What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

*** Official Pete Buttigieg Thread *** (6 Viewers)

If Pete Buttigieg started a tax exempt organization that worked to get him elected and was taking 6 figure anonymous donations, 1/3 of California would drop into the ocean from the head explosions setting off the San Andreas Fault. 

 
bananafish said:
The adoption by the Sanders campaign of the same disinformation tactics that were so vociferously decried after they won Trump the 2016 election, then doubling-down on their use after being called out for it is, well, some might call it deplorable. 

I'd use different words, but that would just induce more attacks of the same variety, as happened when I pointed out this very thing months ago and predicted it would only get worse. 

Meanwhile, Putin cackles knowing that Trump vs. Bernie is a win-win proposition. 

See ya in the gulags, fellas!
Click to expand...
Currently resigned to him being the nominee. Not the worst possible result, so I’m not exactly despondent. 

 
Pete email this evening....

Hi Scott,

Over the past few months, some of our opponents have been attacking us for accepting donations from millionaires and billionaires. Most recently, at the last debate, Senator Bernie Sanders condemned us for taking contributions from billionaires. 

That’s interesting. Because what that tells us is in the eyes of Bernie Sanders, the donations of 45 folks (that’s .0054% of our total donor base) are more important than the donations of nearly 1,000,000 grassroots supporters. That completely erases the work our grassroots donors have done for this campaign. 

Scott, we know your voice and your contributions matter. We’re in the fight of our lives up against Donald Trump and the GOP. We’re welcoming every voice that’s ready to come together and defeat Donald Trump -- no matter how much you can afford to donate. 

But let me be clear: we are not taking billion-dollar donations from billionaires. The maximum individual contribution limit for a presidential primary campaign is $2,800. Our billionaire donors have contributed only .16% of our total money raised. 

And, as I’m sure you heard yesterday, we need to raise $13 million to fund our campaign through Super Tuesday. 

So yes, we’re taking donations. From everyone. Whether that’s $2.80, $28, $280, or $2,800 -- it all makes a difference. This wouldn’t be an email from me if I didn’t ask: Can you step up right now and chip in any amount to help us hit our $13 million goal by March 3rd? 

If you've saved payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

CHIP IN $3

CHIP IN $10

I know that for most people, and most families -- including Pete’s -- $2,800 is a lot of money to invest in a candidate. But if you can afford to chip in $2,800, thank you. And to those who can afford to chip in $1, thank you. 

Because to beat not just Trump, but Trumpism, too, we need a nominee who won't go into this fight of our lives with one hand tied behind their back. We need a nominee who is going to galvanize Americans, not polarize them. We need a nominee who will welcome Democrats, Independents, and Republicans to the cause.

Our movement has always been about inclusion -- and the argument our competitors are throwing at us speaks more to what their movements are about than ours. Inclusion isn’t a tactic to deploy, it’s something that’s necessary in the fight against Donald Trump. He and his movement are an existential threat to our country and our democracy -- and he’s raised over $500 million this cycle. We can’t keep playing games. 

We are the best shot at defeating Donald Trump. But the reality is, if we can’t raise $13 million before Super Tuesday, we might never get that shot.

We can’t afford to fall behind -- not in a race this tight, and not when our opponents are self-funding billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and Washington political machines like Bernie Sanders with Super PACs and dark money groups behind him. 

If you believe we shouldn’t have to choose between one candidate who wants to burn this party down and another candidate who wants to buy this party out, please help us raise $13 million before Super Tuesday so we can stay competitive in this race.

If you've saved payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

CHIP IN $3

CHIP IN $10

CHIP IN $25

CHIP IN $100

CHIP IN $250

OTHER

Thank you,

Hari

Hari Sevugan
Deputy Campaign Manager
Pete for America 

Pete for America 
PO Box 1226
South Bend, IN 46624
United States

Paid for by Pete for America.

We send you emails because you're an important part of this team. But please let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails. Additionally, if you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe.

 
bananafish said:
The adoption by the Sanders campaign of the same disinformation tactics that were so vociferously decried after they won Trump the 2016 election, then doubling-down on their use after being called out for it is, well, some might call it deplorable. 
Click to expand...
There is a large part of the populace that doesn't care about this.  

 
cap'n grunge said:
Pete email this evening....

Hi Scott,

Over the past few months, some of our opponents have been attacking us for accepting donations from millionaires and billionaires. Most recently, at the last debate, Senator Bernie Sanders condemned us for taking contributions from billionaires. 

