# The Media and Videogames



## Jiehfeng (Aug 5, 2019)

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/08/05/politics/kevin-mccarthy-mass-shootings-video-games/index.html

https://www.dexerto.com/general/politicians-blame-call-of-duty-fortnite-recent-mass-shootings-879192



			
				Trump said:
			
		

> "We must stop the glorification of violence in our society," Trump said in remarks from the White House Monday morning as part of a list of efforts he believes the nation must take. "This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace."
> 
> He added, "It is too easy today for troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence. We must stop or substantially reduce this and it has to begin immediately."





			
				Some guy with power said:
			
		

> While the politician admitted that there were studies that show that games don’t increase violence, he then stated: “What’s changed in this country? We’ve always had guns, we’ve always had evil. And I see a video game industry, that teaches young people to kill”.



Yup, it isn't gonna stop.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 5, 2019)

Well, I guess we should've seen this coming.  The NRA pays Republicans to stay blind to the factors that actually contribute to mass shootings.


----------



## DANTENDO (Aug 5, 2019)

Can someone pass this msg to trump and say I play GTA and my fave band is abba


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 5, 2019)

DANTENDO said:


> Can someone pass this msg to trump and say I play GTA and my fave band is abba



Mamma Mia! I will relay the message, Take a Chance on Me.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Aug 5, 2019)

Oh boy Trump trying to blame movies and games again for gun crimes like he did last year. 

Now to wait for people to come here and try to falsely interpret what he said and just say that isn't what he meant like last year too. 

I don't normally get political on anything, but this shit is stupid at this point. We are going on a nearly 30 year, outdated argument with many, many articles of research proving this very issue just simply doesn't exist. 

I mean honestly, this is like saying vaccines cause autism at this point.


----------



## bananapi761 (Aug 5, 2019)

Probably goes without saying but people who let violent media influence them have something more than a mental illness.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Aug 5, 2019)

Baby Boomers are known to senselessly hate games and anime (they think it's only for children). The fact that Trump did this again, just goes to show that muh left un' right sides can agree regardless of wherever the hell they stand. lol


----------



## Xzi (Aug 5, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Baby Boomers are known to senselessly hate games and anime (they think it's only for children). The fact that Trump did this again, just goes to show that muh left un' right sides can agree regardless of wherever the hell they stand. lol


The El Paso shooter's manifesto on 8chan made it very clear what his motivations were.  Nobody on the left is blaming either shooting on video games.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 6, 2019)

There were two more shootings in Chicago these days (in the same area).


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 7, 2019)

Ah... The usual "kicking the dead horse" thread. 

Anything new on this field, or just the same - old, same - old?


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 7, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Ah... The usual "kicking the dead horse" thread.
> 
> Anything new on this field, or just the same - old, same - old?



Same old mostly, though I guess the president saying it is probably something new.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 8, 2019)

The El Paso shooter did mention CoD in his manifesto. He called fighting the authorities a CoD fantasy but decided against it because he viewed it as pointless. He clearly stated why he did the terror attack (not video game related).

The Dayton shooter was sexually frustrated and often talked about world politics to his girlfriend who actually was engaged to another man (who she chose as her primary boyfriend; a polyamorous relationship). Also not related to video games. He showed her a video of a mass shooting on their first date.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 8, 2019)

watch this have the OPPOSITE effect if trump decides to ban violent video games then he'll be to blame for an even higher spike in mass shootings he just doesn't think about the conciquences of his actions either past present or future

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> The El Paso shooter did mention CoD in his manifesto. He called fighting the authorities a CoD fantasy but decided against it because he viewed it as pointless. He clearly stated why he did the terror attack (not video game related).
> 
> The Dayton shooter was sexually frustrated and often talked about world politics to his girlfriend who actually was engaged to another man (who she chose as her primary boyfriend; a polyamorous relationship). Also not related to video games. He showed her a video of a mass shooting on their first date.



 she's an idiot for dating him if he shown her a video on mass shootings hell it's her fault for not calling the police she could've saved those lives but didn't


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Aug 8, 2019)

relevant:






Ive seen a few chickledees here that are big fans of Nintendo and are staunch conservatives as well. This must be conflicting. lol


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 8, 2019)

Man I love animal Crossing, taught me stealing money from Minors and Extortion...


