Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

The Democrats need to wake up! Update: And near the last second, THEY HAVE

Recommended Posts

All right I’m a very optimistic person and I’ve tried to maintain that optimism throughout this election cycle but I’m finally fed up. I’ve said many times that Donald Trump should not be difficult to defeat, and I still tend to believe that, but the Democrats have made it much more difficult due to unforced errors. 

The Iowa mess is only the tip of the iceberg. In one sense I don’t really care; screwups in counting votes in February is not going to kill us in November. But in another sense it’s emblematic of an overall incompetence and poor thinking that is going to lead to Trump’s re-election. Let’s go over this again: 

1. Bernie Sanders is not going to beat Donald Trump. Full stop. It’s not going to happen. A few days ago I wrote that if he’s the nominee he might have a 40-50% chance but that was being very generous. Bernie will lose because his biggest support largely comes from states that are already in the blue column: New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. The “coasts”. In the states that matter, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, he won’t win, because those voters don’t want Medicare 4 All and they don’t want socialism. 

2. Liz Warren is Bernie lite. She can’t win either for most of the same reasons. 

3. Buttigieg can’t get enough black votes to win the nomination. All he can do is take away votes from the other moderate candidates which makes a Bernie candidacy more easy. 

4. As much as I have tried to prop Joe Biden up he’s made one bonehead move after another. Why did he stay silent so long on the Hunter accusation. Why doesn’t he explain himself? Worst of all is the lack of energy he displays. We’re not even at our first primary yet and he’s so wounded I no longer have any idea what he’ll be like as the nominee. 

5. Amy Klobuchar says all the right things but has no traction whatsoever. If she comes in 4th in Iowa where is she expected to make her move? She’s almost a non entity at this point. 

6 Bloomberg’s plan appears to be working, but will he destroy the Democrats by winning it? He’s come in late and if he succeeds the narrative is going to be that a billionaire bought himself a nomination. Are progressives like AOc going to be able to put aside their resentment and vote for Mike Bloomberg? I have my doubts. 

No idea how this all plays out but we’re not off to a great start. Get it together! Time is a wasting. 

Edited by timschochet
  • Like 5
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


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

1. Bernie Sanders is not going to beat Donald Trump. Full stop. It’s not going to happen. A few days ago I wrote that if he’s the nominee he might have a 40-50% chance but that was being very generous. Bernie will lose because his biggest support largely comes from states that are already in the blue column: New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. The “coasts”. In the states that matter, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, he won’t win, because those voters don’t want Medicare 4 All and they don’t want socialism. 

You are projecting.

 

ETA:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Michigan.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Wisconsin.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Pennsylvania.html

 

Edited by fatguyinalittlecoat
  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you said except your comment about Pete - you have it wrong. Every moderate that stays in the race is taking votes away from him, not vice versa. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I agree with everything you said except your comment about Pete - you have it wrong. Every moderate that stays in the race is taking votes away from him, not vice versa. 

Pete will get wholleped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

You are projecting.

He's not fatguy. M4A is not going to win over the working class in the rust belt or suburban women. I hope Tim is wrong,  but I don't think he is. Way in the beginning of the race I heard someone (can't remember who) say,  "The only thing you have to do to beat Trump is be less scary than he is." M4A scares the bejeezuz out of a lot of people and it has direct impact on people's immediate lives. 

I think Bernie supporters don't understand because they are so impassioned by his message that not everyone else is. 

Edited by TheMagus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's well beyond rage. Help me. In the name of Christ help yourselves.

Now is our chance, now. If we join, we can win. If we win, well then we'll have what none of us have ever had before: a country of our own. You are the rightful leader, and there is strength in you. I see it.

Unite us. Unite us. Unite the clans!

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

All right I’m a very optimistic person and I’ve tried to maintain that optimism throughout this election cycle but I’m finally fed up. I’ve said many times that Donald Trump should not be difficult to defeat, and I still tend to believe that, but the Democrats have made it much more difficult due to unforced errors. 

