4 ms·

The tech bosses who poured $394.1M into US election

52 points by wslh 2y ago

lapcat 2y ago
Our government is for sale to the highest bidders. The two major political parties are simply competing factions of the upper class. Even the Supreme Court justices have been revealed to be on the take, lavished with "gifts" from the wealthy. I don't think the plutocracy has ever been more overt and unapologetic.
- glimshe 2y ago
  Well, the highest bidder lost the election. I think it would be more accurate to say that you need a lot of money to join the small club of electable individuals
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > Well, the highest bidder lost the election. The highest bidder was Elon Musk at $242.6 billion, and he won. In any case, I didn't say the highest bidder, singluar, wins elections. I said that our government is for sale to the highest bidders, plural. In other words, whoever wins is beholden to their wealthy campaign donors. Some faction of the rich always win and implement their policy. The non-wealthy almost never win, regardless of which candidate they favor, even if they elect their favored candidate. We each get one vote, but when a few of us can spend millions of dollars for special access to and favors from the politicians, that's not democracy.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      A bigger problem that rarely gets noticed is that "democracy" is a bit of a magical word: a) if you were to survey people for a meaning, answers would be all over the place, and many of them with technical untruths b) if you were to compare the same people's object level claims (over time, when they don't realize there is a test to being conducted) about democracy, you'd find many inconsistencies with both their definition, and with what is actually true And even funnier: this strange phenomenon, regarding one of the most important phenomena in existence, is basically verboten for serious discussion. I wonder if this situation is 100% organic, because if I was running a simulated democracy, this is exactly how I'd like to arrange things.
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      >I said that our government is for sale to the highest bidders, plural. This is what they were pointing out was incorrect, since the highest bidding faction didn't win.
      - lapcat 2y ago
        >> I said that our government is for sale to the highest bidders, plural. > This is what they were pointing out was incorrect, since the highest bidding faction didn't win. I don't know why so many commenters are stubbornly refusing to understand a relatively simple point. I didn't say anything about which of the two major political parties will win elections. That varies and shifts with the winds. In any election, though, both of the candidates are for sale. The highest bidders are their wealthy campaign donors. Whichever candidate happens to win is beholden to their wealthy campaign donors and will behave accordingly. The distinction is between the average, non-wealthy voters and the wealthy donors. The latter are the highest bidders, the former are not. The policies enacted by the winners of elections reflect the desires of the wealthy donors, not the desires of the average voters. Average voters might make small campaign donations of $100 or less, but it's impersonal and not transactional. Small donors are not in a position to request or demand anything from the politicians. In contrast, the political donations of the wealthy are transactional. They get the ear of the politician, or even a seat at the table. Look at what happened to Musk, who bought his way into becoming the President's best buddy and constant companion.
        TeaBrain 2y ago
        >I don't know why so many commenters are stubbornly refusing to understand a relatively simple point. It is not that people are stubbornly refusing to see it a certain way, against the more obvious interpretation, which you seem to think to be the case, but that you wrote your comment in such a way that the more natural interpretation is the way that people are responding to. Given the number of people that responded to this interpretation, it seems apparent that your intended meaning was not as clearly laid out as you seem to believe. >I didn't say anything about which of the two major political parties will win elections. In any election, both of the candidates are for sale. It doesn't matter that you didn't mention this specifically. When people generally think of political elections being for sale, the idea that comes to mind is the more connected candidate winning against the less connected opposition. In this case, what you wrote suggested that the outcome was a result of politics being for sale, which clashed with the reality of how the candidate with more donations actually lost. What you wrote is most naturally interpreted as concerning the election result, not any actions taken afterward, given the context of the article being about contributions towards the election result. Given the article context, if you are actually suggesting that no matter which candidate won, the effectively binary election result would be due to politics being for sale, then it appears that you are really saying nothing by negation, which is why your comment was not interpreted this way.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    How many bidders bid on both sides? How big was their share from the pot?
