Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
TripItUp

What will be the result of this impeachment investigation?

What will be the result of this impeachment investigation?  

145 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

But I don't expect this to get talked about much. More convenient just to dismiss Trump voters with the snarky insults. 

That isn’t my experience.   My circle of friends talks about this a lot — the desire to see conservative judges appointed, who fit the “moral leanings” of a swath of the population......and in tandem, the willingness to turn a blind eye toward a man who appears to be a pretty awful human being.   Few of my friends say “Trump voters are horrible human beings.” Many of them are just confused by the willingness to ignore the horrible stuff he says and tweets.

Share this post


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

I haven't talked to them lately but I'd guess it's still an issue. And to be clear, it's not just Supreme Court Judges

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/05/16/if-donald-trump-gets-another-supreme-court-pick

But I don't expect this to get talked about much. More convenient just to dismiss Trump voters with the snarky insults. 

I get it...its just hard for me to look away from the rest of what he does.  And in the primaries prior to 2016 this wasn't an issue with his hardcore base (meaning not just for him)...as any conservative would have supported conservative justices.

My other concern is some of the other judges he is appointing that have such little experience at all and are rated pretty poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 10:02 AM, Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. We'll have to disagree there. I saw very little energy from Trump supporters. Most I know were resigned to defeat and low energy. 

Sorry, just saw this. I know you weren’t exactly watching the boards for politics at the time but there were some very, very high energy Trump supporters on here. And his rallies were packed to the gills in rural areas, with lines to get in that were hours long.  Louisiana especially was very very amped for Trump in 2016. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cobalt_27 said:

Even Fox News acknowledged this has all been very damaging to Trump. 

This simply isn't true

Share this post


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

Sorry, just saw this. I know you weren’t exactly watching the boards for politics at the time but there were some very, very high energy Trump supporters on here. And his rallies were packed to the gills in rural areas, with lines to get in that were hours long.  Louisiana especially was very very amped for Trump in 2016. 

We'll just have to disagree. Sure there of course were rallies but overall the energy was relatively low from what I saw. Most I know expected him to lose. That's cool though, I'm sure lots of people had different experiences. 

Edited by Joe Bryant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

This simply isn't true

I’m guessing cobalt was referring to Fox’s main news guy, Wallace, and not the “opinion” talking heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The General said:

I’m guessing cobalt was referring to Fox’s main news guy, Wallace, and not the “opinion” talking heads.

He is not main news guy but whatever.  Foxnews is still accurately saying hearings going well for Trump so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don't Noonan said:

He is not main news guy but whatever.  Foxnews is still accurately saying hearings going well for Trump so far.

I’m not an avid watcher. Thought he was their most widely respected guy. Who is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

This simply isn't true

This illustrates a good point where links are super helpful.

Instead of a vague, "Even Fox News acknowledged this has all been very damaging to Trump." it would be tons better if it was "_________________ from Fox News acknowledged this has all been very damaging to Trump." and then include the link.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Don't Noonan said:

He is not main news guy but whatever.  Foxnews is still accurately saying hearings going well for Trump so far.

Who are the main news guys for Fox?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably impeached---removed 0%. 

Whether Democrats like to admit it or not, the public doesn't care about this dog and pony show. After three years of relentless attacks and the "Now this is the THING you have to really care about," being said over and over each time a new scandal supposedly is found, the public is numb and frankly deaf to it.

Plus there simply isn't anything sexy or interesting about this issue. I think once you get to the point that you have to explain to John Q Public more than a sentence why the impeachment is being sought, you have lost half the people right there. Unlike "he got a BJ in the White House," now that is something the public got and understood. Do I personally think these hearings should be held? Yep, I do, but in the big picture I think the Dems picked the wrong hill to die on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Courtjester said:

Plus there simply isn't anything sexy or interesting about this issue.

This is the effect of supporting a tv celebrity for president. Or a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ratings & sizzle are all that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Courtjester said:

Probably impeached---removed 0%. 

Whether Democrats like to admit it or not, the public doesn't care about this dog and pony show. After three years of relentless attacks and the "Now this is the THING you have to really care about," being said over and over each time a new scandal supposedly is found, the public is numb and frankly deaf to it.

