, and a long-standing uneasiness under the Crown.

I don't know just what makes Scottish desires to remain in the EU/detach from UK contradictory, if that is what you mean. As for autonomy, local control of local governance, this is the drift of history in certain polities.  Since the UK is not  a federation as usually understood, it has to come up with odd little regional solutions to the centrifugal forces within its components.  

Tribalism holds forth here on the porch, right?  Or no?

Dependence on the EU in Scotland can mean several things. The Scots and Scots-descended folks that I know in Canada have been part of that great commercial spirit that flowed outward from Empire.  Definitely were happy with those kinds of open borders, free to roam under the Crown's protection, free to root, grow rich and prosper.  That is what I think explains an apparent unusual desire to be European citizens.  It's a kind of Hitch Your Wagons moment. 

The Objectivish tribalism means that analysis of the Brexit entailments is put off for later.   No, that can't be true.  One can celebrate the symbolic victory in a hundred ways all based on more freedom (from), and yet still have concerns that the future will mean less freedom (to). 

Being a Canadian who lived in Quebec through our last referendum, I am reminded that these votes tend to leave broken hearts. A close vote in 1995 was a kick in the heart to sovereigntists in Quebec, and it pained. There is a similar kind of kick to heart here. So, I may appear over-sensitive to unforeseen consequences of constitutional re-arrangements.  Over-sensitive to the losers, I mean.  Profit and loss.

Let a hundred negotiations bloom. May you live in interesting times.  May the weakening pound lurch lower and lower, until my fall visit to the UK is cheaper by half.  

Edited by william.scherk
Spelking, grrrammar, clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I have never believed in "ordinary folks," but I think you identified a fear and loathing aspect of incoming which propelled the Leave to the historic 52%. What will be interesting is if the same ordinary 52/100 are happy with the settlement negotiated to complete the divorce. 

In the meantime, Europe is telling Britain to hurry up, and hit the button that starts the 2-year negotiation clock for a 'friendly' divorce. Finances and borders first.  Re-negotiating trade deals to replace EU deals next, or at the same time.  De-integration and replacement of libraries of (European) laws and standards on a separate stream.  And then the devolved legislatures and the new debate over citizenship/s.

I see an evolution from the first economic integration that pacified Ruhr-centric interests, in the European coal and steel agreements just after the war. In each expansion of commercial integration, a political pacification. Why anything 'needs' regulation is philosophic argument best deployed case by case.  Not beyond you at all.  If one has a regulatory body without an accountable accompaniment, there is a democratic deficit. 

In the EU, the 'cabinet' (the Commission) must be approved by the European parliament. That is pretty small potatoes for accountability.  This parliament does not initiate laws and has no 'naming' rights to any power above it in the EU scheme of things. 

This is what could be at risk during the settlement negotiations -- on the one side, a nationalist British government might not give a shit about certain aspects of the basic agreements binding EU members:  freedom of labour movement, freedom of investment and return, freedom of residence, freedom of commerce writ large. From the City to the farms, there is already a relationship of these basic freedoms to the nation-states comprising the whole. 

I will find this the most interesting during divorce proceedings.  On the one hand, a completely sovereign Britain could treat an EU private citizen no differently than it does non-EU nationals (eg Norwegians, Swiss) which are enfolded in existing economic-freedoms  agreements. Or, a sovereign Britain could exact an eye for an eye: to the degree European countries (as the non-Brit EU  whole) allow free movement of British travelers, expatriates and workers in their states, the UK would reciprocate.  

Right now, the movement of labour is assured and the rights of residence are clear. But the interregnum will not be conventionally 'good' for all capitalist enterprises.  The loss of wealth is not yet clear.

Some sad Leave folks are assuming that the divorce negotiations will result in the UK remaining a 'part-member' or 'advanced associate,' because of the economic integration already in place.  He who leads a company that is presently a European entity headquartered or directed from London, for example, what will he want the government to negotiate for his class of business ...? If he were an international investment banker, for example, keeping the EU bona fides might mean he will move to Frankfurt, despite sentiment.

