What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

First Presidential Debate (1 Viewer)

SaintsInDome2006 said:
Full disclosure - I was at the game last night, so I happily missed one debacle for another... however I've been reading up this morning and I have one observation, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Trump had little to no personal attacks on Hillary last night.

Nothing on Bill, nothing on her past scandals, mere mention of her emails when asked (it was revealed her chief of staff received immunity in the FBI probe just this past weekend).....

That stuff takes zero preparation. Look at the mockery he engaged in in the GOP debate - Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Christie.... they all got it.  Just slams and insults.

Why not last night? Trump respects the Clintons, he knows them, he likes them, and Chelsea and Ivanka are friends.

He's a one trick pony and he won't be doing his one trick when it matters most at his own choosing.
Click to expand...
Another possibility is the influence of Conway (and the Breitbart dude, who may have been reduced to a behind the scenes steering role by being compromised and rendered toxic/radioactive when the racist and domestic abuse reports surfaced). She may have told him the barrage of Crooked Hillary name calling isn't Presidential or a good look. We'll find out in two weeks. If the above is right, maybe he chafes against the bridle and changes his tactics to the personal insults, mud slinging, street fighting kind we've seen before. Possibly Conway could change her mind about tactics, too? Based on the reaction from the first debate, "What do they have to lose?"  

If Khan was a singular moment associated with Clinton's then-rise (if not Trump's then-fall, he had so many), Conway HAS to be the MVP of his recent rise. There was the deploreables and fainting spell at the 9/11 Memorial (some thought she was actually done after that, so much hysteria, wailing and gnashing of teeth), but since Manafort was dismissed, the campaign has been vastly, immensely more competent and professional. Maybe she is just better at reigning him in? Whatever the reason, if he wins, have to credit a MASSIVE assist from Conway. I don't like her and find the constant attempts to control the interview tedious, but have to credit here as being smoother than Manafort and doing a great job of what she is supposed to do - vigilantly shape the narrative.       

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I sort of expect that Trump will win every online poll. I don't know how Hillary wins that CNN poll actually. I just voted twice on the CNBC poll (for Hillary), I'm sure the America's Got Talent demo is in full click effect for 24 hours.
Click to expand...
that is surprising me.   I can't stand hillary and think Trump is just "hillary lite" when it comes to actual governing.   I really don't care about this election.   I thought it was an obvious win for Hillary though.    

not sure what people saw in Trump that would compel them to say he 'won' the debate.   He seemed flustered by Hillary and Lester Holt.  That to me isn't "winning"

 
Politician Spock said:
He didn't have to ask that. It was a waste of time. No voter is going to make their decision based on the response. It was a waste of time in regards to voters making their decisions. A lot of last night was a waste of time in that regard. 
Click to expand...
But he has repeatedly talked about the election being rigged. Also insane stuff like having (illegal) private, amateur Trump militia patrolling for evidence of "electoral fraud". When some states like Florida allow concealed weapons (what could go wrong?).

If he answered that way again, it ABSOLUTELY would have been a big deal (borderline treasonous), and since he ALREADY had answered that way multiple times, how he would answer in this context was not information we already possessed. Perfectly legit question which he brought on himself by his bizarre hysteria.     

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyboy said:
that is surprising me.   I can't stand hillary and think Trump is just "hillary lite" when it comes to actual governing.   I really don't care about this election.   I thought it was an obvious win for Hillary though.    

not sure what people saw in Trump that would compel them to say he 'won' the debate.   He seemed flustered by Hillary and Lester Holt.  That to me isn't "winning"
Click to expand...
I was driving around town today so I got a good dose of talk radio while I was out.  The theme the Trump supporters are running with is he did well considering he never debated anyone one on one before while Hillary is a seasoned vet at these types of things.  Basically it comes down to Trump didn't literally vomit on himself and he was controlled enough not to walk across the stage and punch Hillary's lights out so "he won".  Oh yeah, Lester Holt is the most biased, meanest, insufferable partisan hack of a moderator the world has ever seen.

 
rodg12 said:
Nah, his narcissism required him to look at his supporters for assurance of his great performance and adoration before he be troubled with decorum.
Click to expand...
Who likely shot him a poisonous look and a head movement towards Lester so he'd clear his gaffe

 
Bob Magaw said:
But he has repeatedly talked about the election being rigged. Also insane stuff like having (illegal) private, amateur Trump militia patrolling for evidence of "electoral fraud". When some states like Florida allow concealed weapons (what could go wrong?).