Plus there simply isn't anything sexy or interesting about this issue. I think once you get to the point that you have to explain to John Q Public more than a sentence why the impeachment is being sought, you have lost half the people right there. Unlike "he got a BJ in the White House," now that is something the public got and understood. Do I personally think these hearings should be held? Yep, I do, but in the big picture I think the Dems picked the wrong hill to die on here.

This video clip makes me think that you are underestimating the public's interest.

https://twitter.com/gianabanan/status/1195361583238713344?s=19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Don't Noonan said:

He is not main news guy but whatever.  Foxnews is still accurately saying hearings going well for Trump so far.

I respect Wallace and Baier.  I am well aware the flip side is opinion commentators are pitching a different story, and that’s what they get paid to do.  But, the fact that Fox News has presented the observation—accurately—that testimonies thus far have been damaging is, in fact, notable.

Edited by cobalt_27
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This video clip makes me think that you are underestimating the public's interest.

https://twitter.com/gianabanan/status/1195361583238713344?s=19

Yup.  Add to that the ratings were really strong across all networks.  More folks tuned in during the daytime hearings than watched the CMA awards in primetime.  I don’t know what average Joe and Sally take away from them, we might get a glimpse in next few rounds of polling, but certainly not a strong argument to suggest folks are ignoring it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Courtjester said:

Probably impeached---removed 0%. 

Whether Democrats like to admit it or not, the public doesn't care about this dog and pony show. After three years of relentless attacks and the "Now this is the THING you have to really care about," being said over and over each time a new scandal supposedly is found, the public is numb and frankly deaf to it.

Plus there simply isn't anything sexy or interesting about this issue. I think once you get to the point that you have to explain to John Q Public more than a sentence why the impeachment is being sought, you have lost half the people right there. Unlike "he got a BJ in the White House," now that is something the public got and understood. Do I personally think these hearings should be held? Yep, I do, but in the big picture I think the Dems picked the wrong hill to die on here.

His diehard supporters don't care, or more accurately, it won't change their vote. Everybody else does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Courtjester said:

 

Whether Democrats like to admit it or not, the public doesn't care about this dog and pony show.

Based on the numbers we have so far, this statement is simply inaccurate: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/speedreads-amp/878654/1st-trump-impeachment-hearing-little-ratings-pizzazz-after-all

13.1 million viewers on average- the most watched news story since Kavanaugh. Now I wasn’t correct either; I thought it would be higher than this. And it may yet be next week. But even if these numbers are indicative of the entire public hearings, it is simply false to state that the public doesn’t care. 

(Ironically enough, Fox News, which has several hosts who have proclaimed that the hearings are extremely boring and not worth watching, is leading the other networks in viewership for the hearings.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 12:18 PM, Joe Bryant said:
On 11/15/2019 at 11:53 AM, FF Ninja said:

From a previous conversation, I believe you said this of your trump supporting friends: they are wealthy and they don't particularly care for him as a person or a president but they were more concerned with getting conservative judges appointed. If that's accurate, that describes a very, very thin slice of red voters in 2016.

What I said is 100% accurate. How many people are like them is a different question. Not sure you how think you know with such certainty but that's fine. 

First, I'd like to make sure you saw my clarification on this. I'm not trying to kiss up to the top mod, but I'm not trying to piss him off either with a misunderstanding. You seemed perturbed as if I'd implied you had been misleading. I was actually just trying to be clear that I was paraphrasing a conversation I no longer recalled with clarity. 

On 11/16/2019 at 12:35 PM, Joe Bryant said:

Again, I'm unsure how you seem to be so certain of things you don't know. My friends may not be poor, but several very much identify with the Big City Elite vs Small City Underdog argument the article outlines. I don't know enough about things to say they're the "norm" for Trump supporters. They're certainly the norm for the large number of Trump supporters I personally know. That doesn't play as well though to show them as nuclear engineers or stock brokers. Much more convenient if they're portrayed as redneck idiots.

