• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Joeytj

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,673
Checked, but didn't see anything about this here. The comments made me chuckle, mad, and intrigued at the dynamics at play here:



The last debate showed Warren trying now to bring in Biden, Pete, and Booker voters, so her campaign must be pretty confident about retaining enough progressives and former Bernie supporters to help her out in the primaries where she needs them.

And that is scaring a lot of Berners.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
I guess that we will find out soon enough. Bernie is reported to have quite a large team in Iowa and the latest poll showed him 3 points away from Biden. And i expect NH to go to whatever progressives does best in Iowa, while Nevada already has Bernie on top (according to the latest poll).

Warren could also take it all and i see it as more likely because her trend is consistently upwards.

Or maybe we'll get an iowa nightmare scenario where Bernie gets 24%, Warren gets 24% and Biden gets 25%!

Theres an iowa poll coming soon and im dying to see it.
The polls of Iowa have been all over the place with regard to Sanders.

In June Selzer had him in second at 16%.
In July Suffolk had him in fourth at 9%.
In August Monmouth had him in fourth at 9%.

The CBS/YouGov polls have been kinder where he's been consistently in second, but the numbers have still jumped around (22%, 19%, 26%).

The SD of these poll results is almost 7, lol.
There's nothing to explain or suggest any real movement.

Cf Biden has been consistently in first across these polls, with numbers between 24-30%.

And Warren being about 16% with an SD of about 2. Regardless of where she's placed her support has been pretty consistent. And importantly for Iowa she has topped second preferences in at least two of these.

Selzer putting out a new poll will be interesting.

Also adam387 Hillary won NH because she cried. Bernie should just cry.
 

Deleted member 283

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,288
God, the Kavanaugh news has me depressed about him being on SCOTUS all over again, like it's the day the Senate confirmed him all over again.

Because, okay. With Trump, I understand that while impeachment is of course the right thing to do and he should be impeached regardless and I'm happy that the process appears to have finally technically started, that as long as he loses next year, that's what matters and what does or doesn't happen with impeachment shouldn't matter much in the long run (again, so long as he loses, which dear god hopefully will happen regardless).

Kavanaugh though... There is no election for him. The only real chance to stop him was the confirmation hearings, and that obviously failed, because Republicans are that evil and vile. And now, bar something happening, he's there for life.

...But of course, that's not TECHNICALLY true. Congress has powers for exactly this situation: impeachment. Not only did Kavanaugh himself appear to commit crimes, but the President/Senate misused their authority to ensure the FBI could not properly investigate those allegations and try to hush it away. What's the mechanism to deal with a situation like this? Impeachment. That's literally what it's there for.

But noooooooooooooooooooooo, despite this being exactly what the mechanism is designed for, exactly why Congress has those powers to begin with, not only why they have those powers but also why they are technically Constitutionally obliged to use them whether they like it or not (not that such things matter much in practice though apparently), it's still too "extreme" to use powers exactly the way they were meant to be used, for exactly the kind of situations they're there for.

And of course there is one other solution to dealing with people like Kavanaugh, one that wouldn't require any Republican support at all as long as we get the Presidency/Senate back: stacking the court. But despite not requiring any Republicans at all and thus no "but the Senate" to hide behind, that's obviously seen as even more extreme and even more of a non-option.

So.. what? I'm just supposed to not only be fine with Republicans succeeding at getting Kavanaugh onto the court to begin with and him likely sitting there for decades, but I'm supposed to be fine with him nothing being done about that, nothing even tried, because "the politics of it tho" or whatever? Like, I don't care that it won't succeed. I know that. I more than know that. It's the right thing to do regardless though.

Because it's about far more than just Kavanaugh himself anyway. It's about that method, of putting ANYONE, even a complete piece of trash like Kavanaugh, on the court working so long as they can stonewall FBI investigations and the like. That is to say, Kavanaugh won't be the last. He's far from it. The next time there's an opening in an RRR or RDR administration? Same fucking thing will happen, even if that person is also a rapist or murderer or who even knows. Just stonewall the investigation and bruteforce him onto the court anyway. Literally nothing to lose, since they get the Seat, and it didn't even have any consequences in the Senate (not even no consequences; Republicans made gains, and that's mostly a circumstance of the maps last year, but still. And before the House is brought up, we all know that's mostly due to a referendum on Trump and healthcare and our success there obviously had little to do with Kavanaugh especially since that's well the Senate's business).