----------



## Captain_N (Aug 8, 2019)

Why do they never blame the person that actually fired the weapon. it is 100% his/her fault. Not trumps fault, its not the guns fault, not video games/movies/parents, the world ...ect...
Blame the dumb ass deciding to shoot up the place.


----------



## notimp (Aug 8, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> Why do they never blame the person that actually fired the weapon. it is 100% his/her fault. Not trumps fault, its not the guns fault, not video games/movies/parents, the world ...ect...
> Blame the dumb ass deciding to shoot up the place.


Because people try to find a way to prevent the next one? So they are looking into common denominators. At which point they start thinking that storks bring babies, because there are so many of them around, in the months most babies are born.

(Example for a false statistical correlation.)

Then they resort to: "When I was young there were no mass shootings, so what has changed? Videogames." Logic, because they are old.

The issue here is, that in the past lets say 40 years quite a few things have changed. One of them being that people can publish their mass shooting videos, and manifestos on the web, for any brittle mind to pick up and obsess about - so this finally adds the aspect all mass shooters crave - posthumous glory and recognition. Be it even only with a very select group on the internet (the 8chan crowd + company). And a few other things as well - like online bullying, faking empathy on social media, social worth by number of friends society, faster rate of perceived social change. US Presidents spreading hate propaganda to win elections. Parents having to work more than in the past generation to sustain the same income level (family social structures change).

But people love single issue theories.

And they don't understand - that blaming something on a thing that the vast majority of people now do as a mode of recreation (play videogames), doesnt help to tackle the issue at all.

I mean there is an even more obvious correlation, social media is proven to negatively affect mental health in quite a few ways - but old folks like getting images of their grandchildren (for which they strangely need an ad company moderating the exchange), and politicians love it for ad campaigns, so nobody is picking that up.

This is not a sufficient explanation as to why this is now a more widespread issue - but rather an example that teaches you about the validity of single issue theories in complex worlds.
--

edit:

Videogames are used by the military in desensitization training. So to have human material lose 'the fear of pulling the trigger', and be able to act as instructed under stress situations. So there is that causality. That always was there. You could argue that this is enough to ban videogames. But then you have to accept that your society isnt realy working - because people can be influenced so quickly in your minds - that working social structures, or education wouldnt be worth anything, because people are just too damn emotionally guided. 

The studies about videogames increasing violent behavior dont hold up. Activasion only rises temporarily. Thats a seperate thing people tried to prove.

There is also an 'issue' with people using media as a backdrop for their fantasies. If yours are violent - and you have COD at hand, guess what - best tool for the job. Keeps you engaged in your violent fantasies for hours. But then - thats an issue with all media.

Are videogames more 'effective' at it (emotionally stipulating) probably.

So the point could be made, that videogames transform more 'susceptible' beings to mass shooters more effectively.

The issue here is, that you cant test that. The sample group is too small.

If you then point at other countries, and low mass shooting numbers, compaired to the US - this points at gun culture also being involved. There is no other 1st world country that propagates the "heroes can have weapons/problems are solved with guns" myth quite like the US. So if thats something you believe in. And you hate society. And you have violent tendencies. And you like shooters. Which might very well have desensitized you to the conceptual idea of shooting crowds. And your parents dont care. And your school is talking all about inclusivity, but never really meaning it. And your president is putting the fear of god into people over migrants. And you have access to weapons and ammunition in every super market. And you think that people will read your manifesto and "change their wrong behavior". Guess what.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Aug 8, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> Why do they never blame the person that actually fired the weapon. it is 100% his/her fault. Not trumps fault, its not the guns fault, not video games/movies/parents, the world ...ect...
> Blame the dumb ass deciding to shoot up the place.


Well Trump blamed video games, any thoughts on that?
cuz quite frankly it sounds like republicans are really placing the blame on that. I would love to hear from conservative folks on this one.