That’s interesting. Because what that tells us is in the eyes of Bernie Sanders, the donations of 45 folks (that’s .0054% of our total donor base) are more important than the donations of nearly 1,000,000 grassroots supporters. That completely erases the work our grassroots donors have done for this campaign. 

Scott, we know your voice and your contributions matter. We’re in the fight of our lives up against Donald Trump and the GOP. We’re welcoming every voice that’s ready to come together and defeat Donald Trump -- no matter how much you can afford to donate. 

But let me be clear: we are not taking billion-dollar donations from billionaires. The maximum individual contribution limit for a presidential primary campaign is $2,800. Our billionaire donors have contributed only .16% of our total money raised. 

And, as I’m sure you heard yesterday, we need to raise $13 million to fund our campaign through Super Tuesday. 

So yes, we’re taking donations. From everyone. Whether that’s $2.80, $28, $280, or $2,800 -- it all makes a difference. This wouldn’t be an email from me if I didn’t ask: Can you step up right now and chip in any amount to help us hit our $13 million goal by March 3rd? 

If you've saved payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

CHIP IN $3

CHIP IN $10

I know that for most people, and most families -- including Pete’s -- $2,800 is a lot of money to invest in a candidate. But if you can afford to chip in $2,800, thank you. And to those who can afford to chip in $1, thank you. 

Because to beat not just Trump, but Trumpism, too, we need a nominee who won't go into this fight of our lives with one hand tied behind their back. We need a nominee who is going to galvanize Americans, not polarize them. We need a nominee who will welcome Democrats, Independents, and Republicans to the cause.

Our movement has always been about inclusion -- and the argument our competitors are throwing at us speaks more to what their movements are about than ours. Inclusion isn’t a tactic to deploy, it’s something that’s necessary in the fight against Donald Trump. He and his movement are an existential threat to our country and our democracy -- and he’s raised over $500 million this cycle. We can’t keep playing games. 

We are the best shot at defeating Donald Trump. But the reality is, if we can’t raise $13 million before Super Tuesday, we might never get that shot.

We can’t afford to fall behind -- not in a race this tight, and not when our opponents are self-funding billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and Washington political machines like Bernie Sanders with Super PACs and dark money groups behind him. 

If you believe we shouldn’t have to choose between one candidate who wants to burn this party down and another candidate who wants to buy this party out, please help us raise $13 million before Super Tuesday so we can stay competitive in this race.

If you've saved payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

CHIP IN $3

CHIP IN $10

CHIP IN $25

CHIP IN $100

CHIP IN $250

OTHER

Thank you,

Hari

Hari Sevugan
Deputy Campaign Manager
Pete for America 

Pete for America 
PO Box 1226
South Bend, IN 46624
United States

Paid for by Pete for America.

We send you emails because you're an important part of this team. But please let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails. Additionally, if you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe.
Click to expand...
After the discussion today in this thread I maxed my donation to Pete.  He’s going to lose, but it’s not because I didn’t give him $2,800. 

Not going to live forever. Had a hell of a year so far. Don’t have kids. Can’t take it with you.  Starting to regret ever supporting Bernie in 2016.

I’m going to go drink a lot of cheap wine and feel good about myself in a fairly smug kind of way. Like we Pete folks do. 

 
Henry Ford said:
After the discussion today in this thread I maxed my donation to Pete.  He’s going to lose, but it’s not because I didn’t give him $2,800. 

Not going to live forever. Had a hell of a year so far. Don’t have kids. Can’t take it with you.  Starting to regret ever supporting Bernie in 2016.

I’m going to go drink a lot of cheap wine and feel good about myself in a fairly smug kind of way. Like we Pete folks do. 
Click to expand...
Between my $25 and your $2800 we gave alot.

I don't typically donate much at all to any candidate. Guess I'm cheap. 😐

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Early in February, a senior advisor to Mayor Pete tweeted what appeared to be a signal to VoteVets, a pro-Buttigieg Super PAC, for a big ad buy in Nevada:

Pete’s military experience and closing message from Iowa work everywhere especially in Nevada where it’s critical they see this on the air through the caucus.

It turns out that VoteVets also hired a finance staffer from the campaign.  

The pro-veterans super PAC backing Pete Buttigieg hired one of his campaign fundraisers as it threw in for his 2020 campaign, forging a link between the campaign and the outside group that has spent millions of dollars boosting Buttigieg.

The addition of a former Buttigieg aide to VoteVets is the latest connection between the two, which are not allowed to explicitly coordinate with each other under federal law. The group endorsed Buttigieg in December and began airing ads backing him in New Hampshire in January, as Buttigieg donors poured money into the group, new disclosures showed this week. In early February, a Buttigieg aide appeared to make a public plea for VoteVets to run more ads, this time in Nevada, via Twitter.