The point is, it worked. It 100% worked, with no consequences at all. And that being the case, if and when the situation arises again (and it will, that's a question of when, not if), why would they not do the same thing again?

And that's why it's so important to me personally that Kavanaugh should be impeached. Because it's not just about him, but those that will come after. That there needs to be some form of consequences, anything at all for this kinda behavior. Even something equivalent to a slap on the wrist due to articles of impeachment dying in the Senate regardless is better than nothing at all and pure silence.

Because that's another thing: yeah, I know it will die in the Senate regardless, because Republicans are scum. But as people like to point out, there are more of us than there are of them, and beyond being the right thing to do, THAT would be part of the point of such a move as well: to motivate our own base, and to try and win over independents on stuff like this as well while we're at it.

Because no duh Republicans in the Senate won't be convinced. But so what if they can't? Why are they the target audience to begin with? Of course they're going to do that, they put him on the Court to begin with, no duh they don't have any problems defending him, that's not news. The audience would be everyone else. Saying it's Republicans we need to convince regardless or nothing matters sounds little different to me than "we need to win over Trump voters to beat him in 2020" which is obviously just as false. We just need to motivate our own voters to turn out next year to beat Trump, just even a few thousand votes changing hands in a handful of states would have been enough to completely change how 2016 went, and same deal here.

That it would be all about our own base, and motivating them and fighting for the right ting regardless of what Republicans do and letting people have faith in our democracy and letting them know that even when things go wrong, even when things go terribly, terribly wrong, there are still mechanisms to set things right again and people willing to fight for what's right, whatever it takes, no matter how hard or unlikely the fight, and that's definitely more than worth something in its own right IMO, regardless of outcomes. Letting people actually have that faith, that even when things go wrong, that they can be corrected, even if it's a hard brutal fight and knowing that there's people out there willing to do it no matter how unlikely the odds, because that's the right thing to do and how those situations can be handled.

Of course though, I am very much a realist about this. I know this won't happen. I know Democrats and Pelosi are petrified of making such a move, especially after 2018 and what happened in the Senate over Kavanaugh there (even though that wasn't purely about him and likely the same thing would have happened more or less the same way regardless purely due to the maps, that seems be the narrative that it had at least an impact on the race regardless). I know it's not going to happen, no way, no how.

But it sure would be fucking nice if it would. And that's why this stuff resurfacing has me so depressed all over again: because Republicans already won. And despite the House having mechanisms to correct the vile methods Republicans used to put someone on the Supreme Court that doesn't in any way shape or form belong there, despite there indeed being members of the Democratic Caucus who would be willing to fight that fight if only they were allowed to, that Pelosi won't allow it to happen to protect other House members (who may or may not even need protecting depending on how things go and how the public ends up perceiving such things, as that's the thing, if you don't fight to begin with, there's no way of knowing how it will go), and that reluctance not only protects Kavanaugh and ensures he's there as long as he wants it, but anyone else who Republicans also strongarm when they get an opportunity, same thing.

And so yeah, I'm naturally more than a little depressed and unhappy about all this. And I know that even if Democrats were to fight, that it would result in a loss in the Senate, that that much would be guaranteed regardless. But some things are just worth fighting for regardless, and this is one of them. As at least personally, I just can't accept doing nothing here. The tactics used were too vile, the price too high already to do nothing, and by being silent, it only gets higher.

And I know the results of all this are practically pre-ordained: that it will be shocking if the House even so much as talks about Kavanaugh, nevermind actually moves for impeachment. But can't a person at least be depressed about that and wish people would fight for what's right regardless of the odds and not have everything be purely about "politics this, elections that" for one single second and instead doing the right thing regardless (and knowing in my head that it can't, that of course everything will be and always will be about elections and swing-seats and marginals and moderate members and stuff only depresses me all the more, that those are the considerations that ultimately lead to the final decisions on stuff like this instead of any actual set of ethics or morals or principles or anything of the sort).

