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!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (17 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
So:

Just 3 weeks AFTER the NYT ran its story about Hillary's email system, just 2 weeks after Hillary had her press conference at the UN and after Congress had issued a subpoena and preservation order to Hillary:

- 3/25/15 - Hillary's staff has a call with Platte River (PRN), the vendor managing the emails.

- Between 3/25 through 3/31/15 - ALL the emails are deleted.

- 3/31/15 the vendor has another call with Clintons staff.

The guy who was handling the data - REDACTED - lied to the FBI THREE times about this sequence of events in THREE separate interviews.
Click to expand...
why would this person's name be redacted?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The science seems pretty well settled. Vaccines are good and are not bad.

As for the federal versus state stuff, and the philosophical issues regarding medical autonomy, I haven't thought about it enough to have a position.
Click to expand...
I'm not an anti-vaccination person when it comes to the science, I just thought the federal/state thing might have been an issue you'd given thought to and could enlighten me on. Even the compulsory aspect of it at the local level is tricky. Willrich wrote a book about the 14th and vaccination. 

Hey, I hope you're well. We have love for you here, no doubt. 

Peace, 

RA

 
Smack Tripper said:
why would this person's name be redacted?
Click to expand...
There's no legitimate reason I can think of.

And there's this - by claiming privilege Mr. REDACTED automatically is considered to be part of Hillary's team. Anyone who was part of Hillary's team should be public knowledge.

- eta - At one point elsewhere the name of one of Hillary's attorneys is redacted.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
More recently:

“You know, since I’ve said that ["No mandatory vaccines" tweet in 2011] … I’ve come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that would in fact be issued would not be effective,” he said. “So … it’s dependent that you have mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise, not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine.”

Johnson said he believes vaccination policy should be handled at the local level.

“In my opinion, this is a local issue. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science and I would probably require that vaccine,” he said.

Johnson said his position changed recently.

“It’s an evolution actually just in the last few months, just in the last month or so,” he said. “I was under the belief that … ‘Why require a vaccine? If I don’t want my child to have a vaccine and you want yours to, let yours have the vaccine and they’ll be immune.’ Well, it turns out that that’s not the case, and it may sound terribly uninformed on my part, but I didn’t realize that.”

Johnson was referring to the concept of “herd immunity,” also known as community immunity.

Link.
Click to expand...
Looks like Johnson has reversed his reversal:   http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/libertarian-gary-johnson-comes-out-again

Updated: The Johnson campaign sends this "definitive statement" on vaccinations:


Today, there are no federal laws mandating vaccinations, and that is as it should be. No adult should be required by the government to inject anything into his or her body.

Each of the 50 states has varying vaccination requirements for children, consistent with their responsibilities for public education and providing a safe environment for students who are required to attend school under state law. Likewise, each of the 50 states has varying opportunities for parents to seek exemptions from vaccination requirements for legitimate reasons of personal belief. That, too, is as it should be.

And while I personally believe some states' 'opt-out' provisions are not adequate in terms of personal freedom, those laws and requirements are appropriately beyond the scope of the federal government—including the President.

Clearly, if and when a major outbreak of a communicable disease occurs that crosses state lines or sweeps the nation, then appropriate levels of government have an obligation to act—and act rapidly. As President, it would be irresponsible to rule out scientifically and medically sound responses to such an emergency.

Government has a responsibility to help keep our children and our communities safe. At the same time, government has a responsibility to preserve individual freedom. Vaccination policies must respect both of those responsibilities. I personally believe in vaccinations, and my children were vaccinated. But it is not for me to impose that belief on others.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
More recently:

“You know, since I’ve said that ["No mandatory vaccines" tweet in 2011] … I’ve come to find out that without mandatory vaccines, the vaccines that would in fact be issued would not be effective,” he said. “So … it’s dependent that you have mandatory vaccines so that every child is immune. Otherwise, not all children will be immune even though they receive a vaccine.”

Johnson said he believes vaccination policy should be handled at the local level.