For your original point that Trump voters who were very concerned about Supreme Court Nominees being a "very, very thin slice of red voters in 2016.", I don't know what to tell you there. That was a primary reason that came up repeatedly when I talked to my friends about why they were voting for Trump. :shrug: 

Of course I can't be certain. But I've done a fair amount of reading about the reasons and psychology behind those that supported trump in 2016 and you were the first person to mention this angle, so it seemed a natural conclusion/assumption to believe this wasn't a notable driving factor for many people. So while I still think it is a selfish and short-sighted reason to support such an unimaginably flawed candidate whose lasting negative impact will be drastic, I'm glad you brought it to my attention. It's another piece to the puzzle. I just think that if this is the first I've heard of it in three years, it's a small piece. But you're right, I'm not certain and I can't be certain of it. However, if there was magically a way to measure it AND bet on it, I'd drop a good chunk of cash on "less than 1% of voters took this into account when voting for trump." And I'd bet the farm on less than 5%. If you're in a sporting mood, would you care to humor me and take a stab at where you'd place the over/under on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, timschochet said:

Based on the numbers we have so far, this statement is simply inaccurate: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/speedreads-amp/878654/1st-trump-impeachment-hearing-little-ratings-pizzazz-after-all

13.1 million viewers on average- the most watched news story since Kavanaugh. Now I wasn’t correct either; I thought it would be higher than this. And it may yet be next week. But even if these numbers are indicative of the entire public hearings, it is simply false to state that the public doesn’t care. 

(Ironically enough, Fox News, which has several hosts who have proclaimed that the hearings are extremely boring and not worth watching, is leading the other networks in viewership for the hearings.) 

And that also does not count Cspan or streaming it...(now neither did the others as far as comparison...but the total will be far past 13 million people watching).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

Of course I can't be certain. But I've done a fair amount of reading about the reasons and psychology behind those that supported trump in 2016 and you were the first person to mention this angle, so it seemed a natural conclusion/assumption to believe this wasn't a notable driving factor for many people. So while I still think it is a selfish and short-sighted reason to support such an unimaginably flawed candidate whose lasting negative impact will be drastic, I'm glad you brought it to my attention.

Not in a sporting mood with you. Sorry. I may not agree with my friends, but it's the opposite of short sighted. Thanks for the feedback. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joe Bryant said:

Not in a sporting mood with you. Sorry. I may not agree with my friends, but it's the opposite of short sighted. Thanks for the feedback. 

What? I think you keep reading my replies in the most negative tone possible and it is greatly skewing what you think I'm trying to say. I wasn't calling you short-sighted. I was calling people voting for that reason short-sighted, because if they think they're playing the long game, they should be more worried about climate change and the federal deficit than justices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“This is a sham! This is a coup!”
 

These are the words coming from R’s.

 

“He’s 100% guilty.  Impeach him!“

These are the words coming from dems.

 

Regardless of what he is or is not guilty of, both sides already know what they think, and any investigations/hearings will do nothing to change that.

As such, the outcome is pretty obvious, and this has simply become a political sideshow that will be used to affect the elections in 2020.

Edited by shader
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

What? I think you keep reading my replies in the most negative tone possible and it is greatly skewing what you think I'm trying to say. I wasn't calling you short-sighted. I was calling people voting for that reason short-sighted, because if they think they're playing the long game, they should be more worried about climate change and the federal deficit than justices. 

I understood what you said. My friends think going for appointed justices is not short sighted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

His diehard supporters don't care, or more accurately, it won't change their vote. Everybody else does.

You phrase that in a way that make it seem like his small group doesn’t care, and EVERYBODY ELSE does.  Which isn’t accurate.

Republicans as a party don’t care.  Democrats as a party do.  That’s all that matters right now.  The people “in the middle” are irrelevant until the 2020 elections. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shader said:

Regardless of what he is or is not guilty of, both sides already know what they think, and any investigations/hearings will do nothing to change that. As such, the outcome is pretty obvious, and this has simply become a political sideshow that will he used to affect the elections in 2020.

Putting this in the record is important historically and to do it to protect constitutional prerogatives. It also forces the Republicans into constantly defending the impossible to defend for 2020. We're also not entirely sure how this ends, we have already seen one 1-1 conversation involving the President emerge. It's not just worth doing it must be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

I understood what you said. My friends think going for appointed justices is not short sighted. 

I'll grant it's thinking beyond 4 years, but we're irreparably damaging the environment and setting up future generations to fail with this deficit. And the sitting president is a massive contributing factor to both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Putting this in the record is important historically and to do it to protect constitutional prerogatives. It also forces the Republicans into constantly defending the impossible to defend for 2020. We're also not entirely sure how this ends, we have already seen one 1-1 conversation involving the President emerge. It's not just worth doing it must be done.

