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 (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Da Guru said:
Last nights debate was a history lesson for my daughters who were very young when Bill Clinton was in office.  When Trump was talking about snatch-gate and then brought up all of Bill Clintons issues my daughter said when it was over..wonder if Bill and Hillary will be sleeping together tonight as Hillary had to be fuming. Then we started watching old interviews that I totally forgot about. Time does change perceptions..
Click to expand...


This is fine.

 
Da Guru said:
Last nights debate was a history lesson for my daughters who were very young when Bill Clinton was in office.  When Trump was talking about snatch-gate and then brought up all of Bill Clintons issues my daughter said when it was over..wonder if Bill and Hillary will be sleeping together tonight as Hillary had to be fuming. Then we started watching old interviews that I totally forgot about. Time does change perceptions..
Click to expand...
Look at the face Clinton makes when he asks about the cigar.  If the internet was then, what it is now, imagine the memes.

 
tommyGunZ said:
All time slow play going on right now folks.  It's masterful. Getting Pence and others (Ryan, McConnel) to stay on board after Friday is brilliant because as more and more women and tapes come out, they'll look like buffoons for not abandoning ship earlier.  

Clinton is a much better politician than I thought.  
Click to expand...
She's one of the best....always has been :oldunsure:

Why is this strengthened in your mind because she can out whit Trump and the people dumb enough to support him?  To use the bball analogy someone else used a couple pages back:  "Damn...that Michael Jordan is good.  Did you see him destroy that 3rd grader?" 

 
Coeur de Lion said:
timschochet said:
I don't.

Still too long a time. If we were voting today, it would be over. But too many things can go wrong. And I still don't like this talk about the hidden Trump voter, people who are embarrassed to say they're for him, but will vote for him anyhow. The Bradley/Brexit effect. Makes me nervous.
Click to expand...
Hillary had a substantial lead last week, before the ##### grabbing tape came out -- to the point that a Trump comeback at this stage would be one of the most remarkable in US political history. Then the tape followed by a ton of sitting Republicans completely pulling their support. It's. Over.
Click to expand...
It's been over for a long time.  This "there's still a chance" nonsense is puzzling.  Of course, it's puzzling that there was a struggle to begin with, but then we're reminded of who we are talking about and it makes sense.

 
The Commish said:
It's been over for a long time.  This "there's still a chance" nonsense is puzzling.  Of course, it's puzzling that there was a struggle to begin with, but then we're reminded of who we are talking about and it makes sense.
Click to expand...
It was actually fairly close at the end of September following the two week period during which Trump's campaign was able to keep him away from Twitter and on message just reading prepared statements, while Hillary was making the "deplorables" comment and had pneumonia. Granted, the real Trump was always going to come out during the debates, so he wasn't ever actually going to win anyway.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
The Commish said:
It's been over for a long time.  This "there's still a chance" nonsense is puzzling.  Of course, it's puzzling that there was a struggle to begin with, but then we're reminded of who we are talking about and it makes sense.
Click to expand...
It was actually fairly close at the end of September following the two week period during which Trump's campaign was able to keep him away from Twitter and on message just reading prepared statements, while Hillary was making the "deplorables" comment and had pneumonia. Granted, the real Trump was always going to come out during the debates, so he wasn't ever actually going to win anyway.
Click to expand...
I should have put the word "struggle" in quotes.  I made a comment early on that it was pretty telling that, for both, their best offensive strategy was to say "At least I'm not my opponent" and that their best defensive strategy was to sit back, say nothing and watch the other implode.  Hillary did the latter far better than Donald ever could...his ego just wouldn't let him.

 
Look, you guys may be right. If Hillary were running against a normal opponent I'd be just as confident. But Trump scares the hell out of me. If there is a 15% chance he gets elected, or a 5% chance, or a 1% chance, that's too high for me. 

 
Anyhow why are no true conservatives praising Hillary for the quote from Wikileaks when she speaks out in favor of free trade and open borders. Where are the libertarians from Reason magazine who have always held this same position. Hillary was speaking out in defense of capitalism, the most moral and effective economic system ever created. Are there no capitalists left anymore?