----------



## Viri (Aug 8, 2019)

The media always has, and always will have a hate boner for video games. But, movies, they'll over look it! I guess they cannot blame Marilyn Manson for things anymore. Anyone else remember when they went on a Crusade against Marilyn Manson, because the Columbine school shooting happened? Because Marilyn Manson totally told those two teens to gun down a school, lol.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Aug 8, 2019)

Viri said:


> The media always has, and always will have a hate boner for video games. But, movies, they'll over look it! I guess they cannot blame Marilyn Manson for things anymore. Anyone else remember when they went on a Crusade against Marilyn Manson, because the Columbine school shooting happened? Because Marilyn Manson totally told those two teens to gun down a school, lol.


except this wasnt the media. Republicans started this one. To just scapegoat the media for what politicians are saying is dishonest.
if anything for once a lot of well known people in the media have come out decrying this point as bullshit.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 8, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> except this wasnt the media. Republicans started this one. To just scapegoat the media for what politicians are saying is dishonest.
> if anything for once a lot of well known people in the media have come out decrying this point as bullshit.



True, it's mostly the politicians and we should focus on the source. But I'm pretty sure Fox News is on the side of the politicians on this one, they always has been. I for one am pretty sure in the last century the media (mostly Fox iirc) themselves also were vocal about them being against videogames and such. There's plenty of old videos on YouTube like this.


----------



## notimp (Aug 8, 2019)

The last postings in this thread are just plain stupid.

I just made the point, that videogames are part of the reason why mass shootings happen more often. But the connection isnt strong enough, to ban something thats done recreationally by most people in a country today.

And even if it were strong (social media and deteriorating mental health), if something is popular enough, you don't do anything about it. ("When the NRA was stronger - you would never have really thought about banning automatic rifles as a solution." - stipulation.)

All that you are doing is saying -

I love me videogames.
I feel good, when playing videogames.
What I feel good about, cant be an issue.
People who are looking into this shouldnt look at what I feel good about.
They should start looking at other causes.
Yes they should ban the causes.
Yes.
Yes.
I feel good.

If you'd understand how stupid this argument is, you wouldnt make those threads all the time.

I guess the NRA uses the same argument on their side.

The issue is culture here. Videogames are part of it. If your society would be structured differently - it would be less of an issue.

You can't tackle 'the direct causes", because they would be slightly different in many cases.

You are never talking about "solving this issue" because you cant.

You are only ever talking about mitigating it, at which point you don look at "whats causing it", but at what are the catalysts (easy availability of weapons, f.e.).

You still all love your "single issue theories" (maybe three issues, three - solve three, as long as it is not me videogames).

You still show no empathy with people that are distressed and have mental issues - even prior to the shooting.

You still get a kink out of hunting down their "manifesto" because you find it fascinating in how they were motivated. But you and your biggest hobby could never have been part of it.

No - but they could have. You have to deal with that.

This is partly what makes these threads so aggrevating. You are just stroking each others emotions, without even trying to understand concepts here.

These threads for the most part are fluff, and we had too many of them already in the recent past. Sadly. Not sadly because "tha media blaims me videogames" but sadly because there were too many damn shootings recently. If we cant go three months, without someone having to make a thread like this - it gets to be an issue in here as well.
-


Special angle media and videogames. Videogames are attention competition for conventional media. Just as conventional media is attention competition for videogames. If there is some embedded sort of rivalry - you, working in media f.e. will pick up on this being an important cause more readily.

Makes sense? What no "fake news media" needed to explain this one. Too boring?


----------



## DBlaze (Aug 8, 2019)

I remember when world wars happened because germans lost matches in call of duty, feelsbadman.
May as well blame books, movies and music while they're at it.

It's almost like people with mental issues and/or violent tendencies are more prone to doing violent acts or get "inspired" by some sort of medium, shocker.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Aug 8, 2019)

@notimp 
I would give your point more validity but:







also. You lose an argument the moment you engage in ad-hominems.
I dont agree with your post but i would hardly call it stupid.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 8, 2019)

DBlaze said:


> I remember when world wars happened because germans lost matches in call of duty, feelsbadman.
> May as well blame books, movies and music while they're at it.


