What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Democratic VP candidates - Kamala Harris Is The Choice (1 Viewer)

BladeRunner said:
This is where you lost me.  If the behavior of the Democratic party hasn't turned you off from them in the last 4 years, then nothing will.  Just when you think they can't go any lower, they surprise you by going even lower.

I appreciate your response, but if you vote for a Democrat you're basically voting for Socialism at this point, as they've move further and further left every year.  So if you really are a conservative, then the push to Socialism/Marxism should turn you off even more than Trump.
Click to expand...
No you aren't voting for socialism if you vote for a Democrat, because most democrats aren't socialists. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris certainly are not. 

But even if they were, I already explained the rationale for why I would vote for them over Trump. Capitalism is important to me. Not living under an autocratic regime is far more important. 

What behavior of the Democrats specifically do you find to be more objectionable than referring to the free press as the "enemy of the people", pardoning multiple political allies including one whose crimes were carried out to protect the president and one found in contempt of court, illegally withholding Congressionally approved funds from an ally, attempting to intimidate whistleblowers, praising murderous dictators including those who threaten our country and those who murder journalists, and being complicit in the cover up of one of those murders of an American journalist?

All of those things which Trump has done I would consider far more corrupt, immoral ,and anti-American than anything I am aware of any well-known Democratic leader doing. 

 
Snorkelson said:
Bringing in someone who doesn’t always simply agree? We need more of that in government these days.
Click to expand...
I found a slight conflict in her adoration for Beau and father Joe but ripping into Biden during the debates implying he was a racist and she believed  Biden’s sexual harassment stories. Maybe she has “evolved”.

 
BladeRunner said:
The economy took off when don became POTUS.  The pandemic affected ALL economies around the world, not just the US.  It's silly to blame that on Trump.  No one has recovered.

I know it's an inconvenient truth to your crowd because you want to lay everything at the foot of DJT.  Not working.
Click to expand...
GDP growth under the first 12 quarters of Trump’s Presidency was lower than the last 12 quarters of Obama’s Presidency. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil Elliott said:
I found a slight conflict in her adoration for Beau and father Joe but ripping into Biden during the debates implying he was a racist and she believed  Biden’s sexual harassment stories. Maybe she has “evolved”.
Click to expand...
Kamala’s biggest negative for me - and this may be unfair I have only really seen her while campaigning, some interviews, and a few minutes during testimony in the Senate - is that she is an opportunist and not genuine.

She is an effective speaker, is not afraid to mix it up. That’s all I need from a VP.

I’d also vote for Bobo The Clown over DJT so there’s that.

 
The General said:
Kamala’s biggest negative for me - and this may be unfair I have only really seen her while campaigning, some interviews, and a few minutes during testimony in the Senate - is that she is an opportunist and not genuine.

She is an effective speaker, is not afraid to mix it up. That’s all I need from a VP.

I’d also vote for Bobo The Clown over DJT so there’s that.
Click to expand...
I get we are down to a few undecided voters and I agree she is a great speaker and will mix it up as I would expect from an AG. But when I was listening to her it was such an extreme love story from the debates. Probably what turns most people off from politics. But all politics is political - and they do what they need to do to win. 

 
turnerj0 said:
No you aren't voting for socialism if you vote for a Democrat, because most democrats aren't socialists. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris certainly are not. 

But even if they were, I already explained the rationale for why I would vote for them over Trump. Capitalism is important to me. Not living under an autocratic regime is far more important. 

What behavior of the Democrats specifically do you find to be more objectionable than referring to the free press as the "enemy of the people", pardoning multiple political allies including one whose crimes were carried out to protect the president and one found in contempt of court, illegally withholding Congressionally approved funds from an ally, attempting to intimidate whistleblowers, praising murderous dictators including those who threaten our country and those who murder journalists, and being complicit in the cover up of one of those murders of an American journalist?

All of those things which Trump has done I would consider far more corrupt, immoral ,and anti-American than anything I am aware of any well-known Democratic leader doing. 
Click to expand...
This.

The idea that the Democratic Party is moving towards Socialism is just malarkey.  Otherwise.... Super Socialist Sanders would be giving the world his VP selection this week.  That the Center looks like Socialism to the Right is more damning of The Right.  

 
Phil Elliott said:
I get we are down to a few undecided voters and I agree she is a great speaker and will mix it up as I would expect from an AG. But when I was listening to her it was such an extreme love story from the debates. Probably what turns most people off from politics. But all politics is political - and they do what they need to do to win. 
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, but true in this system. I also believe Kamala will (and already has) been able to effectively explain her debate tactics and performance.  