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you.  I’m just saying that it’s obvious what is going to happen.  Since both sides know that, it’s morphed into a 2020 election event with both sides using the process to try and sway public opinion.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shader said:

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you.  I’m just saying that it’s obvious what is going to happen.  Since both sides know that, it’s morphed into a 2020 election event with both sides using the process to try and sway public opinion.

One side seems to be using the process for which it was intended....oversight.  Not sure how the both sides just using it for election is true at all.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:
8 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

I understood what you said. My friends think going for appointed justices is not short sighted. 

I'll grant it's thinking beyond 4 years, but we're irreparably damaging the environment and setting up future generations to fail with this deficit. And the sitting president is a massive contributing factor to both.

@Joe Bryant I got a notification you replied to this and the thread was showing you as the last person to reply in it (until shader replied) but I can't see it. I'm a bit :confused: at the moment. Forum glitch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, shader said:

You phrase that in a way that make it seem like his small group doesn’t care, and EVERYBODY ELSE does.  Which isn’t accurate.

Republicans as a party don’t care.  Democrats as a party do.  That’s all that matters right now.  The people “in the middle” are irrelevant until the 2020 elections. 

I know elected officials are keeping this partisan, but I don’t think the general public is. As someone with no party affiliation, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can overlook Trump’s behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FF Ninja said:

@Joe Bryant I got a notification you replied to this and the thread was showing you as the last person to reply in it (until shader replied) but I can't see it. I'm a bit :confused: at the moment. Forum glitch?

That happens when someone hides the post...the new way of deleting.  My guess is its time to move on.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shader said:

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you.  I’m just saying that it’s obvious what is going to happen.  Since both sides know that, it’s morphed into a 2020 election event with both sides using the process to try and sway public opinion.

I guess I just have a problem with 'political sideshow'. This is an actual investigation playing out in public in real time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, shader said:

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you.  I’m just saying that it’s obvious what is going to happen.  Since both sides know that, it’s morphed into a 2020 election event with both sides using the process to try and sway public opinion.

Shader, have you watched the hearings? This is really not a partisan circus or election event. There are credible professional career foreign policy officers testifying about how dangerous the events that have taken place in Ukraine are to our national security and general ability to carry forward US policy on the world stage. And it's actually pretty somber and frightening from my perspective that this could happen in our government. Things like this are not supposed to happen and this is all really unprecedented. Congress would be defying their oath if they didn't investigate this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

I know elected officials are keeping this partisan, but I don’t think the general public is. As someone with no party affiliation, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can overlook Trump’s behavior.

Because they aren’t getting their information where you’re getting yours?

Edited by shader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheMagus said:

Shader, have you watched the hearings? This is really not a partisan circus or election event. There are credible professional career foreign policy officers testifying about how dangerous the events that have taken place in Ukraine are to our national security and general ability to carry forward US policy on the world stage. And it's actually pretty somber and frightening from my perspective that this could happen in our government. Things like this are not supposed to happen and this is all really unprecedented. Congress would be defying their oath if they didn't investigate this.

I suppose I’m being a bit too cynical about how the hearings will go.  I see the R’s in lockstep with each other and their party laughing the whole thing off so to me it all seems like a fore  gone conclusion that he gets impeached and doesn’t get removed.

What I’m not factoring in is the Trump factor.  If the evidence piles up, who knows what he might do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, shader said:

I suppose I’m being a bit too cynical about how the hearings will go.  I see the R’s in lockstep with each other and their party laughing the whole thing off so to me it all seems like a fore  gone conclusion that he gets impeached and doesn’t get removed.

What I’m not factoring in is the Trump factor.  If the evidence piles up, who knows what he might do.

The Republican party is most definitely not laughing this thing off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, FF Ninja said:

@Joe Bryant I got a notification you replied to this and the thread was showing you as the last person to reply in it (until shader replied) but I can't see it. I'm a bit :confused: at the moment. Forum glitch?