Before video games, it was common to blame comic books for juvenile violence and delinquency.

Meanwhile, to state the obvious, multiple studies have definitively found no link between violent video games and increased aggression.  Firing a virtual gun does not train you to fire a real gun any more than Ace Attorney prepares you to pass the bar exam.


----------



## notimp (Aug 8, 2019)

The "you are trying to ban the catalysts - not he causes" point is important as well.

Another word for it would be "fire accelerants", so the gas fuel cans at BBQs.

And at this point it literally becomes: Do videogames make people more violent (No - only temporarily (think Game Over screen)).

Do videogames serve as 'better' (more engaging) backdrops for people with violent fantasies? Probably - but you cant really test that. Because testing populations would be too small and hard to obtain (you cant just go around campus and ask "hey, are you especially interested in violent ideas?") for you to test that.

But then the issue still becomes - do they cause you to overlay those thoughts more often in situations in real life? Do they make you more likely to plan a mass shooting?

No - not in a direct sense. Are they a catalyst?

It probably isn't that great, if your favorite two past times are altering between reading 8chan and playing COD.

So - yes, probably.

Anything in moderation. Videogames usually also dont teach you to hate on migrants, or fellow school children, so you get your motive somewhere else as well. But then again, we dont want to hunt causes here (can be many, many things) - we start at looking to ban catalysts.

Now - 40 years ago with no social media (everyone can publish, everyone can read everything) and no videogames around - having a rifle in every home, might not have lead to mass shootings that often.

But now with social media and videogames around, maybe it would save more lives to reduce the number of rifles, than f.e. reduce the people playing videogames? The self regulation train also has left the station, as digital first and online accounts that can be set up and filled with credit by any minor, give anyone access to whatever they want to watch or play. So its hard to mitigate there as well. Which might be not so bad, if they are in a functioning social environment (family, firends, ..).

It really all becomes  a question not about 'whats the cause' but what would be the easiest (more often than best) way to get that number of  occurrences down.

And as we arent looking into causes here - videogames, again here are only saved by their popularity.  (And by a rather weak proof that they would be harmful or beneficial to people in those situations. Both can be argued. Both is somewhat 'proven' scientifically. (People also use videogames for "ecapism" to deal with tough situations.)) I'm sure Reggie knows that as well.

And what people tasked with regulating this usually do in that instance - is to look at other societies/countries, and look at what seems to work for them. And if really only in the US mass shootings are a real systemic issue and in the rest of the world they are less so, that would lead you to look into something thats US specific - first. You'd think.

That Reggie knows for sure.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Aug 8, 2019)

Engaging in distractionary topics to divert blame to non-existent boogeymen so that politicians can sit on their asses and do nothing.  Same old, same old.

Taking these kinds of remarks seriously is basically a waste of time.  The video game industry is large enough that any attempt at taking action against the content the games present is going to be an uphill battle.  

The esa estimates the annual profit of the game industry in 2017 was $44 billion.

Of that, $7.34 billion was generated from shooter games. (simply add the genre revenue up, it's not explicitly stated)

That's 16% of all revenue generated for that year.  This is a scenario where we let the companies do the heavy lifting for us and keep on fighting against things that actually matter.  The games companies will not let this revenue be taken from them without a serious fight.  An $7 billion dollar revenue stream isn't simply going to be cut off.

This is a scenario where I literally don't care what politicians have to say.  I'll look at them, and laugh, and call them fucking conniving idiots and move on and fight against things that really matter.

My 2c and I'm out.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 8, 2019)

People always want to blame something and ban something so that they feel like they are saving the world, preserving their own interest, and stoking their own ego of being morally superior.  All they are doing is relegating the violence to different outlets and expressions, perhaps even compounding the intensity of the malice and the net frustration that everyone experiences in the longer run.