- joshuanapoli 2y ago
  The higher bidder lost, in this case. The party’s message is also crucial.
  - Retric 2y ago
    So is the overall economic situation and actually having a full length campaign.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - declan_roberts 2y ago
    It seems their performance matters more than ever.
  - ahiknsr 2y ago
    > The party’s message is also crucial. can you tell me what was the message from republican party?
    - gruez 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      Drill, deport and deplatform dei.
    - pixxel 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > The higher bidder lost, in this case. The highest bidder was Elon Musk at $242.6 billion, and he won.
    - gruez 2y ago
- ralfd 2y ago
  > the greater of two cash piles This cynicism is demonstrably false: The Democrats and their allied super PACs outspend the Republicans and their super PACs by a billion Dollars, 2.9 billion versus 1.8 billion, a factor of 50%!, and Harris still lost. Compared to other countries there is though much more money, and focus on raising money, in US elections.
  - amenhotep 2y ago
    There seems to be $44 billion missing from this accounting
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lapcat 2y ago
    > This cynicism is demonstrably false I think you missed the point, which was not about the winner but rather about the choices that we're given as voters. It's not just that the candidates are both "evil" to an extent, forcing us to decide which is lesser of two evils; crucially; they're both beholden to the wealthy class, if not members themselves, and pull in obscene amounts of money for their campaigns.
- pitaj 2y ago
  > Even the Supreme Court justices have been revealed to be on the take, lavished with "gifts" from the wealthy. The reporting on this is highly debatable. SC justices are allowed to have friends, just like any other person.
- Fade_Dance 2y ago
  >A city for sale and doomed to speedy destruction if it finds a purchaser. Jugurtha after leaving Rome and walking away from his bribery scandal.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- chpatrick 2y ago
  And competing foreign state actors.
bko 2y ago
That sounds like a lot of money. Really surprised the article didn't provide an answer to the most obvious question "how much was this in context to the total amount raised and which side benefited from having the most money". > The Democrats, their allied super PACs and other groups raised about $2.9 billion, versus about $1.8 billion for the Republicans Seems like money in politics isn't really about money in politics. It's all just so exhausting... https://archive.is/VYuSz#selection-5043.0-5043.128 https://archive.is/VYuSz#selection-5043.0-5043.128
- Retric 2y ago
  You aren’t wrong, however election spending was a well above 2.8 + 1.8 billion = 4.6 billion. “The 2024 presidential election was the second most expensive since at least 1998. In total, $5.5 billion dollars was spent on the race by presidential candidates, political parties and independent interest groups trying to influence federal elections, according to Open Secrets. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $2.2 billion less than the 2020 race, the most expensive on record. When congressional races are factored in, the cost of 2024 campaigns jumps to $15.9 billion. In 2024, Democrats spent about $6.7 billion, Republicans spent about $7.6 billion, and third-party candidates, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., spent a little more than $500 million. Adjusted for inflation, that’s more than 2.5 times as much as any third-party candidate since 2000, when third-party candidates spent nearly $197 million.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/election-news-2024/the-cost-of-this-election https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/election-news-2024/... Though 2020 was an odd benchmark as Michael Bloomberg spent 1 billion on the nomination before dropping out.
  - bko 2y ago
    I think money only goes so far. Consider the employees of every large tech company are over 90% one side. Also Trump received 85% unfavorable coverage on ABC, CBS, and NBC. In contrast, Harris enjoyed 78% positive coverage from the same networks How do you quantify that monetarily? I agree local non presidential politics is more balanced but that's kind of pointless considering reelection rate is around 90% https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/18039528/tech-employees-politics-liberal-employers-candidates https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/18039528/tech-employees-polit...
morkalork 2y ago
Y'all blew it with that Citizens United case, it was never going to go any other way after that. Everyone said it was going to happen and now look.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Rich people were pinching the ear of american politicians since there was such a thing as an american politician.
cladopa 2y ago