If he answered that way again, it ABSOLUTELY would have been a big deal (borderline treasonous), and since he ALREADY had answered that way multiple times, how he would answer in this context was not information we already possessed. Perfectly legit question which he brought on himself by his bizarre hysteria.     
Click to expand...
It's a great topic for a one on one interview with Trump. As a debate topic, it sucks. Hillary was pretty much just a bystander on that topic... and others. 

 
Politician Spock said:
It's a great topic for a one on one interview with Trump. As a debate topic, it sucks. Hillary was pretty much just a bystander on that topic... and others. 
Click to expand...
They both answered it, and it isn't like it took up a lot of time. You could make a case that forcing him to take a position on such an important matter made this an opportune time to do it, and outweigh the good point you make that it was about Trump. It speaks to their respective Presidential demeanor (or lack thereof).

* To the thread at large, whoknew posted this incisive tweet in the debate thread:

Adam Servianski  @AdamSerwer -- Trump denying black folks housing based on race then criticizing the state of the neighborhoods black folks live in is America in a nutshell. 

 
Bob Magaw said:
They both answered it, and it isn't like it took up a lot of time. You could make a case that forcing him to take a position on such an important matter made this an opportune time to do it, and outweigh the good point you make that it was about Trump. It speaks to their respective Presidential demeanor (or lack thereof).

* To the thread at large, whoknew posted this incisive tweet in the debate thread:

Adam Servianski  @AdamSerwer -- Trump denying black folks housing based on race then criticizing the state of the neighborhoods black folks live in is America in a nutshell. 
Click to expand...
I think you and I have different opinions on what a debate is. You think debates can be like an interview. I don't. If I want to learn about a candidates good points and bad points I can watch their speeches and interviews. In a debate however, I want to see the candidates defend their differing opinions. There were a lot better topics that were not brought up where they have very strong different opinions than tax returns, birther, and respect the winner. Those topics were a waste of the debate. Important topics yes, but not for a debate. 

 
Politician Spock said:
I think you and I have different opinions on what a debate is. You think debates can be like an interview. I don't. If I want to learn about a candidates good points and bad points I can watch their speeches and interviews. In a debate however, I want to see the candidates defend their differing opinions. There were a lot better topics that were not brought up where they have very strong different opinions than tax returns, birther, and respect the winner. Those topics were a waste of the debate. Important topics yes, but not for a debate. 
Click to expand...
Again, it was a very small part, like 1% of the debate or less. Extracting that concession (which hadn't been previously - same as alluding to paying 0% taxes) was imo a worthy addition to whatever other subjects were covered by the debate. As to the birther antics, I don't think that was specifically raised by Holt (original subject race relations and how they might be improved?). Clinton maneuvered him onto ground that isn't very defensible for him. If he was better prepared, he may not have allowed himself to fall into that trap. It isn't Clinton's responsibility to protect Trump from his own general ineptitude and specific lack of preparation. 

* Edit/add - You also seem to have an assumption that everybody has been following this process all along as actively as us. That almost certainly isn't the case. This may have been the first/last/only place to get out that information for an appreciable percentage of the potential undecided electorate. I'll stand by it was a worthy inclusion. You also may be underestimating that his answer was what it was precisely BECAUSE of the extraordinary circumstances (and therefore the role it played in his concession), and it might have been different given lower stakes at an INTERVIEW or popping off and shooting from the hip at rallies - which, not incidentally, could cause a lot of damage to our own internal faith in the democratic process. Without that, we are nothing, just a banana republic, politically.   

I don't want to belabor the point, you obviously think what you think and that is fine/cool, I respect your perspective and non-partisan takes throughout here, you have made valuable, commendable contributions to the ongoing discussion.    

 
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer said:
Who likely shot him a poisonous look and a head movement towards Lester so he'd clear his gaffe
Click to expand...
I think that had more to do with trump not wanting to have to wait behind Hillary to shake holts hand as that would make him look "weak" so he pretended to be busy until he could walk over there but it came off awkward and looked like a slight to holt when I think it was more in his mind not having Hillary upstage him or whatever went through his narcissist addled mind.