“In my opinion, this is a local issue. If it ends up to be a federal issue, I would come down on the side of science and I would probably require that vaccine,” he said.

Johnson said his position changed recently.

“It’s an evolution actually just in the last few months, just in the last month or so,” he said. “I was under the belief that … ‘Why require a vaccine? If I don’t want my child to have a vaccine and you want yours to, let yours have the vaccine and they’ll be immune.’ Well, it turns out that that’s not the case, and it may sound terribly uninformed on my part, but I didn’t realize that.”

Johnson was referring to the concept of “herd immunity,” also known as community immunity.

Link.
Click to expand...
First, thoughts with you and hope you're well.  Just know random Internet dude has been thinking about you and holding you in prayers.  

Second, thank you for this.  Very informative! 

 
tommyGunZ said:
Looks like Johnson has reversed his reversal:   http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/26/libertarian-gary-johnson-comes-out-again

Updated: The Johnson campaign sends this "definitive statement" on vaccinations:


Today, there are no federal laws mandating vaccinations, and that is as it should be. No adult should be required by the government to inject anything into his or her body.

Each of the 50 states has varying vaccination requirements for children, consistent with their responsibilities for public education and providing a safe environment for students who are required to attend school under state law. Likewise, each of the 50 states has varying opportunities for parents to seek exemptions from vaccination requirements for legitimate reasons of personal belief. That, too, is as it should be.

And while I personally believe some states' 'opt-out' provisions are not adequate in terms of personal freedom, those laws and requirements are appropriately beyond the scope of the federal government—including the President.

Clearly, if and when a major outbreak of a communicable disease occurs that crosses state lines or sweeps the nation, then appropriate levels of government have an obligation to act—and act rapidly. As President, it would be irresponsible to rule out scientifically and medically sound responses to such an emergency.

Government has a responsibility to help keep our children and our communities safe. At the same time, government has a responsibility to preserve individual freedom. Vaccination policies must respect both of those responsibilities. I personally believe in vaccinations, and my children were vaccinated. But it is not for me to impose that belief on others.
Click to expand...
Yeah -- see, that's not enough for me.  This is one area where the State, and by that I mean Federal Government simply has to impose best practices.  We wiped diseases out that are returning.  This is a matter of science and people will die as a result of ignorance and selfishness.  This is a worrisome stance.

Then again, in the maelstrom of not perfect choices it seems he's open and aware of the issue and it's not like he stands a chance.  I have more research to do on Johnson, but all things considered I simply can't get myself to go Trump so am leaning between not voting or Johnson.

I have time but simply can't go with Hillary or Trump.  

 
Last edited:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Separate question - what about the constant, unmitigated, thorough and complete lying on it from beginning to end? That whole Briefing piece - which you posted - is a total lie. None of it has held up, None of it. It's not mostly false, it's all false. On tv, to the press, in Congressional testimony, Hillary lied to the American people and she told the FBI the opposite on almost every point.

While it is true that Nixon was disqualified because it turned out he knew about the cover-up and authorized its activities, it's also true that he ultimately resigned because he had lied to thoroughly and so often to the American people.

I suppose it's true that Nixon was paying off witnesses or knew of it. Well Hillary has been paying the legal bills of people like Pagliano and Cooper.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to comment on the supposed lying because I don't want to be dragged into a rabbit hole on it. Let's just say that more than a few people that I have read don't interpret her arguments as "constant, unmitigated, thorough and complete lying".

But even if I were to accept what you wrote as true, I still don't see the parallels. Nixon was forced to resign because he approved of a cover up of Republican operatives breaking into Democratic headquarters. I just don't see anything similar here.

 
The Commish said:
What's the difference to you?  Feels like a variation of the "ignorance" defense, but want to understand you correctly.
Click to expand...
I assume this question is directed to me.

It's a big difference. Politicians screw up all the time (IMO, Hillary less than most.) But I am always willing to forgive screw-ups, regardless of party or political ideology. I have a real problem with people who deliberately do bad stuff. (Not careless stuff, but bad stuff.)