And this has long since just turned into a rant, so I'll cut it off here less I go on for another 5 paragraphs, but I just needed to get all these feelings and thoughts out somewhere I guess, so thanks for letting me do so here (and for reading all this nonsense, for anyone who takes the time to do so).

Meh.

Edit: I supposed the TL;DR of all this, is, I just want to believe in the country again. I want to be able to believe, that if we did fight for something like this, with everything we had, that if we truly gave it everything we got and went all-in, no holds-barred, the country would be on our side because someone like that shouldn't be on the Supreme Court, and that not only is there apparently lots of evidence to that effect, but the fact that Republicans went to hard in making sure the FBI couldn't investigate any of the corroborating witnesses only makes Kavanaugh look that much more shadier, on top of the witnesses existing to begin with, and that while Republicans of course would remain stalwart, that we could win over everyone else. I'd just like to believe that, that if we actually fought, that we could win over the hearts of everyone else, and since there are more of us than them, that things would be fine.

I'd like to believe that, and I'd like to believe that such a thing wouldn't be too much to ask for, that the reality isn't so godawful that apparently even that much is far too close to being a flat-out pipedream to even consider asking, but alas...
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 283

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,288
Also, can I just say, I really hate the House website sometimes... Because I took the time to write out a message on my Representative's page about my feelings on Kavanaugh, only to get a stupid error at the end when I clicked send (not even a "mailbox full" error or anything like that, but rather a webpage not found error with like it being a white page which just left-aligned text and no images or anything, the type of thing that might happen on and old webpage if the connection went out in the middle of loading, except my connection is just fine and that's just the error page for sending a message to my rep apparently), and of course I didn't copy/paste it or anything. And this is hardly the first time this has happened when I've tried the "Email me" form on his page (and I always forget to proactively copy stuff over to the clipboard, because I don't think about it until I click send). Sigh...
 

Beer Monkey

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
9,308
Don't actually hold the impeachment vote, just go full Benghazi is the answer here.

And that is the different between impeachment inquiry and impeachment vote. Not that the latter would be a problem, that's just alarmist concern trolling bullshit, but the truly important thing is that impeachment inquiry is the only chance of blowing through the obstruction that hides all the evidence from the public. Dragging the evidence into the light is what matters the most. And it cannot happen without an impeachment inquiry because of the unprecedented level of obstruction.

I thought that's what most people wanted already?

Yep.

In fact any decision as to whether actually hold an impeachment vote (yes, in the House) would be premature to make without doing the impeachment inquiry and requisite investigations first.

But even then, this this bullshit about DON'T IMPEACH OR WE LOSE IF WE CAN'T CONVICT IN THE SENATE is still based on fallacy. Clinton's impeachment hurt the dems despite the lack of conviction and helped GWB steal the election by allowing the vote in Florida to be too close.
 
Last edited:

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,624
All of this is a daily reminder of how important elections are especially mid terms. People like Mitch McConnell have abused the Senate to extreme levels. It underlines how important winning the Senate is. With a Democratic senate we wouldn't even be in this place, Obama would have appointed a judge already.

But also just as important is cracking down on corruption in the Senate. Corruption allows these dudes to be in power and wealth from giant corporations. And why a Biden presidency will get fuck all done.
 

antonz

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,309
There is an attempted Impeachment Inquiry right now. In reality nothing is happening until court rulings start coming in and in favor of Congress. So much is being left to the Courts right now with judges appointed by trump etc. Depending on just how fucked the Judiciary already is Congress could get hindered quite a bit.
 