 
Politician Spock said:
I've pointed out numerous parts that I'm talking about. Not sure why you are focusing on the smallest one and hashing it out on just that one. The tax returns and birther talk went on for quite a while. 
Click to expand...
The debates are for the candidates to score politican points and potentially sway voters. That's all they are. They aren't for serious policy discussions. They are political theater. Really badly written and poorly acted theater, but theater nonetheless. Done well they would be more like the Minister's Questions in England. Instead they more closely resemble the Morton Downey Jr. show.

 
tommyboy said:
that is surprising me.   I can't stand hillary and think Trump is just "hillary lite" when it comes to actual governing.   I really don't care about this election.   I thought it was an obvious win for Hillary though.    

not sure what people saw in Trump that would compel them to say he 'won' the debate.   He seemed flustered by Hillary and Lester Holt.  That to me isn't "winning"
Click to expand...
:shrug: It's just my experience that he does well with online polls. His fans are online and active with polls and they vote early often and until the end, and frankly I think he quite a few voters outside the country.

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
The debates are for the candidates to score politican points and potentially sway voters. That's all they are. They aren't for serious policy discussions. They are political theater. Really badly written and poorly acted theater, but theater nonetheless. Done well they would be more like the Minister's Questions in England. Instead they more closely resemble the Morton Downey Jr. show.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you're not talking about the Hunger Games?

 
Politician Spock said:
I've pointed out numerous parts that I'm talking about. Not sure why you are focusing on the smallest one and hashing it out on just that one. The tax returns and birther talk went on for quite a while. 
Click to expand...
I focused on it initially because you did. You have expanded your list, and I have expanded addressing some of them.

While it was small in time spent, it was far from small in potential impact if Trump had lost and popped off about being rigged. That is why I'm focusing on it. It's OK to not agree on this, obviously we won't be, no need to back and forth dozens of times.

* BTW, I did add to the above post you were responding to BEFORE your latest.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
I think you and I have different opinions on what a debate is. You think debates can be like an interview. I don't. If I want to learn about a candidates good points and bad points I can watch their speeches and interviews. In a debate however, I want to see the candidates defend their differing opinions. There were a lot better topics that were not brought up where they have very strong different opinions than tax returns, birther, and respect the winner. Those topics were a waste of the debate. Important topics yes, but not for a debate. 
Click to expand...
Debates are not for you or for me. You and I and most of the people reading this are the sort who follow politics on a regular basis. We don't need to know how candidates think about issues because we've probably spent time looking it up. We don't have to hear them defend themselves because we've watched them do it and we've already formed opinions. Whatever your differences with me, Politician Spock, you and I have this much in common: we're better informed than 80% of the electorate- or higher. 

The debates are for the uninformed, the ones who rarely watch the news and barely know the issues. It's an intro class. 

 
Bob Magaw said:
Another possibility is the influence of Conway (and the Breitbart dude, who may have been reduced to a behind the scenes steering role by being compromised and rendered toxic/radioactive when the racist and domestic abuse reports surfaced). She may have told him the barrage of Crooked Hillary name calling isn't Presidential or a good look. We'll find out in two weeks. If the above is right, maybe he chafes against the bridle and changes his tactics to the personal insults, mud slinging, street fighting kind we've seen before. Possibly Conway could change her mind about tactics, too? Based on the reaction from the first debate, "What do they have to lose?"  

If Khan was a singular moment associated with Clinton's then-rise (if not Trump's then-fall, he had so many), Conway HAS to be the MVP of his recent rise. There was the deploreables and fainting spell at the 9/11 Memorial (some thought she was actually done after that, so much hysteria, wailing and gnashing of teeth), but since Manafort was dismissed, the campaign has been vastly, immensely more competent and professional. Maybe she is just better at reigning him in? Whatever the reason, if he wins, have to credit a MASSIVE assist from Conway. I don't like her and find the constant attempts to control the interview tedious, but have to credit here as being smoother than Manafort and doing a great job of what she is supposed to do - vigilantly shape the narrative.       
Click to expand...
This may be true but if so they are at cross purposes:

- Trump's fans very much want a confrontation. What Trump does if nothing else is fling red meat into the pit where his admirers await jaws agape.