 
The General said:
The economy was slowing prior to covid. Growth numbers were pretty much identical to Obama’s run going into this. 

Don can say “it’s the greatest in the history of the world” that doesn’t make it true.

His economy was good but nothing out of the ordinary.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, crediting the president for the state of the economy is like crediting the president for the state of the weather.  It doesn't make a lot of sense.

That said, Trump actively damaged the economy with his weird trade war.  @The Gator this is an example of why worrying about our trade deficit is counterproductive.  Trade deficits just don't matter, and fighting about them is harmful.

Second, Trump severely damaged the economy by his backward response to covid.  Covid was always going to do severe economic damage and it would be unfair to blame a competent president for that, but Trump is incompetent and he made the problem worse by ####### up our testing regime, discouraging masks, and encouraging a large swath of the electorate to view the whole thing as a hoax.  This is literally the worst possible thing a leader could have done if we were just focusing on the economic costs of covid.

Trump has been a net negative for the economy.  The economy would be better if Marco Rubio (say) were president, or any other competent leader.

 
After watching the presser it should be the Harris-Biden ticket.  Or the Harris-Pete ticket might have been better.

Easy to see who is going to take the lead.  Joe is showing his years..have to admit Kamala was smooth. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
That said, Trump actively damaged the economy with his weird trade war.  @The Gator this is an example of why worrying about our trade deficit is counterproductive.  Trade deficits just don't matter, and fighting about them is harmful
Click to expand...
I’ll just leave this as - I strongly disagree (in the long run). 
 

Long-term trade deficits are a drain on national wealth.  This can be off-set in the short run by borrowing and deficit spending (or attracting wealthy immigrants.) 

 
Oh boy. The busing candidate coming back for old Joe's newfound problem with Afro-Americans. This practically ensures us that the good things to come from a Democratic presidency won't (I'm thinking bold action on the drug war). It'll be a corporate, cop-lite, media-friendly administration. Nothing unpalatable. Just keep the status quo. 

At least under Trump there's a surge and a sense that things are wrong, and not just at the top. This has been a godsend unintentionally given us by the current administration.

Harris is my least favorite of all picks as she lets in the wrong grievances and appeals to the wrong voter bloc. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Generally speaking, crediting the president for the state of the economy is like crediting the president for the state of the weather.  It doesn't make a lot of sense.

That said, Trump actively damaged the economy with his weird trade war.  @The Gator this is an example of why worrying about our trade deficit is counterproductive.  Trade deficits just don't matter, and fighting about them is harmful.

Second, Trump severely damaged the economy by his backward response to covid.  Covid was always going to do severe economic damage and it would be unfair to blame a competent president for that, but Trump is incompetent and he made the problem worse by ####### up our testing regime, discouraging masks, and encouraging a large swath of the electorate to view the whole thing as a hoax.  This is literally the worst possible thing a leader could have done if we were just focusing on the economic costs of covid.

Trump has been a net negative for the economy.  The economy would be better if Marco Rubio (say) were president, or any other competent leader.
Click to expand...
Agree with all this.

Particularly the points about COVID. We are much worse off than we should be because of how he chose to handle this. He will try to say this is China's fault, his fans brush it off that we would be here under any president. Both of those lines are incorrect.

Kamala will be excellent at driving this point home IMO. She is at her best when she is ripping into someone one. Certainly better than Biden.

 
 
turnerj0 said:
GDP growth under the first 12 quarters of Trump’s Presidency was lower than the last 12 quarters of Obama’s Presidency. 
Click to expand...
That was largely backed by the massive stimulation package during the obama administration that stretched between 2009-2012, following a nearly 3% contraction of the GDP in 2009, under the Obama Administration. The Congressional Budget Office has the stimulus legislation as a clear contributor to the rebound during these 3 years. 

Unemployment, job growth, and wage growth might be better areas to consider in this part of the discussion.

Unemployment- 4-5% is considered natural in the USA at any given point. Under the Obama administration it reach 10%+ for a while and only fell back to the normal range during the last two years of the administration. In contrast, at the end of 2019, just before the worldwide pandemic, unemployment under the Trump administration was 3.5% which is the lowest it has been in this country in 50-60 years. Also during this time, unemployment for Hispanics AND Blacks in America were at their lowest in history (at the same time). 

Job growth-Job growth is always a key economic health indicator. During the Obama administration, the monthly average for new jobs was about 110,000.  The trump administration has very similar numbers, albeit in 3 years vs. 8 so not as long a judging period. It is worth noting, however, the majority of leading economists constantly cite that the numbers in the current Trump administration are continually suppressed due to the ongoing trade disputes with China. This metric comes down to how a person feels about having equal numbers, with one doing it longer vs. the other standing up to China. 