Deleted member 283

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,288
Also, here's an extremely spicy meatball of a take regarding a hypothetical impeachment inquiry into Kavanaugh I came up with while I was in the shower just now:

Last year, in the Senate elections, both Republican/Democratic candidates/incumbents said pretty much whatever they said in regards to Kavanaugh. But yet, whether are Democratic incumbents/candidates were in favor of Kavanaugh serving as a Supreme Court Justice or opposed, there was absolutely no discernible pattern in whether they won or lost. Those in favor and those opposed both won/lost in different states (and in addition to this, there's also the matter of us winning the House regardless obviously and that not just being a victory but a blowout). It's almost like there's no discernible pattern between a candidate's stance on Kavanaugh, and whether they would win or lose. It's almost like people just voted however they were going to vote and didn't really seem much to factor Kavanaugh into their votes one way, or the other.

That much isn't controversial, yeah? It's literally what happened in the 2018 elections.

But yet despite that, despite all that, in regards to a hypothetical impeachment inquiry into Kavanaugh (that obviously won't happen regardless because this narrative is just too strong, but alas) it seems to pretty much be taken as a granted that if such a thing WERE to happen, it would cost us seats in the House at an absolute minimum if not completely doom our chances of holding onto it...? Huh...? Despite no possible link being able to be made between how (would-be) Senators felt about Kavanaugh and their victory chances, it's suddenly taken as a granted that that would at a minimum cost us seats in the House if not outright flipping it and THAT'S why we shouldn't do it... why exactly?

Especially since on top of all this, on top of all this, in order for whatever narrative Trump would come up with to defend Kavanaugh (despite him being the one to order to the FBI to conduct a sham investigation and restrict them from doing more, which we've only seen him extend his hand further into interfering into stuff he has no business doing, including all the nonsense surrounding his insanity when it came to Hurricane Dorian and politicizing the effing weather of all things) would require people to actually TRUST Trump. Which, Republicans aside, except for the issue of the economy (and even there Trump seems to be on potentially shaky ground these days), they don't. People really, really don't trust him on much else, and not only do they not trust him, that lack of trust seems pretty much solidified at this point in poll after poll after poll.


So, what I'm getting at here, what my spicy meatball of a take is is maybe, just MAAAAAAAAAYBE, all this bedwettting over a hypothetical impeachment inquiry into Kavanaugh, assuming such a thing were to happen regardless, that maybe, just MAYBE, it is in fact just bedwetting over nothing with not a single speck of actual evidence to back it up, unless I'm really, really missing something here, and that all being the case, that not at all being a reason he shouldn't be impeached at least? That perhaps people might maybe be able to come up with other reasons, but as far as this "it would hurt us in the House" stuff is concerned, that just seems like bedwetting based on nothing to me unless I'm really missing something (indeed, especially since the only thing that's really changed since is that if anything all this Kavanaugh stuff will likely help doom Collins chances if she decides to run, and that's about it, so, why not just the bedwetting, but the sheer confidence that that would be what would happen if he were to be impeached over this stuff from some people?).

And I better damn well not have anyone @ me with the words "Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky/Newt Gingrich" and deliberately ignore all the billion differences between the Clinton impeachment and a hypothetical Kavanaugh one to make that comparison in the first place such as: 1.) Bill Clinton being a popular President who people liked at the time, Trump obviously isn't 2.) Everyone seeing the affair as just that, a consensual affair at the time and nobody buying any of the perjury stuff at all, whereas nothing about Kavanaugh was consensual in the last and Trump forcing the FBI to conduct a sham investigation only makes that all the more evident that like actual crimes occurred here, and serious ones at that 3.) An election indeed happening since Kavanaugh was confirmed to the court and no evidence that how anyone voted for Kavanaugh affected how their constituents voted for them either way, that they didn't just vote how they were going to vote regardless and that makes it very hard to believe an impeachment inquiry would be any different without specific evidence otherwise, etc, etc. etc.
 

Pooh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,849
The Hundred Acre Wood
The problem is Dems don't have a media apparatus or the discipline to "go full Benghazi" with the impeachment stuff. They don't have a Fox News or a massive network of radio hosts willing to spew nonsense day after day, they don't have the same kind of coordination, and so on. As much as I'd love to see it, I don't see many outside of the squad who can drive a consistent narrative, and Nancy is not exactly amplifying them, rather the opposite.

I'd love to be proven wrong but I haven't seen much evidence of their ability to do that.