 
Against any other candidate this "public policy vs. private policy" thing would probably have been a death blow. It's evidence of exactly what all us Sanders supporters knew she was saying behind closed doors - that's who she really is. Instead, it's hardly getting covered. Things like that make this whole Trump candidacy unforgivable as much as the obviously broken human being Trump himself is. Trump should have been reiterating that all last night. Instead he wants to get into a worst rapist contest and talk about how we should be cozying up to Assad and Putin. Such a stupid man running such a stupid campaign.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Morning Joe was so odd today.

Mika and Joe could not understand why Republicans would jump ship on Trump.  That is fine.  But they are.  Talk about what is going on.

 
timschochet said:
Anyhow why are no true conservatives praising Hillary for the quote from Wikileaks when she speaks out in favor of free trade and open borders. Where are the libertarians from Reason magazine who have always held this same position. Hillary was speaking out in defense of capitalism, the most moral and effective economic system ever created. Are there no capitalists left anymore?
Click to expand...
Settle down Beavis.

 
This Wiki Leaks stuff is kind of awesome:

From:brentbbi@webtv.net To: john.podesta@gmail.com  Date: 2016-01-10 13:17 Subject: Confidential

I had a multi-email exchange with someone in the media this morning---a name you would know---who is telling me that there are people close to the Clintons who says WJC's sex life could be damaging to her. I responded that I totally disagree with that, that WJC's presidency and his personal appeal are huge assets and that I do not believe people who are the closest to the Clintons believe what this person in the media is hearing from somebody. I never ask journalists about their sources. I know you would be among them. I also know that for some times there were people purportedly close to the Clintons pushing the line that the less WJC the better. Which again I have always strongly disagreed with and still do. My point in this note is that whoever is peddling this crap from somewhere within the Clinton camp is having the effect of encouraging the media to give the issue more prominence. They are hurting both Clintons. I always stay out of intra-staff stuff like this, both Clinton's would be well advised to advise the people in their orbit to shut the hell up about this. Even if I thought Bill Clinton was a liability I would never in a million years write it, or say it to the media, but I think he is a huge asset and I also think some of the people they pay do not perform a service to them. Sent from my iPad
Click to expand...

 
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:14 PM,

Doug Band <doug@presidentclinton.com> wrote: >

Need get this asap to them although I'm sure cvc won't believe it to be true bc she doesn't want to Even though the facts speak for themselves. John, I would appreciate your feedback and any suggestions I'm also starting to worry that if this story gets out, we are screwed. Dk and I built a business. 65 people work for us who have wives and husbands > and kids, they all depend on us. Our business has almost nothing to do with the clintons, the foundation or cgi in any way. The chairman of ubs could care a less about cgi. Our fund clients who we do restructuring and m and a advising the same just as bhp nor tivo do. These are real companies who we provide real advice to through very serious people. Comm head for goldman, dep press secretary to bloomberg, former head of banking, and his team, from morgan stanley for asia and latin am.

I realize it is difficult to confront and reason with her but this could go to far and then we all will have a real serious set of other problems. I don't deserve this from her and deserve a tad more respect or at least a direct dialogue for me to explain these things. She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues to justify what she's doing because she, as she has said, hasn't found her way and has a lack of > focus in her life. I realize she will be off of this soon but if it doesn't come soon enough....
Click to expand...
- Doug Band of Teneo and Foundation emailing John Podesta, speaking of Chelsea Clinton and her interference with corporate clients.

- Reminder, Bill Clinton was the chief consultant for Teneo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
Against any other candidate this "public policy vs. private policy" thing would probably have been a death blow. It's evidence of exactly what all us Sanders supporters knew she was saying behind closed doors - that's who she really is. Instead, it's hardly getting covered. Things like that make this whole Trump candidacy unforgivable as much as the obviously broken human being Trump himself is. Trump should have been reiterating that all last night. Instead he wants to get into a worst rapist contest and talk about how we should be cozying up to Assad and Putin. Such a stupid man running such a stupid campaign.
Click to expand...
Yes that's who she is. But she never lied to Bernie fans. She said all along she was a centrist. And you knew it. Don't pretend this is some revelation. She's a pro-trade, pro-business liberal. She is no socialist. 