Wage growth-Another key economic health indicator. Wages, on average, rise when unemployment is low and employers are willing/need to pay higher wages to obtain the best talent in a competitive market and retain them. The Congressional committees described the Obama administration's wage growth as "anemic" during his tenure and the Obama economic task force often referred to wage growth for American workers as "unfinished business" they wanted to address. Under the Trump administration, wage growth has increased an average of 3%. 

There are several factors that paint a comprehensive picture outside of one factor but it is very hard to dispute that the Trump administration has put money in the people's pockets and food on their tables. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Generally speaking, crediting the president for the state of the economy is like crediting the president for the state of the weather.  It doesn't make a lot of sense.

That said, Trump actively damaged the economy with his weird trade war.  @The Gator this is an example of why worrying about our trade deficit is counterproductive.  Trade deficits just don't matter, and fighting about them is harmful.

Second, Trump severely damaged the economy by his backward response to covid.  Covid was always going to do severe economic damage and it would be unfair to blame a competent president for that, but Trump is incompetent and he made the problem worse by ####### up our testing regime, discouraging masks, and encouraging a large swath of the electorate to view the whole thing as a hoax.  This is literally the worst possible thing a leader could have done if we were just focusing on the economic costs of covid.

Trump has been a net negative for the economy.  The economy would be better if Marco Rubio (say) were president, or any other competent leader.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of takes on whether trade deficits are bad or not and I'm sure 10 of us could come up with 10 compelling arguments but the one issue that concerns me the most regarding trade deficits for the United States is that it has the potential to threaten national security in the sense that the United States depends on foreign debt and foreign investments to finance itself. That's a difficult issue to ignore when you consider that the United States' largest imbalance is with China, a country that promotes private theft of intellectual property and steals jobs by requiring foreign firms to produce in China, through joint ventures with Chinese firms, to access its markets.

Beijing uses the technology and wealth gained to build a modern navy and promote its Belt and Road initiatives. Together those threaten security in the Pacific, undermine democratic values in developing nations, and support authoritarian regimes in places like the Philippines and Venezuela.

Combine that with the position that China is now in that they started hitting barriers in that they lack sufficient markets to sell the magnitude of their products being produced. Certainly, measures that force the bilateral trade imbalance to balance would hinder China further.  It is an issue. 

 
My POC friends on FB and my POC coworker, all females, are stoked about the choice of Kamala Harris. Lots of likes and positive comments on their posts. 

 
Pence: We’ve created more jobs in the last 3 months than Joe Biden and Barack Obama created in their 8 years in office.

David Frum: In the same way, Germany and Japan built a lot of new housing after their cites were flattened in World War II

Pence held his own versus Kaine, because Kaine was too anxious to attack Trump and interrupted too much IMO.

But, "The Trump campaign reportedly views Ms Harris as the pick who “scared them most” going up against Mr Pence in the VP debate. “They thought she would more than go toe-to-toe with Pence, they thought she could chew him up and spit him out,” MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace reported."

 
The Gator said:
Harris dishing out a little harsh truth:

Re Trump and the economy

@kamalaharris says: "like everything else he inherited he ran it straight into the ground,"
Click to expand...
It bottles the mind that Trump took a 400 million dollar inheritance from his father and not only squandered it but somehow turned it into a 1.5 billion dollar deficit. 

 
Shutout said:
That was largely backed by the massive stimulation package during the obama administration that stretched between 2009-2012, following a nearly 3% contraction of the GDP in 2009, under the Obama Administration. The Congressional Budget Office has the stimulus legislation as a clear contributor to the rebound during these 3 years. 

Unemployment, job growth, and wage growth might be better areas to consider in this part of the discussion.

Unemployment- 4-5% is considered natural in the USA at any given point. Under the Obama administration it reach 10%+ for a while and only fell back to the normal range during the last two years of the administration. In contrast, at the end of 2019, just before the worldwide pandemic, unemployment under the Trump administration was 3.5% which is the lowest it has been in this country in 50-60 years. Also during this time, unemployment for Hispanics AND Blacks in America were at their lowest in history (at the same time). 

Job growth-Job growth is always a key economic health indicator. During the Obama administration, the monthly average for new jobs was about 110,000.  The trump administration has very similar numbers, albeit in 3 years vs. 8 so not as long a judging period. It is worth noting, however, the majority of leading economists constantly cite that the numbers in the current Trump administration are continually suppressed due to the ongoing trade disputes with China. This metric comes down to how a person feels about having equal numbers, with one doing it longer vs. the other standing up to China. 