Also they should absolutely do the same non-stop hammering on Kavanaugh (and an impeachment inquiry), but we'll see.
 

Malleymal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,301
I am waiting to see what will come in this impeachment inquiry, but I have lost faith in the Democratic Party. The two party system is flawed when one team is actively working to do any and everything possible to destroy you, while the other team is worried about optics.

I have been told that 2020 is the turning point, and trump will meet his demise in the election. The same election that was compromised 2 and half years ago, and is currently under attack again, but McConnell has actively kept our congress from doing anything about it. We can literally see the non action, obstruction, and blatant disregard for proper by republicans, and people expect me to believe that we are voting this current admin out.

The way that trump and top republicans are acting right now, makes me think that they know their spots are safe. They will get their votes in the states that get them the electorate that they need. No need to worry about the popular vote when you manipulate certain state votes.

I am not looking forward to this election year at all.
 

Diablos

has a title.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,595
I can't believe Pete said at least Trump and Mitch are "pretending" to be interested. Since when has it ever been good to act like you support something when you actually don't? He's literally giving them credit for being dishonest with the country about combating gun violence. What??
 

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,438
I constantly see people praise Pete as good on messaging, but I feel like he seems to switch messaging month-to-month. Last month he was just arguing that Dems shouldn't worry about being called socialists, but now he's fretting about Republicans calling them all gun grabbers.
 

Deleted member 176

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
37,160
I don't see how butti has any path going forward. His one unique asset was that he had millennial sensibilities and didn't fret about stuff like the filibuster, but now with this gun stuff he's just more boring and more lucid Biden.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
Pete is eloquent, even if you don't like what he's saying.

Random thought, given the current frontrunners for the nomination that will hopefully win if nominated and the current occupant in the White House; Obama, at only 58 right now, will in all likelihood outlive both his immediate successor and the one that follows.
 

Malleymal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,301
Pete is eloquent, even if you don't like what he's saying.

Random thought, given the current frontrunners for the nomination that will hopefully win if nominated and the current occupant in the White House; Obama, at only 58 right now, will in all likelihood outlive both his immediate successor and the one that follows.

Isn't that the same for jimmy carter? Outliving both Reagan and bush?
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943
When I retained an elder care attorney to help with my aunt, he touched on this, saying my uncle (they're unmarried but I call him my uncle anyway) needed to revise his trust to ensure his condo DIDN'T go to my aunt in case she needs MassHealth for nursing home care in the future (she has early signs of dementia and was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment, and has no assets, so there's a good chance she will). We already amended our will to write her out. Masshealth sounds like a fucking scam that's even worse than what the elder care attorney portrayed.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,964
Yeh, true, some parallels. Carter was a one-termer who was pretty young at 52 when he was inaugurated, followed by a very old (Reagan) and kind of old (Bush I) successor.
Obama was a two-termer, younger than Carter at both inauguration and upon leaving office despite two terms, and followed by a very old (Trump) and maybe very old (Sanders, Biden, Warren) successor.

Clinton, Bush II and Trump are all currently about the same age lol.
It's actually plausible that say in 2032, the only living Presidents will be Obama and whoever at that time occupies the White House.
 

signal

Member
Oct 28, 2017
40,199
When I retained an elder care attorney to help with my aunt, he touched on this, saying my uncle (they're unmarried but I call him my uncle anyway) needed to revise his trust to ensure his condo DIDN'T go to my aunt in case she needs MassHealth for nursing home care in the future (she has early signs of dementia and was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment, and has no assets, so there's a good chance she will). We already amended our will to write her out. Masshealth sounds like a fucking scam that's even worse than what the elder care attorney portrayed.
Damn. Didn't even know an elder care attorney was a thing, but seems useful.
 

ned_ballad

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
48,249
Rochester, New York
Is this Medicaid's dark secret or MassHealth's? Do other states do this to their Medicaid recipients over 55, or any age for that matter?
To get my grandpa with Parkinson's a home aide to help my grandma care for him, he had to sign away everything in his name over to my grandma. Medicaid was the only way to get these aides, his regular insurance didn't cover them even though they were medically necessary. They had to get an attorney to help them through the process, it took several months.