VoteVets also helps Democratic House and Senate candidates, but the group has become a magnet for Buttigieg supporters in recent months while Buttigieg’s own campaign resources were running low. Buttigieg raised only $6 million in January, he wrote Thursday in an email to supporters, adding that his campaign needs more money soon in order to compete with Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg.

VoteVets brought on Zach Allen, Buttigieg’s former director of fundraising for the tri-state area, as a consultant after Allen left the Buttigieg campaign last fall, according to two people familiar with the arrangement. Allen worked for the Buttigieg campaign as a contractor. A spokesman for VoteVets declined to comment.

 
ren hoek said:
Early in February, a senior advisor to Mayor Pete tweeted what appeared to be a signal to VoteVets, a pro-Buttigieg Super PAC, for a big ad buy in Nevada:

Pete’s military experience and closing message from Iowa work everywhere especially in Nevada where it’s critical they see this on the air through the caucus.

It turns out that VoteVets also hired a finance staffer from the campaign.  

The pro-veterans super PAC backing Pete Buttigieg hired one of his campaign fundraisers as it threw in for his 2020 campaign, forging a link between the campaign and the outside group that has spent millions of dollars boosting Buttigieg.

The addition of a former Buttigieg aide to VoteVets is the latest connection between the two, which are not allowed to explicitly coordinate with each other under federal law. The group endorsed Buttigieg in December and began airing ads backing him in New Hampshire in January, as Buttigieg donors poured money into the group, new disclosures showed this week. In early February, a Buttigieg aide appeared to make a public plea for VoteVets to run more ads, this time in Nevada, via Twitter.

VoteVets also helps Democratic House and Senate candidates, but the group has become a magnet for Buttigieg supporters in recent months while Buttigieg’s own campaign resources were running low. Buttigieg raised only $6 million in January, he wrote Thursday in an email to supporters, adding that his campaign needs more money soon in order to compete with Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg.

VoteVets brought on Zach Allen, Buttigieg’s former director of fundraising for the tri-state area, as a consultant after Allen left the Buttigieg campaign last fall, according to two people familiar with the arrangement. Allen worked for the Buttigieg campaign as a contractor. A spokesman for VoteVets declined to comment.
Click to expand...
Your candidate started a 501c4 that is working to elect the candidate and accepts six figure anonymous donations. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, if it helps your theory, Allen is a former fundraising director for the DNC. It’s almost like he’s been a political fundraiser who works for the same kind of organizations on the same side of politics for years. 
 

I assume he should have just stayed unemployed for longer than, what, four months? half a year? Is that how long since he left Buttigieg?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek said:
Early in February, a senior advisor to Mayor Pete tweeted what appeared to be a signal to VoteVets, a pro-Buttigieg Super PAC, for a big ad buy in Nevada:

Pete’s military experience and closing message from Iowa work everywhere especially in Nevada where it’s critical they see this on the air through the caucus.

It turns out that VoteVets also hired a finance staffer from the campaign.  

The pro-veterans super PAC backing Pete Buttigieg hired one of his campaign fundraisers as it threw in for his 2020 campaign, forging a link between the campaign and the outside group that has spent millions of dollars boosting Buttigieg.

The addition of a former Buttigieg aide to VoteVets is the latest connection between the two, which are not allowed to explicitly coordinate with each other under federal law. The group endorsed Buttigieg in December and began airing ads backing him in New Hampshire in January, as Buttigieg donors poured money into the group, new disclosures showed this week. In early February, a Buttigieg aide appeared to make a public plea for VoteVets to run more ads, this time in Nevada, via Twitter.

VoteVets also helps Democratic House and Senate candidates, but the group has become a magnet for Buttigieg supporters in recent months while Buttigieg’s own campaign resources were running low. Buttigieg raised only $6 million in January, he wrote Thursday in an email to supporters, adding that his campaign needs more money soon in order to compete with Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg.

VoteVets brought on Zach Allen, Buttigieg’s former director of fundraising for the tri-state area, as a consultant after Allen left the Buttigieg campaign last fall, according to two people familiar with the arrangement. Allen worked for the Buttigieg campaign as a contractor. A spokesman for VoteVets declined to comment.
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize Pete was this low. I will toss him a few more bucks tonight. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Your candidate started a 501c4 that is working to elect the candidate and accepts six figure anonymous donations. 
Click to expand...
Sanders is not 'my candidate'.  He is certainly the most compelling option at this point, but I have a lot of problems with him too.  It's not a slam dunk by any stretch.  