Wage growth-Another key economic health indicator. Wages, on average, rise when unemployment is low and employers are willing/need to pay higher wages to obtain the best talent in a competitive market and retain them. The Congressional committees described the Obama administration's wage growth as "anemic" during his tenure and the Obama economic task force often referred to wage growth for American workers as "unfinished business" they wanted to address. Under the Trump administration, wage growth has increased an average of 3%. 

There are several factors that paint a comprehensive picture outside of one factor but it is very hard to dispute that the Trump administration has put money in the people's pockets and food on their tables. 
Click to expand...
I guess you missed the part where the OP cited the LAST 12 quarters of the Obama administration.   

 
Joe Summer said:
Seems like the point is to saddle Obama with the 2008 recession while simultaneously exonerating Trump for his current mismanagement. 

It's a neat trick if you can do it with a straight face.
Click to expand...
Oh, it gets even better than that.  I’ve had Republican friends claim that W beat the recession with TARP, while simultaneously blaming Obama for the massive deficits in his first couple of years.

 
Joe Summer said:
Seems like the point is to saddle Obama with the 2008 recession while simultaneously exonerating Trump for his current mismanagement. 

It's a neat trick if you can do it with a straight face.
Click to expand...
Also ignoring where the unemployment trend was when Trump took over.  Same way Trump does when he talks about how great he has been for African American and Hispanic unemployment.

 
There were 13 women under consideration and I still have a hard time seeing a better choice.

In private conversations, Ms. Harris’s allies acknowledge they are making a different bet than Mr. Booker and other rivals like Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders. Ms. Harris has leapt into the top tier of candidates — she was second to Mr. Sanders in first-quarter fund-raising — with a less radical policy agenda. Her campaign’s first policy rollout was a federal investment in teacher pay, an almost universally supported idea among her Democratic colleagues.

Rather than trying to appease the party’s left wing with policies that focus on large-scale wealth redistribution and structural change, Ms. Harris has staked her bet on an incrementalism more reminiscent of Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton.
Click to expand...
NYT

 
The General said:
Kamala’s biggest negative for me - and this may be unfair I have only really seen her while campaigning, some interviews, and a few minutes during testimony in the Senate - is that she is an opportunist and not genuine.

She is an effective speaker, is not afraid to mix it up. That’s all I need from a VP.

I’d also vote for Bobo The Clown over DJT so there’s that.
Click to expand...
Most politicians are..some just hide it better than others.

 
The Future Champs said:
Oh, it gets even better than that.  I’ve had Republican friends claim that W beat the recession with TARP, while simultaneously blaming Obama for the massive deficits in his first couple of years.
Click to expand...
You think that's impressive.  The acrobatic moves that the FOX newsosphere will utilize to saddle the incoming Biden/Harris Executive Branch with both Covid and its Recession will make the Flying Wallendas look like a aerobics studio for 5 year old kids.  

 
The opposition is still working on positioning her. A friend told me she has Canadian parents who had nothing to do with anything American before she was born while they were here  on student visas. Waiting to hear back on why, if any of that were true, it impacts her qualifications.
(student visa is  likely true, and probably a trigger word)

 
The General said:
Kamala’s biggest negative for me - and this may be unfair I have only really seen her while campaigning, some interviews, and a few minutes during testimony in the Senate - is that she is an opportunist and not genuine.

She is an effective speaker, is not afraid to mix it up. That’s all I need from a VP.

I’d also vote for Bobo The Clown over DJT so there’s that.
Click to expand...
Either way, you are voting for a clown.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Thinking
Reactions: rct
Mystery Achiever said:
The opposition is still working on positioning her. A friend told me she has Canadian parents who had nothing to do with anything American before she was born while they were here  on student visas. Waiting to hear back on why, if any of that were true, it impacts her qualifications.
(student visa is  likely true, and probably a trigger word)
Click to expand...
I like how your friend thinks "Canadian" is somehow worse than the truth (Harris' mother was from India and her father was from Jamaica).

Also, I wonder how your friend feels about Ted Cruz, who was literally born in Canada to a Cuban-African man on a (expired?) student visa.

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: rct
Mystery Achiever said:
The opposition is still working on positioning her. A friend told me she has Canadian parents who had nothing to do with anything American before she was born while they were here  on student visas. Waiting to hear back on why, if any of that were true, it impacts her qualifications.
(student visa is  likely true, and probably a trigger word)
Click to expand...
The birtherism argument is that - although she was born in Oakland (not Kenya), her parents were not naturalized citizens at the time, and therefore she is not a citizen.