 
From a diary on DKos:

Political reporters and a critical story of transient tussis

This is a news story. On NBC. Right now.

NBC Politics ✔ @NBCPolitics 

Hillary Clinton Struggles to Fight Back Coughing Attack http://nbcnews.to/2cipMMk

This critical medical event, lasting for whole seconds, also merited a story on CNN. Did you know that Hillary coughed during a speech in January? It’s true! And she also coughed at another speech barely thirty days — and about thirty speeches — later. CNN may not notice when Donald Trump is caught sliding money to two attorneys general to buy his way out of a lawsuit, but they are right there with the details on this vital issue.


Now the question will be how this is reported tomorrow. How many Trump surrogates will be invited onto morning shows to tell us that Clinton has … what? Ebola? Hantavirus? Beriberi? And most importantly, will it be a “gate?” No. it has to be a “ghazi.” Coughazi. Just look how nicely that fits.

 
cstu said:
That's where you've gone too far.  Trump has been found guilty of bribing a public official, has committed fraud in his Trump University, been found guilty of racial discrimination in housing, pretending to be another person during interviews, flip-flops back and forth about everything he believes, and that's all that I could think of off the top of my head.

The only reason you feel this way is that Hillary has a 30 year track record in politics for you to go through while Trump has none.
Click to expand...
Yes, the narrative seems to be that Hillary is the corrupt candidate while Trump is the crazy, bigoted candidate. Trump's corruption is therefore deemphasized. But if his craziness and bigotry weren't giving him cover, and if his corruption were covered by the media the same way Hillary's is, Trump would be known as the corrupt candidate while Hillary would be perceived as the comparatively honest candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/05/trumps-history-of-corruption-is-mind-boggling-so-why-is-clinton-supposedly-the-corrupt-one/

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, the narrative seems to be that Hillary is the corrupt candidate while Trump is the crazy, bigoted candidate. Trump's corruption is therefore deemphasized. But if his craziness and bigotry weren't giving him cover, and if his corruption were covered by the media the same way Hillary's is, Trump would be known as the corrupt candidate while Hillary would be perceived as the comparatively honest candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/05/trumps-history-of-corruption-is-mind-boggling-so-why-is-clinton-supposedly-the-corrupt-one/
Click to expand...
Or, they are both corrupt sacks of horse dung - their is no "supposedly".  I like that narrative better.  Neither should get a pass.

 
Cannot believe that MT would claim that the media is covering HRC in such a manner that they're making her "seem" corrupt. Hello - the MSM protects her at every turn and meanwhile criticizes Trump constantly.

Hello again - HRC IS corrupt. She rewarded those who donated to her "foundation" when she was SOS. He lies on a regular basis. She landed "under fire"...who can forget that one? Then there's the email fiasco, Benghazi, on and on.

On top of everything, she wants to be POTUS so bad, she won't drop out, despite her obvious health problems. No doubt, there was a stampede to become her VEEP; an excellent chance to become POTUS without running for it. Cough, cough.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, the narrative seems to be that Hillary is the corrupt candidate while Trump is the crazy, bigoted candidate. Trump's corruption is therefore deemphasized. But if his craziness and bigotry weren't giving him cover, and if his corruption were covered by the media the same way Hillary's is, Trump would be known as the corrupt candidate while Hillary would be perceived as the comparatively honest candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/05/trumps-history-of-corruption-is-mind-boggling-so-why-is-clinton-supposedly-the-corrupt-one/
Click to expand...
Waldman forgot one - Trump said in a debate he gave Hillary money in order to help his overseas business. Yeah let's hear more about how that worked.