They have no interest in understanding the cause as long as blaming things they can regulate validates the powers of their preferred government.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 8, 2019)

yeah imagine if people overthrew the US government just over banned video games as i said (and other's pointed out) banning stuff will just make shit worse because people with violent tendencies will find other avenues to vent their rage even if it means killing others and sense ol' trumptard wants to get rid of mental health services it would make it much worse


----------



## DeoNaught (Aug 8, 2019)

Here's the thing, I do strongly believe it can, if you are messed up in the head enough, about anything can easily influence you. I do not believe it's the catalyst for a shooting though.  (not to the extent that Republicans and media are pushing it.)



Captain_N said:


> Why do they never blame the person that actually fired the weapon. it is 100% his/her fault. Not trumps fault, its not the guns fault, not video games/movies/parents, the world ...ect...
> Blame the dumb ass deciding to shoot up the place.


it's already been said, but pretty much what influenced the shooter to do such actions. 
Like for example. 
You see your Classmate Patricia one day, and decide to complement her saying "I really like your red Sweat shirt, you look really good in the color." From that day foward, Patricia feels more comfortable in the color red, and decides to wear it more often. You didn't make her wear red more often, you influenced her to wear red more often. Wearing red was her choice to make. 

Does that make sense? They aren't looking what made him do it, they are looking to see what influenced him to do it. 

I think Violent games are a great thing, they can be an aggression outlet for people. "I don't want my son/daughter to play these types of games!" then don't let them? "Sometimes I don't even know that it's in there!" This has two possible reasons, Little timmy lied or didn't tell his mom it had it. Two, They being slightly of the wrong mind, decided to just buy a game without looking at the ratings, or asking an employee what the game has inside. 

Feel free to point out flaws in my post ^-^


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 8, 2019)

DeoNaught said:


> snip



Like you said, if the person is already like that, anything remotely violent/reminding would trigger it. So basically it makes no sense to blame videogames or ban them. Just look at the animal kingdom.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 8, 2019)

I wasn't a fan of government censorship in the 80's when Frank Zappa took on Tipper Gore (Al Gore's wife) over ratings and age restrictions for music because of 'explicit' lyrics, and blaming video games for the actions of a murderer is just as stupid.


----------



## notimp (Aug 9, 2019)

One more try at explaining catalysts as a concept. 

If you are tasked with making the number go down. And you have lets say 15 different causes. (Xenophobia, hate towards people that might have hurt them in the past, frustrations, power phantasies, wish fulfillment, warped sense of no way out, warped sense of justice, uncopable 'failure'..)

You dont necessarily care about the causes. You care about the aspect that might have pushed the number up. 

'Easy opportunities to access automatic weapons' - f.e. isn't a cause - but banning it, is a fast and almost guaranteed way of getting victim numbers down.

If videogames could be proven to be conducive to psychotic episodes - banning them, would not be off the table. Currently - there was no conclusive connection found, that they would make you more aggressive if you attended to them for long times, and frequently. They have that effect (aggravating people, inducing 'fight or flight') short term - but after about 20 min it wears off. That said, they can be used to desensitize you towards the act of pulling a trigger when facing crowds, or f.e.peoples reactions in case of a shooting. Those usually werent elements that other forms of media engaged in exploring. Videogames do that readily. If you use shooters to "live out" your violent fantasies this can have a cathartic effect (think Dan Ryckert of Giant Bomb fame stoping to shoot a virtual corps on the ground) - getting it off of your mind - but it can also serve to keep you in those fantasies longer.

So on the individual level - videogames may very well be a part of what made a modern mass shooter. Its just that - many other things may as well.

That stuff is hard to test - in regards to what it does to a "susceptible" mind, because those people are hard to come by for focus groups.

Luckily there are other common factors, that seem to be more worthwile to eliminate than videogames. 

Getting attention for their 'manifesto' is a huge part of the motivation. Its not a coincident, that so many of them "took to writing one". Being able to publish and spread it so easily is a big factor in the shooters 'internal reward system'.

Growing up in a culture, where weapons are equated with power - and you have 'national hero' tropes, and prices that were awarded for killing people, and getting Media coverage fore it - is a large part of it. but then it probably also is a large part of how to make a country work, that played 'world police' for 70 years now. (Perpetual wars.)

Having easy access to automatic weapons, is a huge part of someone being able to form even the idea in his (almost exclusively men - also says something (its a self image issue)) head. And a huge part of the planing the execution, and the reason, why there are so many victims in many cases.