 
> From: Cheryl Mills [mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com] >

Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 04:51 PM

> To: john.podesta@gmail.com <john.podesta@gmail.com> > Cc: Doug Band

> Subject: Draft of Doug's Teneo et al memo

> > John > > Attached is doug's memo with edits I have included so typos are likely > mine.  He's going to fill in the blanks. > > Send any suggested thoughts, edits and additions. > > I am working on the next memo on options now. > > cdm
Click to expand...
WHY THE F*** is the chief of staff for the SOS doing edits in a memo for the head of a private consulting firm?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Yes that's who she is. But she never lied to Bernie fans. She said all along she was a centrist. And you knew it. Don't pretend this is some revelation. She's a pro-trade, pro-business liberal. She is no socialist. 
Click to expand...
Centrist != plutocrat. And it's not a revelation to those of us who knew this already. It's confirmation that probably would have played heavily into the consideration of those who have been hoodwinked into thinking she cares about them. She says one thing in public to trick the general public into voting for her and then says/does another in private for her big donors. Interesting to see your story change though, back in spring it was all denial that she wasn't in the pocket of big money. At least you're coming clean now, even if she isn't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Yes that's who she is. But she never lied to Bernie fans. She said all along she was a centrist. And you knew it. Don't pretend this is some revelation. She's a pro-trade, pro-business liberal. She is no socialist. 
Click to expand...
Let's see - Totally mainstream REPUBLICAN speech by Democratic nominee to financial industry lobbying group. Yeah, nothing to see here, folks.

 
Hillary is no different in this regard than Jed Bartlett on The West Wing. There are a series of episodes in which Bartlett campaigned against free trade in order to get union support, and then comes out in favor of free trade once he's President. He is then forced to confront the union leader who complains about all the jobs that have been lost and aren't coming back, and Bartlett explains that it's unfortunate but inevitable and that free trade is best for the country. 

 
Gr00vus said:
Centrist != plutocrat. And it's not a revelation. It's confirmation. She says one thing in public to trick the general public into voting for her and then says/does another in private for her big donors. Interesting to see your story change though, back in spring it was all denial that she wasn't in the pocket of big money. At least you're coming clean now, even if she isn't.
Click to expand...
I never said she was in the pocket of anybody. She is for free trade because she believes it's what's best for the country. 

(BTW, that doesn't mean she's for TPP). 

 
timschochet said:
Hillary is no different in this regard than Jed Bartlett on The West Wing. There are a series of episodes in which Bartlett campaigned against free trade in order to get union support, and then comes out in favor of free trade once he's President. He is then forced to confront the union leader who complains about all the jobs that have been lost and aren't coming back, and Bartlett explains that it's unfortunate but inevitable and that free trade is best for the country. 
Click to expand...
What was the episode where a financial industry trade group paid Bartlett a couple hundred thou for a half hour presentation on how she planned to represent them as a constituency?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Hillary is no different in this regard than Jed Bartlett on The West Wing. There are a series of episodes in which Bartlett campaigned against free trade in order to get union support, and then comes out in favor of free trade once he's President. He is then forced to confront the union leader who complains about all the jobs that have been lost and aren't coming back, and Bartlett explains that it's unfortunate but inevitable and that free trade is best for the country. 
Click to expand...
Great, now you're using t.v. shows to justify her duplicity? You're joking here right?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
> From: Cheryl Mills [mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com] >

Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2011 04:51 PM

> To: john.podesta@gmail.com <john.podesta@gmail.com> > Cc: Doug Band

> Subject: Draft of Doug's Teneo et al memo

> > John > > Attached is doug's memo with edits I have included so typos are likely > mine.  He's going to fill in the blanks. > > Send any suggested thoughts, edits and additions. > > I am working on the next memo on options now. > > cdm
Click to expand...
WHY THE **** is the chief of staff for the SOS doing edits in a memo for the head of a private consulting firm?
Click to expand...
Anyone pro-Hillary want to tackle this?

 
timschochet said:
I never said she was in the pocket of anybody. She is for free trade because she believes it's what's best for the country. 