No worries. I am getting better about managing my time. I wrote something and then realized if a 4 year plus outlook is going to be labeled short term, it probably wasn't something I needed to stay engaged with. All good. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I meant it as a relative term:

4 year election cycle < length of a justice appointment < effects of climate change

Share this post


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

For the record, I meant it as a relative term:

4 year election cycle < length of a justice appointment < effects of climate change

I can't speak for JB's friends, but when I read his post "single issue voters" sprang to mind, especially anti-abortion voters. Issues that might seem like more long-term problems, like climate change, might not factor into their vote...leaving you with only this:

4 year election cycle < length of a judicial appointment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, VandyMan said:

I can't speak for JB's friends, but when I read his post "single issue voters" sprang to mind, especially anti-abortion voters. Issues that might seem like more long-term problems, like climate change, might not factor into their vote...leaving you with only this:

4 year election cycle < length of a judicial appointment

You know, when he first mentioned this to me in another thread, I think I inquired about what effect they were hoping to come from these conservative judges and I think Joe said he didn't know. But yours is a valid hypothesis, as I'm not sure what the other issues are that could be impacted by this. Although I've heard that some will fight the proposed wealth taxes on the grounds such a thing would be unconstitutional.

Either way, trump has damaged the climate change effort and hastened our federal deficit, so I just can't give anyone credit for "playing the long game" when these truly long-term problems are being escalated. Anything short of giving these issues the attention they deserve, falls under the "short-sighted" category, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

impeached? yes

removed by senate trial? nope

lose 2020 election? yes

peaceful transition of power? nope

I'd throw some :moneybag: on this 4-bet parlay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bicycle_seat_sniffer said:

impeached? yes

removed by senate trial? nope

lose 2020 election? yes

peaceful transition of power? nope

I'm at

Yes

No

Yes 

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sho nuff said:

One side seems to be using the process for which it was intended....oversight.  Not sure how the both sides just using it for election is true at all.

 

Of course both sides are using it for election.  To try and act like the dems won't politicize the heck out of this is absurd.

BUT, I'm not saying that those are their only motives.  I'm sure they truly believe Trump is a terrible guy and want to use the impeachment process to expose and put his alleged crimes on record.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

His diehard supporters don't care, or more accurately, it won't change their vote. Everybody else does.

About half of the independent voters don't care either.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, shader said:

Of course both sides are using it for election.  To try and act like the dems won't politicize the heck out of this is absurd.

BUT, I'm not saying that those are their only motives.  I'm sure they truly believe Trump is a terrible guy and want to use the impeachment process to expose and put his alleged crimes on record.

Im not saying they won’t (they will and they should)...Im saying this process is about oversight and Trumps misdeeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So regarding this thread:

1. Most people on both sides agree that President Trump will be impeached by the House.

2. Most people on both sides agree that President Trump will not be convicted by the Senate.

3. The big divergence is what happens after that: I think it's safe to suggest that most Trump critics in this forum believe that both Trump and the Republicans will be punished in November as a result of this impeachment process. But it's also safe to suggest that most Trump supporters in this forum, as well as conservatives/Republicans, believe that it is Democrats who will be punished for impeachment.

Now I want to throw out a wildcard here: let's suppose that, at sometime prior to the final Senate vote, John Bolton offers public testimony. Suppose that Bolton acknowledges everything that the mainstream media has already reported: it was Trump himself who demanded the quid pro quo, it was for political purposes, Bolton tried to talk him out of it and failed. Would this sort of testimony change the calculus? Is it possible that it could lead to a conviction in the Senate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So regarding this thread:

1. Most people on both sides agree that President Trump will be impeached by the House.

2. Most people on both sides agree that President Trump will not be convicted by the Senate.

3. The big divergence is what happens after that: I think it's safe to suggest that most Trump critics in this forum believe that both Trump and the Republicans will be punished in November as a result of this impeachment process. But it's also safe to suggest that most Trump supporters in this forum, as well as conservatives/Republicans, believe that it is Democrats who will be punished for impeachment.

Now I want to throw out a wildcard here: let's suppose that, at sometime prior to the final Senate vote, John Bolton offers public testimony. Suppose that Bolton acknowledges everything that the mainstream media has already reported: it was Trump himself who demanded the quid pro quo, it was for political purposes, Bolton tried to talk him out of it and failed. Would this sort of testimony change the calculus? Is it possible that it could lead to a conviction in the Senate?

It doesn't really matter how many people, or who they are, testify along these lines. Those actions are within the bounds of accepted behavior, according to current Republican principles.  Job One is stopping the spread of domestic leftism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.