Also I don't think I agree about how they're comparatively perceived - don't they have comparable honesty/trustworthy numbers? Hillary puts herself out there as a seller of access (see cstu's point about Hillary's 'transparency' on that earlier) and Trump puts himself out there as a buyer. Both's fans seem perfectly ok with this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Baloney Sandwich said:
Why did the FBI release all of these documents?
Click to expand...
Because they hate her. There is nobody in the military or law enforcement who likes or respects Hillary, unless they wear a suit and/or have a financial or career incentive to shill for her. 

Unfortunately her crimes go all the way to the top (White House, State Department, DOJ, suits at the FBI.... anyone who has actually read the documents, not just CNN or Squizy's twitter feed can see this) so if Comey had recommended indictment he most certainly would have opened up a can of worms that would tear DC apart. The American citizens are not ready or capable to handle truths like that. Also, Comey most likely was influenced with either money or intimidation/threats against his family.

The FBI's best course to ensure Hillary be somewhat held accountable for her actions (without committing suicide themselves) was to release everything publicly and leak things privately so that the American people could see exactly how corrupt she is and decide if they want to indict Hillary (vote Trump) or that it is acceptable for the government to be completely full of ####. 

I know we have a resident DC "insider" here who would confirm everything I have posted if he wanted to be honest with his internet friends and strangers of the FFA. Unfortunately the desire to fit in and the desire to keep one's job can affect one's openness.  

 
Jim11 said:
Cannot believe that MT would claim that the media is covering HRC in such a manner that they're making her "seem" corrupt. Hello - the MSM protects her at every turn and meanwhile criticizes Trump constantly.
Click to expand...
Maurile has been saying a lot of out of character stuff the past few weeks. 

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
What's the difference to you?  Feels like a variation of the "ignorance" defense, but want to understand you correctly.
Click to expand...
I assume this question is directed to me.

It's a big difference. Politicians screw up all the time (IMO, Hillary less than most.) But I am always willing to forgive screw-ups, regardless of party or political ideology. I have a real problem with people who deliberately do bad stuff. (Not careless stuff, but bad stuff.)
Click to expand...
So it's either/or to you?  

 
squistion said:
From a diary on DKos:

Political reporters and a critical story of transient tussis

This is a news story. On NBC. Right now.

NBC Politics ✔ @NBCPolitics 

Hillary Clinton Struggles to Fight Back Coughing Attack http://nbcnews.to/2cipMMk

This critical medical event, lasting for whole seconds, also merited a story on CNN. Did you know that Hillary coughed during a speech in January? It’s true! And she also coughed at another speech barely thirty days — and about thirty speeches — later. CNN may not notice when Donald Trump is caught sliding money to two attorneys general to buy his way out of a lawsuit, but they are right there with the details on this vital issue.


Now the question will be how this is reported tomorrow. How many Trump surrogates will be invited onto morning shows to tell us that Clinton has … what? Ebola? Hantavirus? Beriberi? And most importantly, will it be a “gate?” No. it has to be a “ghazi.” Coughazi. Just look how nicely that fits.
Click to expand...
Considering she used her health as an excuse to not answer questions to the FBI she can deign to explain to the American people what's actually happening. Just say anything, allergies, dry air, road weariness. At least pretend she owes us a duty of some kind. Just do us all a favor and don't pretend it didn't happen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Not in every case, obviously, but there's no evidence in THIS case of deliberate malevolent behavior. 
Click to expand...
The FBI says that Hillary's team literally had an 'oh sh7t' moment (their words, that's their quoting Hillary's team) right before they deleted everything they could after taking an inventory of all data to ensure they didn't miss everything.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, the narrative seems to be that Hillary is the corrupt candidate while Trump is the crazy, bigoted candidate. Trump's corruption is therefore deemphasized. But if his craziness and bigotry weren't giving him cover, and if his corruption were covered by the media the same way Hillary's is, Trump would be known as the corrupt candidate while Hillary would be perceived as the comparatively honest candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/05/trumps-history-of-corruption-is-mind-boggling-so-why-is-clinton-supposedly-the-corrupt-one/
Click to expand...
I don't think comparing Hillary (or anybody else, really) to Trump is very useful.  I mean, if he's your benchmark, then everybody else is going to be honest, trustworthy, competent, well-spoken, not-at-all racist, and open-minded by comparison.  