The Iowa mess is only the tip of the iceberg. In one sense I don’t really care; screwups in counting votes in February is not going to kill us in November. But in another sense it’s emblematic of an overall incompetence and poor thinking that is going to lead to Trump’s re-election. Let’s go over this again: 

1. Bernie Sanders is not going to beat Donald Trump. Full stop. It’s not going to happen. A few days ago I wrote that if he’s the nominee he might have a 40-50% chance but that was being very generous. Bernie will lose because his biggest support largely comes from states that are already in the blue column: New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. The “coasts”. In the states that matter, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, he won’t win, because those voters don’t want Medicare 4 All and they don’t want socialism. 

2. Liz Warren is Bernie lite. She can’t win either for most of the same reasons. 

3. Buttigieg can’t get enough black votes to win the nomination. All he can do is take away votes from the other moderate candidates which makes a Bernie candidacy more easy. 

4. As much as I have tried to prop Joe Biden up he’s made one bonehead move after another. Why did he stay silent so long on the Hunter accusation. Why doesn’t he explain himself? Worst of all is the lack of energy he displays. We’re not even at our first primary yet and he’s so wounded I no longer have any idea what he’ll be like as the nominee. 

5. Amy Klobuchar says all the right things but has no traction whatsoever. If she comes in 4th in Iowa where is she expected to make her move? She’s almost a non entity at this point. 

6 Bloomberg’s plan appears to be working, but will he destroy the Democrats by winning it? He’s come in late and if he succeeds the narrative is going to be that a billionaire bought himself a nomination. Are progressives like AOc going to be able to put aside their resentment and vote for Mike Bloomberg? I have my doubts. 

No idea how this all plays out but we’re not off to a great start. Get it together! Time is a wasting. 

How come when I said this, 6 months ago, ya'all pooh-poohed it.  Now you're finally seeingthe light?    THIS is whats wrong with your party.  So blinded with silly things you have dropped the ball...and that ball was and is defeating Donald Trump.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

He's not fatguy. M4A is not going to win over the working class in the rust belt or suburban women. I hope Tim is wrong,  but I don't think he is. Way in the beginning of the race I heard someone (can't remember who) say,  "The only thing you have to do to beat Trump is be less scary than he is." M4A scares the bejeezuz out of a lot of people and it had direct impact on people's immediate lives. 

I think Bernie supporters don't understand because they are so impassioned by his message that not everyone else is. 

Why do you think the polling generally has Sanders winning in those states?  People don't know that he's for Medicare For All?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, just because you believe a thing does not make it so.

Polling data can be spun lots of ways, you've misread Bernie's appeal in the midwest in particular, and your insistence that the southern Black vote means everything is questionable at this point. I don't think you have any firm ground to stand on when making these absolute type of forecast statements. Posting them incessantly doesn't make them any more valid either.

The conclusion I've come to is that the Democrats are too disorganized and shoddily run to win. If they committed to being as cynical, unprincipled and uncompromising as Republican leadership to achieve their end goals, along with vastly improving their ability to execute any sort of organized approach to controlling a national narrative, and how to win a national election, they could push whatever agenda down the throats of the citizenry they want, they just have to pander effectively and mercilessly.

But they don't, so they won't win.

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Why do you think the polling generally has Sanders winning in those states?  People don't know that he's for Medicare For All?

They may not know exactly what that means. I didn't realize it meant the abolition of the private insurance market at first, mostly because I figured that any plan wouldn't try to jump from here to there without a few steps in between. And I pay attention a lot. 

There's also a long runway ahead of us and oodles of time for the right wing fear machine to pound the message. "Death Panels" will look like a parlor joke.

Again I hope I'm wrong and you are right, but I'm really fearful right now that we are trying to take a questionable stand when there is so much at stake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I think Sanders is going to get wounded a bit as it closer to the general and attention focuses to him.  If you go back to Trump versus Clinton, Clinton was up pretty big on Trump in those states too.

Wisconsin Clinton +10 most of spring

Pennsylvania Clinton consistently up

Michigan Clinton >5-10 up most of spring

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

 

Again I hope I'm wrong and you are right, but I'm really fearful right now that we are trying to take a questionable stand when there is so much at stake. 

 I'm scared too.  I also feel like a tremendous amount is at stake.  But I'm not convinced that Bernie (or Warren) is a worse general election candidate than any of the others.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I think Sanders is going to get wounded a bit as it closer to the general and attention focuses to him.  If you go back to Trump versus Clinton, Clinton was up pretty big on Trump in those states too.