(BTW, that doesn't mean she's for TPP). 
Click to expand...
Us Sanders supporters were saying she was obviously in the pocket of/beholden to the heavy money interests that have been paying her for a long, long time. You were denying that. I know flip flopping is her thing, but try to avoid doing so yourself at least.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
Us Sanders supporters were saying she was obviously in the pocket of/beholden to the heavy money interests that have been paying her for a long, long time. You were denying that. I know flip flopping is her thing, but try to avoid doing so yourself at least.
Click to expand...
I still deny it. Just because she is for free trade doesn't put her in anyone's pocket. 

 
Leeroy Jenkins said:
People should 100% have a different public and private view/life.  The most glaring example is religion.  People can be super religious, but you do not want those views bleeding into public policy.
Click to expand...
Huh.  So if someone started a cult and then became President, then told a private meeting at a religious retreat that paid them $250k that people are largely uncomfortable with mixing religion with politics, so you have to keep your cult separate from your day job -- but that it's negotiable in private .... That wouldn't be an issue?  Especially if that person said in public that they would never dream of mixing church and state?  I'd say that person is all about mixing church in state in those closed door meetings.  

 
Last edited:
timschochet said:
Gr00vus said:
Against any other candidate this "public policy vs. private policy" thing would probably have been a death blow. It's evidence of exactly what all us Sanders supporters knew she was saying behind closed doors - that's who she really is. Instead, it's hardly getting covered. Things like that make this whole Trump candidacy unforgivable as much as the obviously broken human being Trump himself is. Trump should have been reiterating that all last night. Instead he wants to get into a worst rapist contest and talk about how we should be cozying up to Assad and Putin. Such a stupid man running such a stupid campaign.
Click to expand...
Yes that's who she is. But she never lied to Bernie fans. She said all along she was a centrist. And you knew it. Don't pretend this is some revelation. She's a pro-trade, pro-business liberal. She is no socialist. 
Click to expand...
Well, she tried to by taking his positions.  That doesn't get talked about a whole lot because most Sanders supporters are smart enough to observe her actions and ignore whatever comes spewing out of her mouth.  This is the primary reason those claiming she's a liberal were met with mockery over and over.  For the large elephants left in the room she's always been center right no matter what she's trying to say otherwise.  And I continue to be puzzled by why the GOP is fighting her so much.

 
timschochet said:
I still deny it. Just because she is for free trade doesn't put her in anyone's pocket. 
Click to expand...
The fact that she freely admitted she'll do right by her big monied interests regardless of what she says to the public puts her squarely in their pocket. In her own words.

Stop with the free trade nonsense already. NAFTA + TPP, those aren't free trade, those are wealthy People/Corporation enrichment programs.

 
Gr00vus said:
Centrist != plutocrat. And it's not a revelation to those of us who knew this already. It's confirmation that probably would have played heavily into the consideration of those who have been hoodwinked into thinking she cares about them. She says one thing in public to trick the general public into voting for her and then says/does another in private for her big donors. Interesting to see your story change though, back in spring it was all denial that she wasn't in the pocket of big money. At least you're coming clean now, even if she isn't.
Click to expand...
That does not appear to be an accurate portrayal of what she said.   What she said is that she often takes a harsher public posture while negotiating with a softer private posture.  She then cited the Lincoln movie and Teddy Roosevelt.  I don't see how anyone who has ever had to negotiate anything--whether in politics or business--could be surprised by those remarks.  That is how negotiating works, and like it or not, no President is going to be able to just impose any regulatory scheme he or she wants on Wall Street.  She will need buy-in.  She needs stakeholders to take their own responsibility to be help offer solutions to better regulate their industry.  She confessed to using leverage.  To paraphrase her opponent, 'that makes her smart" or at least minimally competent.