Going back to this thread, which I thought was about Pete Buttigieg, it looks like his campaign is flagrantly violating laws forbidding coordination with a SuperPAC.  

It's fair game for people to look at that and think it's 'business as usual.'  

 
ren hoek said:
Sanders is not 'my candidate'.  He is certainly the most compelling option at this point, but I have a lot of problems with him too.  It's not a slam dunk by any stretch.  

Going back to this thread, which I thought was about Pete Buttigieg, it looks like his campaign is flagrantly violating laws forbidding coordination with a SuperPAC.  

It's fair game for people to look at that and think it's 'business as usual.'  
Click to expand...
Seems like all campaigns do this. I'm not making excuses for it. We need an overhaul of the whole system.

 
ren hoek said:
Sanders is not 'my candidate'.  He is certainly the most compelling option at this point, but I have a lot of problems with him too.  It's not a slam dunk by any stretch.  

Going back to this thread, which I thought was about Pete Buttigieg, it looks like his campaign is flagrantly violating laws forbidding coordination with a SuperPAC.  

It's fair game for people to look at that and think it's 'business as usual.'  
Click to expand...
It looks that way because someone who used to work for his campaign now works for a pac that supports lots of different democrats?

 
Slapdash said:
There is a large part of the populace that doesn't care about this.  
Click to expand...
My position is it’s tough to care because 1. It seems almost impossible to police and 2. Despite what supporters will say I think basically every campaign does this on some level so it becomes a tad hypocritical when they get all indignant about it.

 
bananafish said:
I didn't mean to single you out @AAABatteries. We're on the same side and I hope you know I love you. It's always easier to find flaws in the words coming out of someone else's mouth rather than your own. I've undoubtedly said the same or worse.

Whatever the case, it's terrifying how far we've fallen in three years.
Click to expand...
I don’t feel singled out and while I still stand by my post let me explain in more detail what I mean.

First, I love Pete - I think he’s genuine and probably more than anybody bring civil discourse back to being the norm.  Joe would love him as a moderator here - he fits the MT mold - wicked smart and shows good judgement.

Second, I love Bernie - probably for all the reasons you loved Bernie in 2016 - he’s also genuine and more than anybody will fight for the “little people” who have been getting screwed over by the “bigs” for years.  His 1% rants scratch me where I itch even though I’m probably myself a 5%’er.  I do think health care is a basic human right.  Full stop.

Third, I loathe Donald Trump - he’s the antithesis of everything I hold valuable - he’s crass, he’s a bully, he’s a liar.

Those traits that Donald holds I do not attribute to the first two guys.  If you say Pete is lily white then I would say Bernie is egg shell white at worst when compared to Trump AND Bernie still hits some high notes in policy that intrigue me.  Do I care if “Bernie Bros” or Bernie’s campaign is doing some “bad” things (generous term for disinformation)?  Sure, but like Tim, I’ll keep my eye on the prize of getting rid what I think is a National cancer.  I just see Bloomberg charcoal grey to Trump’s midnight black.  (Apologies for the color analogies)

 
Henry Ford said:
Your candidate started a 501c4 that is working to elect the candidate and accepts six figure anonymous donations. 
Click to expand...
Can you help me here? I am trying to follow the conversation, but I'm not sure I get the whole picture.

So there are non-profit organizations out there that are taking money for Bernie but they are not PACs that have to disclose donors? How does that even work and how are they getting the money to Bernie?

 
TheMagus said:
Can you help me here? I am trying to follow the conversation, but I'm not sure I get the whole picture.

So there are non-profit organizations out there that are taking money for Bernie but they are not PACs that have to disclose donors? How does that even work and how are they getting the money to Bernie?
Click to expand...
https://apnews.com/cd7a58676b6fc8cbe2f9783f469d0bee
 

This is what he’s talking about.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
https://apnews.com/cd7a58676b6fc8cbe2f9783f469d0bee
 

This is what he’s talking about.
Click to expand...
OK. So I was following the conversation correctly. It's this part that I guess I was naive about and didn't know was possible:

Our Revolution is not a super PAC. But the tax-exempt political nonprofit functions much like one — but without having to reveal its donors. Like super PACs, these nonprofits were similarly empowered to raise and spend unlimited sums after the Citizens United decision.
Click to expand...
So it's not officially a super PAC and doesn't have to follow FEC rules, but it actually is a super PAC in fit and function. And in this case it was actually founded by the candidate himself.