Wisconsin Clinton +10 most of spring

Pennsylvania Clinton consistently up

Michigan Clinton >5-10 up most of spring

That's fair, but why do you think that's unique to Bernie?  Seems like it's equally applicable to other Democratic candidates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's fair, but why do you think that's unique to Bernie?  Seems like it's equally applicable to other Democratic candidates.

It could be equally applicable, but polls are just of registered voters, as too early to poll for likely voters.  One of my concerns about Bernie is that folks toward the middle of the party will still just stay home, and polling not reflecting that.  I think he is a bit more of a divisive figure than most of the other candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Don Quixote said:

I think Sanders is going to get wounded a bit as it closer to the general and attention focuses to him.  If you go back to Trump versus Clinton, Clinton was up pretty big on Trump in those states too.

Wisconsin Clinton +10 most of spring

Pennsylvania Clinton consistently up

Michigan Clinton >5-10 up most of spring

I'm not sure on this. Hillary was always notorious for never being able to boost her standing in polls. She always started really high and it looked good, but she always would keep going down after she'd say or do something stupid. She just didn't have the ability to excite people.

Share this post


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

It could be equally applicable, but polls are just of registered voters, as too early to poll for likely voters.  One of my concerns about Bernie is that folks toward the middle of the party will still just stay home, and polling not reflecting that.  I think he is a bit more of a divisive figure than most of the other candidates.

One of my concerns about the more moderate Democratic candidates is that progressives and young people will just stay home.  It's the flip side of your concern.  

There is a lot of anti-Trump hostility out there, my suspicion is that most moderates would suck it up and vote for Sanders in a Sanders-Trump election, even if he's not the candidate they would have preferred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

One of my concerns about the more moderate Democratic candidates is that progressives and young people will just stay home.  It's the flip side of your concern.  

There is a lot of anti-Trump hostility out there, my suspicion is that most moderates would suck it up and vote for Sanders in a Sanders-Trump election, even if he's not the candidate they would have preferred.

I believe in general the younger voters usually under perform with turnout. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I believe in general the younger voters usually under perform with turnout. 

This seems like a reason to nominate Bernie.  

  • Like 3
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings about this post. Tim, I think you have a tendency to overreact to short-term results (I remember when you considered Harris the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination right after her campaign launch). And while I have plenty of concerns about Bernie, I actually think he could do better than expected in the industrial Midwest. It's in the Sunbelt where the "socialist" label would be deadly, and could contribute not only to a loss in November but in erasing Democratic gains in states like Florida and Arizona.

But big picture, I'm starting to share some of your overall pessimism. What seemed like a really strong field of candidates seems very flawed right now (and to be clear, this is not just a reaction to Iowa. I've been feeling this way for months.)

I'm trying not to overreact myself. The fundamentals still suggest this will be a 50/50 election, and anyone predicting a Trump landslide needs to explain to me how a deeply unpopular incumbent -- whom roughly half the country believes is a criminal who should be the first president ever removed from office -- is going to win anything other than a razor-thin victory.

But yeah, I'm definitely getting nervous. I think the past week was so scary because it demonstrated exactly the way the Democrats could blow this. I wasn't alive for the 1972 election, but I wonder if Democrats might have felt similarly after McGovern completely botched his VP selection. Nixon had won a squeaker four years earlier, and certainly could have been vulnerable, but Dems instead managed a complete wipeout.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but it sems like Kamala Harris could echo your sentiments Tim and say "#### it, I'm jumping back in."  Not sure how she could fund the operation,  but remaining a senator is still her political floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that it's extremely unlikely that an incumbent president is going to lose in the midst of a great economy.  Trump's base is Trump's base, they will vote for him no matter what.  The middle will have to choose between a great economy and an embarrassing sham of a human being, and they already voted for just the hope of the former (much less it actually happening) last time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but it sems like Kamala Harris could echo your sentiments Tim and say "#### it, I'm jumping back in."  Not sure how she could fund the operation,  but remaining a senator is still her political floor.

There is a Harris candidate in every election: great on paper but proves to be a disappointment as a campaigner. Happens to both parties: Rubio, Edwards, Fred Thompson to name a few. What was so amazing about Obama was that he actually lived up to the hype. The Harris example is far more common.