. 

 
timschochet said:
No politician should be two-faced about clear cut issues. If you're pro life in public, you can't be pro choice in private; that's dishonest. 

But most issues are not clear cut; they are nuanced and it's not always wise to reveal a leader's true thoughts to the public. Slavery is clearly evil, but the passage of the 13th Anendment was nuanced; that was the theme of the film Lincoln which Hillary referenced last night. 
Click to expand...
All this #### goes out the window, Tim, because she owns a private foundation that solicits billions.  To state such a political philosophy of her public face being a front for her private interests means she isn't represent a Republic.  She's asking us to support her as an oligarch.

 
timschochet said:
Hillary is no different in this regard than Jed Bartlett on The West Wing. There are a series of episodes in which Bartlett campaigned against free trade in order to get union support, and then comes out in favor of free trade once he's President. He is then forced to confront the union leader who complains about all the jobs that have been lost and aren't coming back, and Bartlett explains that it's unfortunate but inevitable and that free trade is best for the country. 
Click to expand...
I'd give my left nut for this election cycle to be revealed as one large episode of Punk'd where Ashton Kutcher played the biggest trick ever on the entire country.  Does it EVER make you pause and think when you have to go to fictional TV shows for compare/contrast what's going on right before our eyes Tim?

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
That does not appear to be an accurate portrayal of what she said.   What she said is that she often takes a harsher public posture while negotiating with a softer private posture.  She then cited the Lincoln movie and Teddy Roosevelt.  I don't see how anyone who has ever had to negotiate anything--whether in politics or business--could be surprised by those remarks.  That is how negotiating works, and like it or not, no President is going to be able to just impose any regulatory scheme he or she wants on Wall Street.  She will need buy-in.  She needs stakeholders to take their own responsibility to be help offer solutions to better regulate their industry.  She confessed to using leverage.  To paraphrase her opponent, 'that makes her smart" or at least minimally competent.

. 
Click to expand...
You're talking about her spin in the debate. I'm talking about her comments in the closed fund raiser for big money donors - the place where her people set up noise machines so no one but those on the inside could hear what she had to say. That's where the whole public vs. private policy comment came from. You really think the context was her negotiating style(s) there? I don't, seemed pretty clear that she was reassuring her big donors not to worry about all the "populist" rhetoric she was spewing out in public, that she had their backs when it came time to actually formulate and execute her policies when in office.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
I'd give my left nut for this election cycle to be revealed as one large episode of Punk'd where Ashton Kutcher played the biggest trick ever on the entire country.  Does it EVER make you pause and think when you have to go to fictional TV shows for compare/contrast what's going on right before our eyes Tim?
Click to expand...
In this case, and in many others, no. What Hillary has done in this election cycle is perfectly defensible IMO. I was simply using an example a lot of people have seen to make my point. RHE made a similar point using Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Hillary made the same point herself using the movie Lincoln, which, though based on history, is in the end fiction. 

 
>>> From: Cheryl Mills [mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com<mailto:cheryl.mills@gmail.com>]

>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 04:38 PM >>>

To: Doug Band; Justin Cooper >>>

Cc: john.podesta@gmail.com<mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com> <john.podesta@gmail.com<mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com>> >>>

Subject: Draft Infrastructure Model >>> >>> Doug/Justin (and John): >>> >>>

Not sure where things stand in terms of folks feelings and willingness to >>> engage with WJC -- attached is a revised model memo based upon offering one >>> option and outlining the creation of a personal office paid for by WJC 100% which acts as the interlocutor for his time regarding engagement with the >>> various entities and serve as advisors to him regarding what and how he does things. Each separate entity then would operate independently and would engage the leadership of the personal office - a designated CEO or COS who b/cs in effect what Doug and Justin have been de facto -- the arbiter and >>> decision-maker. That person would have the benefit (if you two choose) of Doug and Justin's best advice as consultants but ultimately would be accountable for ensuring that the implementation of the President's will occurs in the various entities and the various entities would operate according to the time and engagement and direction as necessary as the President gives. See what you think.
Click to expand...