Hillary is corrupt, and she's more corrupt than the kind of stuff we tend to write off as "politics as usual."  Is she more corrupt than Donald Trump?  No, of course not.  But again, I think we can reasonably set the bar a little higher than that.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The FBI says that Hillary's team literally had an 'oh sh7t' moment (their words, that's their quoting Hillary's team) right before they deleted everything they could after taking an inventory of all data to ensure they didn't miss everything.
Click to expand...
Exactly. "Oh ####!" is a sign of somebody screwed up.

 
timschochet said:
As I've written numerous times, in terms of the coming election and evaluating Hillary's worthiness to be President, yes I'm OK with it. In a vacuum I would not be.
Click to expand...
I'm asking about the actions...they stand on their own.  You're either ok with them or you aren't.  I'm not asking WHY you are ok / not ok with them.  

 
The Commish said:
I'm asking about the actions...they stand on their own.  You're either ok with them or you aren't.  I'm not asking WHY you are ok / not ok with them.  
Click to expand...
Oh. Well in that case I'm not OK with them. I think they were stupid, and then her staff tried to cover it up and Hillary may have lied about it as well. But in the larger scheme of things (Hillary vs. Trump) it's not a big deal to me.

 
timschochet said:
Oh. Well in that case I'm not OK with them. I think they were stupid, and then her staff tried to cover it up and Hillary may have lied about it as well. But in the larger scheme of things (Hillary vs. Trump) it's not a big deal to me.
Click to expand...
There was a cover up by Hillary's staff and then Hillary lied about it.

Oh.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, the narrative seems to be that Hillary is the corrupt candidate while Trump is the crazy, bigoted candidate. Trump's corruption is therefore deemphasized. But if his craziness and bigotry weren't giving him cover, and if his corruption were covered by the media the same way Hillary's is, Trump would be known as the corrupt candidate while Hillary would be perceived as the comparatively honest candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/05/trumps-history-of-corruption-is-mind-boggling-so-why-is-clinton-supposedly-the-corrupt-one/
Click to expand...
I don't think comparing Hillary (or anybody else, really) to Trump is very useful.  I mean, if he's your benchmark, then everybody else is going to be honest, trustworthy, competent, well-spoken, not-at-all racist, and open-minded by comparison.  

Hillary is corrupt, and she's more corrupt than the kind of stuff we tend to write off as "politics as usual."  Is she more corrupt than Donald Trump?  No, of course not.  But again, I think we can reasonably set the bar a little higher than that.  
Click to expand...
Pretty much my point throughout this thread.  The only way Hillary is palatable to any reasonable person is in light of Trump and that's the lowest bar I can possibly imagine.  It's time to start making these political figures hold up to a legitimate standard instead of each other (settling for lesser of two evils) year in and year out.  We're at a point where DONALD FREAKIN' TRUMP is a standard!!!!!!  Seriously?!?!?!?!?!??!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
There was a cover up by Hillarys staff and then Hillary lied about it.

Oh.
Click to expand...
Maybe. I don't know. It's about as important to me as my older daughter eating food in her room and my younger daughter lying to cover for her.

I know you want to compare it to Watergate, but that began with a very bad act: a deliberate break in of the Democratic National Headquarters. Here there's nothing like that.

 
timschochet said:
Maybe. I don't know. It's about as important to me as my older daughter eating food in her room and my younger daughter lying to cover for her.

I know you want to compare it to Watergate, but that began with a very bad act: a deliberate break in of the Democratic National Headquarters. Here there's nothing like that.
Click to expand...
Ok we've moved to difference in quality of the deed, good thing. That's an improvement.