There is no white horse. One of the current field will need to step up and seize the nomination. Once they do structural factors will give them a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it a bit early to be having to talk Tim down off the ledge?  Oh, and for those of you finding yourselves agreeing with Tim on this particular concept, history tells us that's not a good place to be.  I mean that in the nicest way possible Tim.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

The reality is that it's extremely unlikely that an incumbent president is going to lose in the midst of a great economy.  Trump's base is Trump's base, they will vote for him no matter what.  The middle will have to choose between a great economy and an embarrassing sham of a human being, and they already voted for just the hope of the former (much less it actually happening) last time.

Agree and this will be the downfall of Bernie, can only hope he doesn't get the nom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the progressives set this out because they don't get their guy then they deserve all that comes from the Republicans appointing judges for 4 more years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jefferson the Caregiver said:

Agree and this will be the downfall of Bernie, can only hope he doesn't get the nom.

Why just Bernie?  Wouldn't this apply to everyone?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If the progressives set this out because they don't get their guy then they deserve all that comes from the Republicans appointing judges for 4 more years.

If the moderates sit this out because they don't get their guy that seems just as bad.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

The reality is that it's extremely unlikely that an incumbent president is going to lose in the midst of a great economy.  Trump's base is Trump's base, they will vote for him no matter what.  The middle will have to choose between a great economy and an embarrassing sham of a human being, and they already voted for just the hope of the former (much less it actually happening) last time.

That's a false choice.  The state of the economy doesn't have everything to do with Trump. 

Share this post


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

That's a false choice.  The state of the economy doesn't have everything to do with Trump. 

Doesn't matter. For political casuals (i.e. most of the country), Trump is president. He's going to get the credit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's a false choice.  The state of the economy doesn't have everything to do with Trump. 

I would also argue that measures of the economy like GDP and stock prices aren't a very good indicator of improvements in the lives of most people.  Part of running against Trump has to be to convince people that the economy might be good for the wealthy, but the rest of the people are sttruggling as much as ever.  In my view Bernie is one of the best at making that argument.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Isn't it a bit early to be having to talk Tim down off the ledge?  Oh, and for those of you finding yourselves agreeing with Tim on this particular concept, history tells us that's not a good place to be.  I mean that in the nicest way possible Tim.

I think Tim is reacting/overreacting to Biden and Klobuchar being 4th/5th.  I don't really agree with him but he at least has an explanation and not just going with his gut - namely, Bernie/Warren are too progressive and Pete can't win over AA voters.  I just thing the electability "algorithm" is way too complex for anybody to figure out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Isn't it a bit early to be having to talk Tim down off the ledge?  Oh, and for those of you finding yourselves agreeing with Tim on this particular concept, history tells us that's not a good place to be.  I mean that in the nicest way possible Tim.

Oh I'm not on any ledge. I'll be fine no matter what. And Commish I disagree with your take on history. I offer you the election of 1972.

BTW, Mitt Romney just made me feel a whole lot better. What a brave brave man.

Share this post


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

I think Tim is reacting/overreacting to Biden and Klobuchar being 4th/5th.  I don't really agree with him but he at least has an explanation and not just going with his gut - namely, Bernie/Warren are too progressive and Pete can't win over AA voters.  I just thing the electability "algorithm" is way too complex for anybody to figure out.

Just want to clarify something: Pete CAN win over AA voters, and will, if he is the nominee. The problem is that he can't win over AA voters in order to become the nominee. He's got to find a way to do it without them and I don't see it happening. But if he did manage to do it I would be extremely happy, since personally he has always been, from the beginning of my awareness of him, my favorite candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

That's a false choice.  The state of the economy doesn't have everything to do with Trump. 

It doesn't matter whether or not that's true.  That's the narrative that is going to be driven and campaigned upon and there are no shortage of people ready to eat it up.

Share this post


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

Why just Bernie?  Wouldn't this apply to everyone?

You know as well as me that some candidates are more business friendly than Bernie, so it applies to Bernie more than others.  Bernie is going to struggle with the center. I'd rather sacrifice some very progressive voters than have the center crater.

 

Most important thing is Trump losing.

Share this post


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

Just want to clarify something: Pete CAN win over AA voters, and will, if he is the nominee. The problem is that he can't win over AA voters in order to become the nominee. He's got to find a way to do it without them and I don't see it happening. But if he did manage to do it I would be extremely happy, since personally he has always been, from the beginning of my awareness of him, my favorite candidate.