- Curious onlookers, even people not ordinarily into politics or even voting, probably tuned in for the hope of a car crash type confrontation. I am sure Trump understood the reason for the ratings. It wasn't because of his policies or hers, it was from people who wanted a dramatic blowup. There are those who wanted to see Trump say to Hillary what many have said over the years to her face, and there were those who wanted to see Hillary shut him down and give him his just deserts, and many more I would think who were pure :popcorn: not sure which would happen but knowing when it happened they wanted to see the fireworks.

- If Conaway and Bannon think that people want to hear Donald's policies they are completely screwed up. I mean, yeah, you're right, they had him on the straight & narrow gaffeless path for a while, but the debate had at least the one with Ms. Universe and as per usual he doubled down on that. But IIRC when they came on it was because it was Manafort who had been trying to tie him down as opposed to Lewandowski who had said 'let Trump be Trump.' They were supposed to go back to the Lewandowski mode because Trump chafed under Manafort.

But if they do believe what you say, nah, they have zero shot. I see the point of roping Trump down into a teleprompter and canned responses but.... when it comes to a point where people have to actually listen to what he said? No way, he did not win in the primary on policies - except maybe on the TPP and immigration issues, granted. But aside from TPP what he delivered last night was word salad and a neutered version of himself, which is the absolute worst thing for Trump - boring TV.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw said:
I focused on it initially because you did. You have expanded your list, and I have expanded addressing some of them.

While it was small in time spent, it was far from small in potential impact if Trump had lost and popped off about being rigged. That is why I'm focusing on it. It's OK to not agree on this, obviously we won't be, no need to back and forth dozens of times.

* BTW, I did add to the above post you were responding to BEFORE your latest.
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about??! Here is my original post on the subject: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/748341-first-presidential-debate/?do=findComment&comment=19450392

You and others then responded by harping on the smallest example I mentioned. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
You know it's a blowout when the best Trump supporters can muster is the old "whatever, nobody really cares" defense.

Although I suppose that's a step up from the "nuh-uh, ask Hannity!!!!" defense on the Iraq war support.  That one was pretty funny.  Trump sounded like a guy trying to convince his buddies that he totally has a girlfriend in Canada.
Click to expand...
I'll be voting Johnson.  

 
timschochet said:
Debates are not for you or for me. You and I and most of the people reading this are the sort who follow politics on a regular basis. We don't need to know how candidates think about issues because we've probably spent time looking it up. We don't have to hear them defend themselves because we've watched them do it and we've already formed opinions. Whatever your differences with me, Politician Spock, you and I have this much in common: we're better informed than 80% of the electorate- or higher. 

The debates are for the uninformed, the ones who rarely watch the news and barely know the issues. It's an intro class. 
Click to expand...
they should stop calling it a debate and just call it a show

this is what I imagine its going to look like soon in the future:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA

 
timschochet said:
Debates are not for you or for me. You and I and most of the people reading this are the sort who follow politics on a regular basis. We don't need to know how candidates think about issues because we've probably spent time looking it up. We don't have to hear them defend themselves because we've watched them do it and we've already formed opinions. Whatever your differences with me, Politician Spock, you and I have this much in common: we're better informed than 80% of the electorate- or higher. 

The debates are for the uninformed, the ones who rarely watch the news and barely know the issues. It's an intro class. 
Click to expand...
No one "uninformed" watched the debate last night. Not one. There are uninformed people out there.... lots of them. But it's not because they were waiting for the debate to get informed. It's because they have no desire to be informed now, or in the future. 

 
Politician Spock said:
WTF are you talking about??! Here is my original post on the subject: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/748341-first-presidential-debate/?do=findComment&comment=19450392

You and others then responded by harping on the smallest example I mentioned. 
Click to expand...
There are a lot of posts in here. The below two may have been the first two I saw (and were initially prompted to respond to). You were also focusing or "harping" yourself to use your terminology at times on this "smallest" example. And that is your characterization, not mine. I don't think it was small at all, but looms very large. I get that it doesn't matter to you as much, or at all, it does to me (which is why I'M addressing it). If you don't care to address it because of it's smallness, don't.    