A surge in STDs is the first example that came to mind for me, too. But then I thought of surgeons, students, cheap labour and retirees.  The UK's citizens are among the most 'expatriated' of all nation states.   There are approximately two million within  the confines of the continental EU, let's say.  What happens to their statuses, investments, homes, residency requirements?  

Some of the most interesting post-poll inquiries has been into demographics. The young in the UK voted to Remain.   From one angle this surely must be selfish. If I can be 'free' to come and go and stay and build and live and benefit myself among foreigners in the supra-national state Right Now, what will happen going forward?  It is not known, not yet.

Open borders in the recent European context obviously influenced opinion and led to psychological states more conducive of a Leave decision. As Ba'al has  not exactly put it, loathing of filthy brown hordes leads to walls.   

But I think it pays to put yourself in the shoes of a disappointed young person who now fears a 'wall' keeping her out of Europe. A withdrawal of citizenship freedoms, so to speak. 

.

 

A thoughtful round up William, at the core I believe we agree it is good and self-interested for peoples, races and cultures to mix, interact and know each other - but further though, that it be individually by their own choices, and to the extent each wants, without, of course, it ever being a matter for Statist interference, subjective policy, selective integration, psychological coercion, special treatment, etc. And, that the character of a nation isn't arbitrarily sacrificed in the process.

Along with its weakening semi-socialist economies, I place much blame for a chaotic Eurozone on the European failed experiment in 'multiculturalism', which I regard as one prong of their Progressivism (exhibiting 'equality and fraternity' and blah) and always under the auspices of the do-good-look-good gvments and the EU State. Now we are all seeing what collectivism has led to, it was predictable that to define and treat people (and themselves) by groups, collectively/tribally, in order to uplift togetherness or equality, would have a counter effect, and -logically- could only split up people, by groups.

Who has a clue where it is all headed? No help at all, but it can only be somewhere in between a One World State and a thousand tiny nation states...

"...the centrifugal forces within its components". That rang a Yeats bell.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre/The falcon cannot hear the falconer/Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold/Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world/The blood-dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere/The ceremony of innocence is drowned/The best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full of passionate intensity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am glad it is an English speaking country that has  tipped over the dominoes.  Sort of like V  in the movie,  V for Vandetta...

More like Martha and the Vandellas...   photo smirk.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, moralist said:

More like Martha and the Vandellas...   photo smirk.gif

What is Martha and the Vandella????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2016 at 5:28 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

Santanna said: Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it.

Has Britain recently lost a World War while I wasn't paying attention?

In the last 200 years, has Britain shown a fondness for monarchic rule, or one person rule?

Do the English have a fondness for totalitarianism as reflected in centuries of its literature, music, or mythology?

I didn't think so. 

Forgot what Santanna said, and remember instead what happened to the Boy Who Cried Wolf. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, PDS said:

Has Britain recently lost a World War while I wasn't paying attention?

In the last 200 years, has Britain shown a fondness for monarchic rule, or one person rule?

Do the English have a fondness for totalitarianism as reflected in centuries of its literature, music, or mythology?

I didn't think so. 

Forgot what Santanna said, and remember instead what happened to the Boy Who Cried Wolf. 

The Monarchy reigns but does not rule. Parliament is the sovereign   body in Britain.  Britain has an unwritten constitution  and is a quasi-republic.  It keeps a hereditary monarchy for show and ceremony.   

Here is the blurb from the Wiki article:   

The monarch and his or her immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties. As the monarchy is constitutional, the monarch is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the Prime Minister. The monarch is, by tradition, commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. Though the ultimate formal executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and, in practice, within the constraints of convention and precedent.

ba'al chatzaf 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What is Martha and the Vandella????

Think back to your Motown memories. Martha and her Vandellas had smash hits with Heatwave and Dancing in the Streets.  They were big league back in the good old days. Here they are with pal Dusty Springfield singing a soulful Trump song:

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Here they are with pal Dusty Springfield singing a soulful Trump song:

William,

I got it!

:)

That was one of the most clever Trump hair quips I've seen to date. (And, man, did that song take me back. :) )

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...