Chief of Staff for the Secretary of State drafting a memo here coordinating the lines of communication between Teneo, the Foundation and Bill Clinton.

Why the hell is the SOS's office doing this?

Btw Justin Cooper was the admin for Hillary's server.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
You're talking about her spin in the debate. I'm talking about her comments in the closed fund raiser for big money donors - the place where her people set up noise machines so no one but those on the inside could hear what she had to say. That's where the whole public vs. private policy comment came from. You really think the context was her negotiating style(s) there? I don't, seemed pretty clear that she was reassuring her big donors not to worry about all the "populist" rhetoric she was spewing out in public, that she had their backs when it came time to actually legislate (or not legislate) her policies.
Click to expand...
No. I'm talking about the excerpt that was actually hacked and released.  Which is why I mentioned the Teddy Roosevelt bit, because that was in the excerpt, but not in her debate answer.  I've read the excerpt.  Have you?

 
timschochet said:
In this case, and in many others, no. What Hillary has done in this election cycle is perfectly defensible IMO. I was simply using an example a lot of people have seen to make my point. RHE made a similar point using Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Hillary made the same point herself using the movie Lincoln, which, though based on history, is in the end fiction. 
Click to expand...
Hillary claims in her speech that Lincoln and Seward basically were using lobbyists to pass the 13th Amendment. Pretty self-gratifying statement to a roomful of lobbyists.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have never said Hillary is dumb.  She is very smart.  And calculated.  So you have to ask yourself what messages she was delivering to private interests and why, taking the honest Abe bull#### out of the mix.  The subtext is, "You may hear me say some things that make you believe I'm with the middle class, but I'm not one of them (I'm one of you), and you have to say stuff like that publically to get elected.  But don't worry - I got you covered.  So ####### pay me!"  End of story.

 
Last edited:
Mr. Ham said:
I have never said Hillary is dumb.  She is very smart.  And calculated.  So you have to ask yourself what messages she was delivering to private interests and why, taking the honest Abe bull#### out of the mix.  The subtext is, "You may hear me say some things that make you believe I'm with the middle class, but I'm not one of them (I'm one of you), and you have to say stuff like that publically to get elected.  But don't worry - I got you covered.  So ####### pay me!"  End of story.
Click to expand...
What I see is a person who easily justifies and bifurcates what she does in private versus what she does in public when acting in a PUBLIC capacity.

 
The Commish said:
Well, she tried to by taking his positions.  That doesn't get talked about a whole lot because most Sanders supporters are smart enough to observe her actions and ignore whatever comes spewing out of her mouth.  This is the primary reason those claiming she's a liberal were met with mockery over and over.  For the large elephants left in the room she's always been center right no matter what she's trying to say otherwise.  And I continue to be puzzled by why the GOP is fighting her so much.
Click to expand...
Because the GOP is no longer center-right; they are waaaaay out on the extreme lunatic fringe these days.

 
Gr00vus said:
You're talking about her spin in the debate. I'm talking about her comments in the closed fund raiser for big money donors - the place where her people set up noise machines so no one but those on the inside could hear what she had to say. That's where the whole public vs. private policy comment came from. You really think the context was her negotiating style(s) there? I don't, seemed pretty clear that she was reassuring her big donors not to worry about all the "populist" rhetoric she was spewing out in public, that she had their backs when it came time to actually formulate and execute her policies when in office.
Click to expand...
But whose fault is this? I would argue its not hers. It's the fault of the public, who continues to demand simplistic solutions to complicated problems. Students can't afford college education? Let's not bother looking for the reasons why tuition is so costly. Let's just offer them a free ride! Jobs are lost due to free trade deals? Let's not examine why unions in this country have driven up labor costs beyond what the market should bear. Lets just end free trade deals! Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump offered easy answers to a public too lazy to look for hard solutions. Hillary felt she had to verbally offer the same in order to compete. But she was careful to point out all along that there are no cure-alls and that she's committed to look for the hard solutions, in the same way Obama was. This is not always the popular position, but it's best for the country. 

 
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
263K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top