"He didn't have to ask that. It was a waste of time. No voter is going to make their decision based on the response. It was a waste of time in regards to voters making their decisions. A lot of last night was a waste of time in that regard."

"I know he's said that. It's one of many stupid things he's said. It however is NOT a debate question. It a question that has nothing to do with Hillary at all, let alone debate. Is it a question for a one on one interview with Trump? Absolutely!!!! Is it a debate topic. Absolutely NOT!"

* Again, after several previous attempts, it's OK to not agree, we don't have to back and forth dozens of times.  

Completely disagree it is impossible votes might have been impacted if Trump had said he was going to yell RIGGED (which you probably don't need to be reminded, he already has, thus the importance to find out where he stands). Again, a large percentage of the population doesn't follow the election as closely, and this may have been the first/last/only opportunity to find out for THEM.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
Then stop retorting. 
Click to expand...
Some clarification appeared to still be in order (your WTF comment). Hopefully we can now both move on.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump won the first half, Hillary won the second.  I don't think either candidate changed anyone's mind last night.  But Trump, a neophyte to the political world, surprised me by hanging tough with someone that has been in politics for the last quarter century.  Thought for sure she'd mop the floor with him from open to close.  She came on strong late, and was getting stronger when the debate closed.  Trump was lucky that debate ended when it did.

Trump didn't make any big mistakes and was obviously coached to stay passive and not attack Clinton.  But he also missed some hanging curves that he should have just crushed.  The cyber security thing in particular was a big wasted opportunity.  

Lester Holt was terrible.  6 follow-up or fact check interruptions of Trump (one of which was flat out wrong by Holt...shades of Candy Crawley), no follow-up questions for Clinton. None. Also, while he had time to ask Trump about that birther nonsense, he just didn't have the time to ask a SINGLE question about Benghazi, the illegal server, or lying about emails.  It really would have been nice to have an objective moderator in there.  I get why he did it though.  Matt Lauer asked her some tough questions and they dang near tried to deport him.

Looking forward to the next one.
 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This may be true but if so they are at cross purposes:

- Trump's fans very much want a confrontation. What Trump does if nothing else is fling red meat into the pit where his admirers await jaws agape.

- Curious onlookers, even people not ordinarily into politics or even voting, probably tuned in for the hope of a car crash type confrontation. I am sure Trump understood the reason for the ratings. It wasn't because of his policies or hers, it was from people who wanted a dramatic blowup. There are those who wanted to see Trump say to Hillary what many have said over the years to her face, and there were those who wanted to see Hillary shut him down and give him his just deserts, and many more I would think who were pure :popcorn: not sure which would happen but knowing when it happened they wanted to see the fireworks.

- If Conaway and Bannon think that people want to hear Donald's policies they are completely screwed up. I mean, yeah, you're right, they had him on the straight & narrow gaffeless path for a while, but the debate had at least the one with Ms. Universe and as per usual he doubled down on that. But IIRC when they came on it was because it was Manafort who had been trying to tie him down as opposed to Lewandowski who had said 'let Trump be Trump.' They were supposed to go back to the Lewandowski mode because Trump chafed under Manafort.

But if they do believe what you say, nah, they have zero shot. I see the point of roping Trump down into a teleprompter and canned responses but.... when it comes to a point where people have to actually listen to what he said? No way, he did not win in the primary on policies - except maybe on the TPP and immigration issues, granted. But aside from TPP what he delivered last night was word salad and a neutered version of himself, which is the absolute worst thing for Trump - boring TV.
Click to expand...
1) Maybe curious undecideds wanted to see fire breathing Trump. I don't know that, don't assume that what his followers want is what they want? Or that they would be more likely to vote for him if he gave them that dark side.

2) Whatever Manafort was trying wasn't working. He has been more tamped down and on point since, and that may have contributed to his closing of the gap. It isn't a stretch to think THEY THINK that is what propelled him to the next level, and therefor to continue that positive trend.

3) As has been pointed out, what worked in the primary may not in the national election. He is in uncharted territory here.