This is written in order to give the impression that Democrats did not have economic support from donors while there was overwhelming superiority in fields like Hollywood and Arts that favoured them that are not shown in the pictures they display. In fact, in tech if you remove Elon Musk from the picture that got late to the party, there was an enormous superiority in donations from Google and Meta people. As a leftist press it is, had that superiority remained and had they won like in the last elections, the Guardian would have remained in silence.
- wslh 2y ago
  If I were to summarize your point, referencing The Guardian's information but addressing the fallacy at the end, I would say: Power (e.g. influence) is not solely about money. However, for a casual reader of the article, it might seem that way.
neilv 2y ago
There shouldn't be billionaires, nor royalty, nor kleptocrats. But I repeat myself.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  you are free to oppose them, and go as far as you like in doing so, but don't get to dictate it - and by your same logic should not be allowed to do so.
  - neilv 2y ago
    You're implying working within democratic process? I can agree with that. At the point that they're subverting democratic process (including buying political appointments, in this case), how do you correct that?
jmyeet 2y ago
Political donations are only one small piece of this. What we've seen this election cycle is how tech CEOs have gone mask off and completely backed the incoming Trump administration [1]. It's worth remembering that Silicon Valley's history is inextricably interwoven with the US military. Where once the likes of Facebook, Google or Amazon were upstarts, they are now functionally defense contractors, some more openly than others (eg Palantir). Americans like to criticize the Chinese control of Chinese Internet companies, including cooperating with the Great Firewall and moving in lockstep to Chinese government policy and messaging (which they do). I hate to break it to you but American Internet companies are doing exactly the same thing. The real threat of Tiktok was that it doesn't move in lockstep to the US State Department. US tech giants hide behind "algorithms" to manufacture consent [2] (eg by hiding, downranking and/or blocking content relating to Palestine [3]). People who work in tech generally are more socially progressive. Economics is more of a mixed bag. Most people don't realize pretty much everything is about economics. Big Tech pay lip service to these progressive attitudes by embracing things like Pride Month. Such people might decry the naked politics of Elon Musk, to name one prominent example. But all this progressivism by Big Tech is purely performative and that's going to be increasingly obvious. You don't see so many of these tech CEOs on this list of political donations but I really wonder what the picture looks like when all the dust settles on PAC donations. I think you'll find there's very little daylight between the politics of any of these CEOs. [1]: https://archive.is/DqGCg https://archive.is/DqGCg [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent [3]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship-palestine-content https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship...
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  > American Internet companies are doing exactly the same thing. There's a very big difference, of course: you have to jump down to #14 in the list[0] before you can even find one. 0: https://backlinko.com/most-popular-websites https://backlinko.com/most-popular-websites
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  The posters here were warned hundreds of times that the tech monster they were cheering on because it was being used to destroy their ideological foes could turn against them, but most were sure they had reached the end of history where they were going to finally be victorious over their foes, dispatching them to the dustbin of history. Hubris is a hell of a drug.
Ekaros 2y ago
One thing to consider is taking these numbers and diving them by number of votes. Which in sense is what is the goal for spending. And looking at the number. Sometimes one needs to wonder if world has gone wrong somewhere looking at it. And if just sending check to each voter might have been more productive.
- tzs 2y ago
  For Presidential elections in the US the Electoral College makes the total number of votes for a candidate not really relevant. What matters is number of votes in a few states, and in some of those states it is only a votes in a few specific districts. Most of the spending was concentrated in those states or districts so if spending per vote numbers are meaningful it is probably only so in those states or districts. Voters in the states that don't matter know their vote for President doesn't matter, and so if there are no close races for Congress or for state and local offices they care about, and no ballot issues they have an opinion on many will stay home, further reducing the utility of nationwide vote totals as an indicator of anything.
linotype 2y ago
At what point will these people have enough money and power? Less than 10 people now have more money than the bottom 50% of Americans combined. There’s so much concentrated power now it makes me wonder when Americans will just give up, dramatically constrain their lifestyles and get by on way less of an income just to have a simpler life.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