I still think he has a chance to do it in the primaries if Biden caters quickly and Klobuchar drops out.  That's Pete's best bet - that and Warren and Bernie continue to split the progressive vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jefferson the Caregiver said:

You know as well as me that some candidates are more business friendly than Bernie, so it applies to Bernie more than others.  Bernie is going to struggle with the center. I'd rather sacrifice some very progressive voters than have the center crater.

 

Most important thing is Trump losing.

I think we're all in agreement that Trump losing is the most important thing.  I just find a lot of the electability arguments against Bernie to be unpersuasive.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It doesn't matter whether or not that's true.  That's the narrative that is going to be driven and campaigned upon and there are no shortage of people ready to eat it up.

Fatguy covered it.  The focus needs to be on a lack of wage increases for most Americans, credit card debt being the highest since the Great Recession, the burdens of rising health care costs and education expenses, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Isn't it a bit early to be having to talk Tim down off the ledge?  Oh, and for those of you finding yourselves agreeing with Tim on this particular concept, history tells us that's not a good place to be.  I mean that in the nicest way possible Tim.

I have an aunt who formerly served in the state legislature. She is very smart and I like her a lot, but she has an uncanny ability to back the wrong horse. In 2004, she supported Wes Clark in the Democratic primary. As an Obama supporter, I was legit high-fiving my cousin when she came out in support of Hillary.

All of which is to say I would love it if Tim turns out to be the perfect political mush. Just wait to see whatever he's predicting and go the opposite way. The PSF's version of Dick "Condi vs. Hillary" Morris. Makes things much easier. 

(And just to remove any doubt, we tease because we love. As I've said, I believe Tim sometimes overreacts, but his instincts aren't necessarily off base.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

The reality is that it's extremely unlikely that an incumbent president is going to lose in the midst of a great economy.  Trump's base is Trump's base, they will vote for him no matter what.  The middle will have to choose between a great economy and an embarrassing sham of a human being, and they already voted for just the hope of the former (much less it actually happening) last time.

Let's be honest, we voted against Hillary and Donald, or at least I did. This time around I know I am absolutely not voting for Trump, I don't care if the economy keeps growing or not.

Share this post


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

This seems like a reason to nominate Bernie.  

They may disappoint again.

Share this post


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

Oh I'm not on any ledge. I'll be fine no matter what. And Commish I disagree with your take on history. I offer you the election of 1972.

BTW, Mitt Romney just made me feel a whole lot better. What a brave brave man.

I wasn't even alive in 1972 and certainly not on this board.  Were you right about something all the way back then?  I was referring to YOUR history here, on this board GB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if the Dems didn't do silly things like pursue an impeachment when it should have never been pursued, they wouldn't be in this position.

A lot of energy wasted in the impeachment thread in this very forum is a prime example of misguided strategy and politics.   

Or perhaps trying to convince the world that Obamacare has lived up to its promises is another failed strategy.   Just admit your mistakes and convince us your going to actually do something to improve American lives, because from where I'm standing, one party is dominating the other in that respect...and it's not the Democrats dominating.

 

Americans want results, not hopes and dreams.

Edited by TripItUp
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

Perhaps if the Dems didn't do silly things like pursue an impeachment when it should have never been pursued, they wouldn't be in this position.

A lot of energy wasted in the impeachment thread in this very forum is a prime example of misguided strategy and politics.   

Or perhaps trying to convince the world that Obamacare has lived up to its promises is another failed strategy.   Just admit your mistakes and convince us your going to actually do something to improve American lives, because from where I'm standing, one party is dominating the other in that respect...and it's not the Democrats dominating.

 

Americans want results, not hopes and dreams.

Trump engaged in high crimes, the remedy is impeachment. If the Republican senators adhered to the letter and intent of the Constitution, they would convict and expel Trump. The Democrats did the right thing.

I don't recall the Republicans admitting any mistakes, and they've made many. The Republicans are interested only in preserving their own individual power and wealth, they've done little to work for the bulk of the citizens of the U.S. Trump is the personification of this.

Different perspectives I guess, but yours seems extremely wrong and fanciful - from where I'm standing.

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 4

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.