Some form of media, that might have been a part of how the 'idea' developed and maybe even became palpable - ranks pretty far down the list.

The point here is, that nobody is looking to eliminate causes (too hard), everyone is just trying to make the numbers go down - if possible. People want easy solutions - that someone else can make/come up with for them.

In the current case, you even had a televised political rally in the vicinity of one of the shootings, where people spontaneously started to chant "do something". (No - you do something..  ).

They want easy - single cause solutions - which arent available. And the next best thing is to go after common causes, that might have made the "transition process" from idea to practice more easy. And videogames can be argued to be part of that. Similar to horror movies, or "reading the wrong novel" in the past - but maybe even more acutely so.

Even then they are not the cause. Even then they would not be "what prevents all shootings", but to be honest - people would even take "prevented some of them" at this point. And to bring numbers down - you look at catalysts (what made it easier), not causes. You are looking for single action solutions that have the most impact. And you usually do that by looking at other countries, and there you see - that even though people play videogames there - all other societies have less of a problem with mass shooting than the US - sadly by a large margin.

In the end - we still stay at (the issue has a size of) only double the deaths of people dying from beestings in the US. Which probably is why many politicians, and people can be convinced, that trying to ignore it is actually a viable solution. It probably still could be argued for being the 'best thing to do' all things considered.

But then again - especially school shootings are a real mindfuck, where people give custody to their children away for half a day - with the expectation of safety - so the "you have to do something about this - impulse" is very immediate - and "just ignoring it" seems to be too much to ask, because the entire backdrop situation is so familiar to everyone.

Last time, I kind of ended in one of these threads by stating that at least something is moving this time around, and supporter count for the NRA was, and still is dwindling. So there might be an opening to ban/reduce the number of automatic rifles out there. To at least reduce the number of victims killed per case.

The US at least would not be the first to set such rules in place, far from it.

And to appease the radical libertarian crowd - against something like a dronestrike, those things dont help much anyways. So you dont really 'need them to defend against the state' in the US. You certainly dont need them to defend against neighbors or petty thiefs, either. And if you want to feel big hooting them - then make exceptions for shooting ranges, but keep them there.

Sounds like a common sense idea - but also sounds like a lot of work, and bad blood in trying to establish it. So no one ist too motivated to start it. But then maybe it will happen. Things are moving.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 11, 2019)

Likely yet another case of liberals taking something that Trump said out of context.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Aug 11, 2019)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Likely yet another case of liberals taking something that Trump said out of context.


watch the video and say that again 
it was also several republican politicians that did so.
given that you are only 14, I dont expect you to be invested in politics though.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 11, 2019)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Likely yet another case of liberals taking something that Trump said out of context.


----------



## notimp (Aug 11, 2019)

(in reaction to some of the ideas mentioned in the speech.)

The issue with "finding warning signs on social media" is - the rate of false positives. So lets say your algo is 99% correct, which it will never be.

What do you do then, and what do you do in the instances of false positives?

You  are basically talking about precrime, and forced treatments. While trusting an algo to pick them out.

Mass shooters can retreat from the public, once word of mouth gets out that this is happening. They can publish their 'motivation speech' anywhere and link to it minutes prior to them attempting the crime.

Generally those people arent acting rationally, so you'll catch the stupid ones, but the problem with false positives you can never get in check.

Also - now facebook can flag people for mental treatment.

All in all, not the best idea.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 11, 2019)

Video games are rivaling Trump's Steak business.


----------



## Jiehfeng (Aug 11, 2019)

notimp said:


> The issue with "finding warning signs on social media" is - the rate of false positives. So lets say your algo is 99% correct, which it will never be.
> 
> What do you do then, and what do you do in the instances of false positives?
> 
> ...



Pretty sure everyone thought the same as you there, Trump didn't give much thought to it.

A great example is actually a videogame, Watch_Dogs, where there's a crime profiling system that predicts the likelihood of someone committing a crime.


----------



## notimp (Aug 12, 2019)

You know that someone writes these speeches for him, right?


----------