52 points by wslh 2y ago

Our government is for sale to the highest bidders. The two major political parties are simply competing factions of the upper class. Even the Supreme Court justices have been revealed to be on the take, lavished with "gifts" from the wealthy. I don't think the plutocracy has ever been more overt and unapologetic.

glimshe 2y ago
Well, the highest bidder lost the election. I think it would be more accurate to say that you need a lot of money to join the small club of electable individuals
- lapcat 2y ago
  > Well, the highest bidder lost the election. The highest bidder was Elon Musk at $242.6 billion, and he won. In any case, I didn't say the highest bidder, singluar, wins elections. I said that our government is for sale to the highest bidders, plural. In other words, whoever wins is beholden to their wealthy campaign donors. Some faction of the rich always win and implement their policy. The non-wealthy almost never win, regardless of which candidate they favor, even if they elect their favored candidate. We each get one vote, but when a few of us can spend millions of dollars for special access to and favors from the politicians, that's not democracy.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    A bigger problem that rarely gets noticed is that "democracy" is a bit of a magical word: a) if you were to survey people for a meaning, answers would be all over the place, and many of them with technical untruths b) if you were to compare the same people's object level claims (over time, when they don't realize there is a test to being conducted) about democracy, you'd find many inconsistencies with both their definition, and with what is actually true And even funnier: this strange phenomenon, regarding one of the most important phenomena in existence, is basically verboten for serious discussion. I wonder if this situation is 100% organic, because if I was running a simulated democracy, this is exactly how I'd like to arrange things.
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    >I said that our government is for sale to the highest bidders, plural. This is what they were pointing out was incorrect, since the highest bidding faction didn't win.
    - lapcat 2y ago
      >> I said that our government is for sale to the highest bidders, plural. > This is what they were pointing out was incorrect, since the highest bidding faction didn't win. I don't know why so many commenters are stubbornly refusing to understand a relatively simple point. I didn't say anything about which of the two major political parties will win elections. That varies and shifts with the winds. In any election, though, both of the candidates are for sale. The highest bidders are their wealthy campaign donors. Whichever candidate happens to win is beholden to their wealthy campaign donors and will behave accordingly. The distinction is between the average, non-wealthy voters and the wealthy donors. The latter are the highest bidders, the former are not. The policies enacted by the winners of elections reflect the desires of the wealthy donors, not the desires of the average voters. Average voters might make small campaign donations of $100 or less, but it's impersonal and not transactional. Small donors are not in a position to request or demand anything from the politicians. In contrast, the political donations of the wealthy are transactional. They get the ear of the politician, or even a seat at the table. Look at what happened to Musk, who bought his way into becoming the President's best buddy and constant companion.
      - TeaBrain 2y ago
        >I don't know why so many commenters are stubbornly refusing to understand a relatively simple point. It is not that people are stubbornly refusing to see it a certain way, against the more obvious interpretation, which you seem to think to be the case, but that you wrote your comment in such a way that the more natural interpretation is the way that people are responding to. Given the number of people that responded to this interpretation, it seems apparent that your intended meaning was not as clearly laid out as you seem to believe. >I didn't say anything about which of the two major political parties will win elections. In any election, both of the candidates are for sale. It doesn't matter that you didn't mention this specifically. When people generally think of political elections being for sale, the idea that comes to mind is the more connected candidate winning against the less connected opposition. In this case, what you wrote suggested that the outcome was a result of politics being for sale, which clashed with the reality of how the candidate with more donations actually lost. What you wrote is most naturally interpreted as concerning the election result, not any actions taken afterward, given the context of the article being about contributions towards the election result. Given the article context, if you are actually suggesting that no matter which candidate won, the effectively binary election result would be due to politics being for sale, then it appears that you are really saying nothing by negation, which is why your comment was not interpreted this way.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  How many bidders bid on both sides? How big was their share from the pot?
joshuanapoli 2y ago
The higher bidder lost, in this case. The party’s message is also crucial.
- Retric 2y ago
  So is the overall economic situation and actually having a full length campaign.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- declan_roberts 2y ago
  It seems their performance matters more than ever.
- ahiknsr 2y ago
  > The party’s message is also crucial. can you tell me what was the message from republican party?
  - gruez 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them
  - ipaddr 2y ago
    Drill, deport and deplatform dei.
  - pixxel 2y ago
    [flagged]
- lapcat 2y ago
  > The higher bidder lost, in this case. The highest bidder was Elon Musk at $242.6 billion, and he won.
  - gruez 2y ago
ralfd 2y ago
> the greater of two cash piles This cynicism is demonstrably false: The Democrats and their allied super PACs outspend the Republicans and their super PACs by a billion Dollars, 2.9 billion versus 1.8 billion, a factor of 50%!, and Harris still lost. Compared to other countries there is though much more money, and focus on raising money, in US elections.
- amenhotep 2y ago
  There seems to be $44 billion missing from this accounting
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lapcat 2y ago
  > This cynicism is demonstrably false I think you missed the point, which was not about the winner but rather about the choices that we're given as voters. It's not just that the candidates are both "evil" to an extent, forcing us to decide which is lesser of two evils; crucially; they're both beholden to the wealthy class, if not members themselves, and pull in obscene amounts of money for their campaigns.
pitaj 2y ago
> Even the Supreme Court justices have been revealed to be on the take, lavished with "gifts" from the wealthy. The reporting on this is highly debatable. SC justices are allowed to have friends, just like any other person.
Fade_Dance 2y ago
>A city for sale and doomed to speedy destruction if it finds a purchaser. Jugurtha after leaving Rome and walking away from his bribery scandal.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
chpatrick 2y ago
And competing foreign state actors.