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
I'm asking about the actions...they stand on their own.  You're either ok with them or you aren't.  I'm not asking WHY you are ok / not ok with them.  
Click to expand...
Oh. Well in that case I'm not OK with them. I think they were stupid, and then her staff tried to cover it up and Hillary may have lied about it as well. But in the larger scheme of things (Hillary vs. Trump) it's not a big deal to me.
Click to expand...
regardless of the possible implications, yes?

BTW:  It's been interesting to watch you "evolve" on this....at one point you were a staunch defender (well before Trump)....and now, your defense is essentially "....but TRUMP!!!"  Makes it hard to believe you believed any of what your line of defense was before you had Trump to fall back on.  Genuine question....did you believe what you were saying in your defense of her?  If the answer is yes, why have you turned from that line of defense to Trump?  Why not stick with that initial line of defense?

 
The Commish said:
Pretty much my point throughout this thread.  The only way Hillary is palatable to any reasonable person is in light of Trump and that's the lowest bar I can possibly imagine.  It's time to start making these political figures hold up to a legitimate standard instead of settling for lesser of two evils year in and year out.  We're at a point where DONALD FREAKIN' TRUMP is a standard!!!!!!  Seriously?!?!?!?!?!??!
Click to expand...
No it isn't. We can have that conversation on November 10, once Trump has been defeated. We should not be discussing it now.

 
The Commish said:
regardless of the possible implications, yes?

BTW:  It's been interesting to watch you "evolve" on this....at one point you were a staunch defender (well before Trump)....and now, your defense is essentially "....but TRUMP!!!"  Makes it hard to believe you believed any of what your line of defense was before you had Trump to fall back on.  Genuine question....did you believe what you were saying in your defense of her?  If the answer is yes, why have you turned from that line of defense to Trump?  Why not stick with that initial line of defense?
Click to expand...
There is no defending either of these two criminals. 

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
Pretty much my point throughout this thread.  The only way Hillary is palatable to any reasonable person is in light of Trump and that's the lowest bar I can possibly imagine.  It's time to start making these political figures hold up to a legitimate standard instead of settling for lesser of two evils year in and year out.  We're at a point where DONALD FREAKIN' TRUMP is a standard!!!!!!  Seriously?!?!?!?!?!??!
Click to expand...
No it isn't. We can have that conversation on November 10, once Trump has been defeated. We should not be discussing it now.
Click to expand...
Yeah...it kinda is.  We (the country) have been kicking the can down the road long enough, lowering our standards along the way.  Continuing to do so is pointless.

 
@timschochet About the quality of the deed - the cover up & the lying - as usual you raise good points even if I don't agree with your conclusions.

Why does REDACTED guy at data vendor care if Hillary's personal stuff gets intermixed with the public data if he's facing a preservation order and subpoena from CONGRESS? Why does Hillary's staff have a call with him right before he wipes out the data and right after?

Somehow the innocuousness of the event doesn't match the serious tone of the behavior.

Meanwhile the FBI was barred by the DOJ from investigating the Foundation and also from examining the violation of Foia. So whatever they were ohshytting about wasn't addressed.

I guess the documents finally do matter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
@timschochet About the quality of the deed - the cover up & the lying - as usual you raise good points even if I don't agree with your conclusions.

Why does REDACTED guy at data vendor care if Hillary's personal stuff gets intermixed with the public data if he's facing a preservation order and subpoena from CONGRESS? Why does Hillary's staff have a call with him right before he wipes out the data and right after?

Somehow the innocuousness of the event doesn't match the serious tone of the behavior.

Meanwhile the FBI was barred by the DOJ from investigating the Foundation and also from examining the violation of Foia. So whatever they were ohshytting about wasnt addressed.

I guess the documents finally do matter.
Click to expand...
this exchange makes a lot more sense now:

a Platte River Networks employee wrote to a coworker that he was, "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy (sic) s**t."
"I just think if we have it in writing that they told us to cut the backups, and that we can go public with our statement saying we have backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30days (sic), it would make us look a WHOLE LOT better," the unnamed employee continued.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
253K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 17 (members: 0, guests: 17)
Back
Top