 
So , no love for the 14th Amendment?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

 
Mystery Achiever said:
So , no love for the 14th Amendment?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Click to expand...
Nobody said it was a good argument.

I won't provide the link, since it does not deserve the clicks, but the essential argument revolves around the notion that Harris' parents were not naturalized citizens when Harris was born, thus not subject to the jurisdiction thereof - thus Harris is not eligible to be President (and by extension Vice President).

 
From article:

The language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen. The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully). Such was the view of those who authored the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause; of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases and the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins; of Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional treatise writer of the day; and of the State Department, which, in the 1880s, issued directives to U.S. embassies to that effect.

The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary. At issue there was a child born to Chinese immigrants who had become lawful, permanent residents in the United States—"domiciled" was the legally significant word used by the Court. But that was the extent of the Court's holding (as opposed to broader language that was dicta, and therefore not binding). Indeed, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen.

ETA:

Granted, our government's view of the Constitution's citizenship mandate has morphed over the decades to what is now an absolute "birth on the soil no matter the circumstances" view—but that morphing does not appear to have begun until the late 1960s, after Kamala Harris' birth in 1964. The children born on U.S. soil to guest workers from Mexico during the Roaring 1920s were not viewed as citizens, for example, when, in the wake of the Great Depression, their families were repatriated to Mexico. Nor were the children born on U.S. soil to guest workers in the bracero program of the 1950s and early 1960s deemed citizens when that program ended, and their families emigrated back to their home countries.

So before we so cavalierly accept Senator Harris' eligibility for the office of vice president, we should ask her a few questions about the status of her parents at the time of her birth.

Were Harris' parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Gator said:
From article:

The language of Article II is that one must be a natural-born citizen. The original Constitution did not define citizenship, but the 14th Amendment does—and it provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." Those who claim that birth alone is sufficient overlook the second phrase. The person must also be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and that meant subject to the complete jurisdiction, not merely a partial jurisdiction such as that which applies to anyone temporarily sojourning in the United States (whether lawfully or unlawfully). Such was the view of those who authored the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause; of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases and the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins; of Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional treatise writer of the day; and of the State Department, which, in the 1880s, issued directives to U.S. embassies to that effect.

The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in Wong Kim Ark is not to the contrary. At issue there was a child born to Chinese immigrants who had become lawful, permanent residents in the United States—"domiciled" was the legally significant word used by the Court. But that was the extent of the Court's holding (as opposed to broader language that was dicta, and therefore not binding). Indeed, the Supreme Court has never held that anyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances of the parents, is automatically a U.S. citizen.
Click to expand...
This argument seems beyond circular.  It seems to state that one must be a citizen in order to be subject to the jurisdiction, and one must be subject to the jurisdiction in order to be a citizen.  In other words, "All citizens of the US are citizens!"

 
Rich Conway said:
This argument seems beyond circular.  It seems to state that one must be a citizen in order to be subject to the jurisdiction, and one must be subject to the jurisdiction in order to be a citizen.  In other words, "All citizens of the US are citizens!"
Click to expand...
See the additional part I added.

Again - I think its a really poor argument that holds no water.

 
The author acknowledges that the prevailing view is that birth on soil confers citizenship - just tries to make the argument that when Harris was born, there was a slightly different (albeit not one that was fully fleshed out) opinion on birth rights, and that we should look to 1964 to decide if we consider her to be a US citizen.

 
  • Thinking
Reactions: rct
The Gator said:
The author acknowledges that the prevailing view is that birth on soil confers citizenship - just tries to make the argument that when Harris was born, there was a slightly different (albeit not one that was fully fleshed out) opinion on birth rights, and that we should look to 1964 to decide if we consider her to be a US citizen.
Click to expand...
Seems vaguely racist or xenophobic.

Sure, those people are American citizens by law. But shouldn't we consider the feelings of other people during that time period before we bestow full citizenship upon them?

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: rct
Dan Rather probably does not control his own twitter feed, but still funny:

Dan Rather@DanRather

Kamala Harris will be campaigning from inside Donald Trump’s head. No word on what social distancing is like in there.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
VP Kamala Harris Claims US Government Hurricane Ian Relief Will PRIORITIZE "Communities Of Color" (10/3/22 14:07 PST)
Replies
34
Views
847
FairWarning
FairWarning
GordonGekko
Axios: Democrats Fear MAGA Republican Kari Lake Could Be Arizona's Next Governor (10/21/22 01:52 PST)
Replies
18
Views
774
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles
GordonGekko
Kamala Harris Accused Of Plagiarizing Martin Luther King (1/5/21 14:23 PST)
Replies
30
Views
1K
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top