bko 2y ago

That sounds like a lot of money. Really surprised the article didn't provide an answer to the most obvious question "how much was this in context to the total amount raised and which side benefited from having the most money". > The Democrats, their allied super PACs and other groups raised about $2.9 billion, versus about $1.8 billion for the Republicans Seems like money in politics isn't really about money in politics. It's all just so exhausting... https://archive.is/VYuSz#selection-5043.0-5043.128 https://archive.is/VYuSz#selection-5043.0-5043.128

Retric 2y ago
You aren’t wrong, however election spending was a well above 2.8 + 1.8 billion = 4.6 billion. “The 2024 presidential election was the second most expensive since at least 1998. In total, $5.5 billion dollars was spent on the race by presidential candidates, political parties and independent interest groups trying to influence federal elections, according to Open Secrets. Adjusted for inflation, that’s $2.2 billion less than the 2020 race, the most expensive on record. When congressional races are factored in, the cost of 2024 campaigns jumps to $15.9 billion. In 2024, Democrats spent about $6.7 billion, Republicans spent about $7.6 billion, and third-party candidates, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., spent a little more than $500 million. Adjusted for inflation, that’s more than 2.5 times as much as any third-party candidate since 2000, when third-party candidates spent nearly $197 million.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/election-news-2024/the-cost-of-this-election https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/election-news-2024/... Though 2020 was an odd benchmark as Michael Bloomberg spent 1 billion on the nomination before dropping out.
- bko 2y ago
  I think money only goes so far. Consider the employees of every large tech company are over 90% one side. Also Trump received 85% unfavorable coverage on ABC, CBS, and NBC. In contrast, Harris enjoyed 78% positive coverage from the same networks How do you quantify that monetarily? I agree local non presidential politics is more balanced but that's kind of pointless considering reelection rate is around 90% https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/18039528/tech-employees-politics-liberal-employers-candidates https://www.vox.com/2018/10/31/18039528/tech-employees-polit...

morkalork 2y ago

Y'all blew it with that Citizens United case, it was never going to go any other way after that. Everyone said it was going to happen and now look.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
Rich people were pinching the ear of american politicians since there was such a thing as an american politician.