4) Would it really have helped his cause to call her Crooked Hillary (we don't know if it would have rattled her, my guess is no)? To point out Clinton's indiscretions? They weren't hers. And it could leave him vulnerable to his own. That kind of thing can backfire. Is he going to call her a fat ugly pig like Rosie? How would that play with undecided women? Trump is always word salad, it is who he is. When asked for specifics, his default mode is to A) Vaguely and generally dissemble, B) Change the subject and C) Blame and say they are worse (she started birther-ism even though she also dropped it and I ran with it for a half decade AFTER it was even relevant).

* Agree that he had some lost opportunities (many he could have attacked her on), just don't know that was him being nice and non-confrontational, pretty sure given a do over with coaching, which he will have soon, he will go there. I just think Clinton had him rattled and on the defensive instead of attack (where did you get that, WHERE DID YOU GET THAT?). If nothing else, the next go will have him at least that much more prepared.       

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
No one "uninformed" watched the debate last night. Not one. There are uninformed people out there.... lots of them. But it's not because they were waiting for the debate to get informed. It's because they have no desire to be informed now, or in the future. 
Click to expand...
I highly doubt that.  Uninformed voters would have watched last night to see what kind of crazy these two people were going to unleash.  They wanted to see a train wreck.

What they saw was one calm,  cool,  collected woman who knew what she was talking about and one flustered man who couldn't string together 3 consecutive sentences without it turning to gibberish. Only one person looked presidential last night. 

 
Statorama said:
Trump won the first half, Hillary won the second.  I don't think either candidate changed anyone's mind last night.  But Trump, a neophyte to the political world, surprised me by hanging tough with someone that has been in politics for the last quarter century.  Thought for sure she'd mop the floor with him from open to close.  She came on strong late, and was getting stronger when the debate closed.  Trump was lucky that debate ended when it did.

Trump didn't make any big mistakes and was obviously coached to stay passive and not attack Clinton.  But he also missed some hanging curves that he should have just crushed.  The cyber security thing in particular was a big wasted opportunity.  

Lester Holt was terrible.  6 follow-up or fact check interruptions of Trump (one of which was flat out wrong by Holt...shades of Candy Crawley), no follow-up questions for Clinton. None. Also, while he had time to ask Trump about that birther nonsense, he just didn't have the time to ask a SINGLE question about Benghazi, the illegal server, or lying about emails.  It really would have been nice to have an objective moderator in there.  I get why he did it though.  Matt Lauer asked her some tough questions and they dang near tried to deport him.

Looking forward to the next one.
 
Click to expand...
Not true.  Specifically asked her about the emails as a follow-up question.  Also, Hillary didn't stand on the stage and blatantly like Donald Trump, so not really the need to follow-up or fact-check.

 
Statorama said:
Lester Holt was terrible.  6 follow-up or fact check interruptions of Trump (one of which was flat out wrong by Holt...shades of Candy Crawley), no follow-up questions for Clinton. None. Also, while he had time to ask Trump about that birther nonsense, he just didn't have the time to ask a SINGLE question about Benghazi, the illegal server, or lying about emails.  It really would have been nice to have an objective moderator in there.  I get why he did it though.  Matt Lauer asked her some tough questions and they dang near tried to deport him.
 
Click to expand...
Lester let Trump run all over him all night. He constantly interrupted Clinton and on a couple of occasions #####ed at Lester like a little kid. 

Trump has no one to blame but himself. Unprepared.

 
I dont get the...he won the first half stuff.

He had several things pointed out as BS in what he said in the first 30 or so.

He had good moment, but there were not many and quickly disappeared when he slrambled about ridiculous things.

And the whining about the unfair moderator stuff is just laughable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump says we are third world. 

In a way I suppose he is right with the way  him and his supporters have made a mockery of this election. 

Not to mention implied assassination threats. 

Other than that we are most definitely first world no matter what the blathering idiot says. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
Scared to ask but don't have anywhere else - Clay Travis Article?
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
roadkill1292
roadkill1292
The Commish
***Official 2016 Presidential Race Thread*** Debate #3 TONIGHT!
32 33 34
Replies
2K
Views
40K
The Commish
The Commish
cstu
Donald Trump Needs $10M to Debate Bernie - Where Do I Donate?
Replies
33
Views
1K
EYLive
EYLive

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top