This was in NY.

When he died, there wasn't any issues. Everything was already my grandma's, he had no assets.

My grandma was going to do this for herself and sign her stuff to my mom, but she died before she could do it.
 

Diablos

has a title.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,595
To get my grandpa with Parkinson's a home aide to help my grandma care for him, he had to sign away everything in his name over to my grandma. Medicaid was the only way to get these aides, his regular insurance didn't cover them even though they were medically necessary. They had to get an attorney to help them through the process, it took several months.

This was in NY.

When he died, there wasn't any issues. Everything was already my grandma's, he had no assets.

My grandma was going to do this for herself and sign her stuff to my mom, but she died before she could do it.
Well that's good at least. Sounds like MassHealth is one of the worst offenders, although I can't imagine Medicaid in deep red states being any more forgiving.
 

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943






In context, KY FOP endorsed Conway in 2015 and GOP nominee David Williams in 2011

Lulz

To get my grandpa with Parkinson's a home aide to help my grandma care for him, he had to sign away everything in his name over to my grandma. Medicaid was the only way to get these aides, his regular insurance didn't cover them even though they were medically necessary. They had to get an attorney to help them through the process, it took several months.

This was in NY.

When he died, there wasn't any issues. Everything was already my grandma's, he had no assets.

My grandma was going to do this for herself and sign her stuff to my mom, but she died before she could do it.
My aunt refused to go into assisted living, which is what she really needs and what the family was going to pay for oop, but at least her insurance covers a part-time home health aide. She also gets diabetic meals on weekdays from Meals on Wheels.

But I've been taking a break from the situation because I was upset and devastated that she refused to even try assisted living, especially considering she knew all the time, effort, and money I put into research and planning.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,620
What is the sauce on this? Does he have a chance? Obviously he lost bigly in the Senate primary, but that was a statewide deal.
He lost re-election as Maricopa sheriff in 2016 and AZ hasn't exactly been trending toward Republicans since then. I would guess he's more likely to lose than win.
 

Newlib

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,822
Looking over the post yep plus the opioid removal program

As a former Kentucky native (whose family is all in Kentucky), I just don't see how Bevin really can win. He has no base of support and is widely unpopular. He is running against, at worst, an unoffensive opponent whose father is still pretty popular in the state. Like I get the Trump factor, but being Republican didn't save Ernie Fletcher and he had even less warts than Bevin. The most recent polls seem to bearing this out too.
 

ned_ballad

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
48,249
Rochester, New York
My aunt refused to go into assisted living, which is what she really needs and what the family was going to pay for oop, but at least her insurance covers a part-time home health aide. She also gets diabetic meals on weekdays from Meals on Wheels.

But I've been taking a break from the situation because I was upset and devastated that she refused to even try assisted living, especially considering she knew all the time, effort, and money I put into research and planning.
My grandparents and mom wouldn't even consider any kind of assisted living. Medicare was giving my grandpa 6 hours of aide service a week. Medicaid was offering 40 hours. Medicaid also covered home hospice, which ended up being really useful, albeit short used (he was only in hospice for <48 hours).

I'll never understand why Medicaid has significantly better elder care than Medicare, the latter of which is specifically designed for elderly people...
 
Oct 27, 2017
17,973
When I retained an elder care attorney to help with my aunt, he touched on this, saying my uncle (they're unmarried but I call him my uncle anyway) needed to revise his trust to ensure his condo DIDN'T go to my aunt in case she needs MassHealth for nursing home care in the future (she has early signs of dementia and was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment, and has no assets, so there's a good chance she will). We already amended our will to write her out. Masshealth sounds like a fucking scam that's even worse than what the elder care attorney portrayed.

Yep...for similar concerns, we were fortunately able to have my dad sign away everything to go into an unrelated trust, before he lost the ability to do so.

This is in part why I am so concerned about how m4a is being presented in the debates. These are some of the issues that people will run into when they are thrust into these systems without a navigator.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.