cladopa 2y ago

This is written in order to give the impression that Democrats did not have economic support from donors while there was overwhelming superiority in fields like Hollywood and Arts that favoured them that are not shown in the pictures they display. In fact, in tech if you remove Elon Musk from the picture that got late to the party, there was an enormous superiority in donations from Google and Meta people. As a leftist press it is, had that superiority remained and had they won like in the last elections, the Guardian would have remained in silence.

wslh 2y ago
If I were to summarize your point, referencing The Guardian's information but addressing the fallacy at the end, I would say: Power (e.g. influence) is not solely about money. However, for a casual reader of the article, it might seem that way.

neilv 2y ago

There shouldn't be billionaires, nor royalty, nor kleptocrats. But I repeat myself.

skeeter2020 2y ago
you are free to oppose them, and go as far as you like in doing so, but don't get to dictate it - and by your same logic should not be allowed to do so.
- neilv 2y ago
  You're implying working within democratic process? I can agree with that. At the point that they're subverting democratic process (including buying political appointments, in this case), how do you correct that?

jmyeet 2y ago

Political donations are only one small piece of this. What we've seen this election cycle is how tech CEOs have gone mask off and completely backed the incoming Trump administration [1]. It's worth remembering that Silicon Valley's history is inextricably interwoven with the US military. Where once the likes of Facebook, Google or Amazon were upstarts, they are now functionally defense contractors, some more openly than others (eg Palantir). Americans like to criticize the Chinese control of Chinese Internet companies, including cooperating with the Great Firewall and moving in lockstep to Chinese government policy and messaging (which they do). I hate to break it to you but American Internet companies are doing exactly the same thing. The real threat of Tiktok was that it doesn't move in lockstep to the US State Department. US tech giants hide behind "algorithms" to manufacture consent [2] (eg by hiding, downranking and/or blocking content relating to Palestine [3]). People who work in tech generally are more socially progressive. Economics is more of a mixed bag. Most people don't realize pretty much everything is about economics. Big Tech pay lip service to these progressive attitudes by embracing things like Pride Month. Such people might decry the naked politics of Elon Musk, to name one prominent example. But all this progressivism by Big Tech is purely performative and that's going to be increasingly obvious. You don't see so many of these tech CEOs on this list of political donations but I really wonder what the picture looks like when all the dust settles on PAC donations. I think you'll find there's very little daylight between the politics of any of these CEOs. [1]: https://archive.is/DqGCg https://archive.is/DqGCg [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent [3]: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship-palestine-content https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/12/20/meta-systemic-censorship...

singleshot_ 2y ago
> American Internet companies are doing exactly the same thing. There's a very big difference, of course: you have to jump down to #14 in the list[0] before you can even find one. 0: https://backlinko.com/most-popular-websites https://backlinko.com/most-popular-websites
Mountain_Skies 2y ago
The posters here were warned hundreds of times that the tech monster they were cheering on because it was being used to destroy their ideological foes could turn against them, but most were sure they had reached the end of history where they were going to finally be victorious over their foes, dispatching them to the dustbin of history. Hubris is a hell of a drug.

Ekaros 2y ago

One thing to consider is taking these numbers and diving them by number of votes. Which in sense is what is the goal for spending. And looking at the number. Sometimes one needs to wonder if world has gone wrong somewhere looking at it. And if just sending check to each voter might have been more productive.

tzs 2y ago
For Presidential elections in the US the Electoral College makes the total number of votes for a candidate not really relevant. What matters is number of votes in a few states, and in some of those states it is only a votes in a few specific districts. Most of the spending was concentrated in those states or districts so if spending per vote numbers are meaningful it is probably only so in those states or districts. Voters in the states that don't matter know their vote for President doesn't matter, and so if there are no close races for Congress or for state and local offices they care about, and no ballot issues they have an opinion on many will stay home, further reducing the utility of nationwide vote totals as an indicator of anything.

linotype 2y ago

At what point will these people have enough money and power? Less than 10 people now have more money than the bottom 50% of Americans combined. There’s so much concentrated power now it makes me wonder when Americans will just give up, dramatically constrain their lifestyles and get by on way less of an income just to have a simpler life.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]