 
Henry Ford said:
The fact that two things are categorized as dark money does not make them indistinguishable from one another. Much like Enron was a corporation and the computer repair shop down the street is a corporation.  If you don’t look farther then general categories... well, that’s how bad decisions get made in this world I guess. 
 

Edit: I am a lawyer and Rudy Giuliani is a lawyer. On my best days I like to think I am at least distinguishable from Rudy Giuliani.  If nothing else I believe I have better teeth. 
Click to expand...
From your avatar it appears you have no teeth, but rather a beak.

 
Tom Hagen said:
This seems like kind of a big deal in an election year :loco:
Click to expand...
It is the worst thing in the article by far. I had no idea that we have no functioning FEC right now and apparently it's been that way since August.  :unsure:

Funny story to share. I was just relaying this FEC thing to my wife and I said "this is horrible." My four year old looked at me and said, "Daddy don't say horrible. That's not a nice word."  I replied that it wasn't nice to say that people are horrible, but you can say it if you are talking about things, not people. She then looked at me and said, "But Daddy, don't you call Mr. Trump horrible?"

Just lost it right there. I am going to have to monitor myself a bit more here apparently.

 
bananafish said:
Of course, the usual suspects accuse her of grandstanding and seeking the spotlight, even though she was a W. Bush appointee 
Click to expand...
This is pretty misleading.  She may have been appointed during the W administration, but she is a Democrat and was chosen to serve on the Commission by Democrats. 

 
AAABatteries said:
I don’t feel singled out and while I still stand by my post let me explain in more detail what I mean.

First, I love Pete - I think he’s genuine and probably more than anybody bring civil discourse back to being the norm.  Joe would love him as a moderator here - he fits the MT mold - wicked smart and shows good judgement.

Second, I love Bernie - probably for all the reasons you loved Bernie in 2016 - he’s also genuine and more than anybody will fight for the “little people” who have been getting screwed over by the “bigs” for years.  His 1% rants scratch me where I itch even though I’m probably myself a 5%’er.  I do think health care is a basic human right.  Full stop.

Third, I loathe Donald Trump - he’s the antithesis of everything I hold valuable - he’s crass, he’s a bully, he’s a liar.

Those traits that Donald holds I do not attribute to the first two guys.  If you say Pete is lily white then I would say Bernie is egg shell white at worst when compared to Trump AND Bernie still hits some high notes in policy that intrigue me.  Do I care if “Bernie Bros” or Bernie’s campaign is doing some “bad” things (generous term for disinformation)?  Sure, but like Tim, I’ll keep my eye on the prize of getting rid what I think is a National cancer.  I just see Bloomberg charcoal grey to Trump’s midnight black.  (Apologies for the color analogies)
Click to expand...
Do you approve of his agenda on immigration?  Why?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yikes! Per the SNL joke, looks like Pete really is trying to get #WhiteObama trending:

If we can light up a high school gym—we can light a neighborhood. If we can light up a neighborhood—we can light a city. If we can light up a city—we can light up our country.

If we can light up our country—we can make this nation we love shine once more as a beacon to the world.
Click to expand...
In case that language sounds a little familiar, here's Obama in 2008.

ETA: My favorite response.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ren hoek said:
Here they are back to back:

Erick Fernandez @ErickFernandez

Listen to part of Pete Buttigieg's speech from earlier today. It is essentially him trying to carbon copy, cadence and all, Barack Obama's "Fired Up, Ready to Go" speech during 2008.
Click to expand...
I agree with this follow-up tweet:

The thing is, the moment Pete references with people using cellphone lights after the power went down in a room was actually a nice moment! He could have talked about it in a unique way. This seems to be them trying to be too cute and "mirroring" one of Obama's famous speeches.
Click to expand...
My worry coming into this race was that the Dems would try too hard to be the "next Obama". But I figured it would be someone like Harris or Booker. The problem with Pete is not that he plagiarized a speech (I mean, he didn't, technically. I don't know what you call what he did.) The issue is that he very deliberately drew a comparison that he had to have known would make him look bad by comparison. 

 
zftcg said:
I agree with this follow-up tweet:

My worry coming into this race was that the Dems would try too hard to be the "next Obama". But I figured it would be someone like Harris or Booker. The problem with Pete is not that he plagiarized a speech (I mean, he didn't, technically. I don't know what you call what he did.) The issue is that he very deliberately drew a comparison that he had to have known would make him look bad by comparison. 
Click to expand...
The difficulty Pete’s potentially having is that he doesn’t know it will make him look bad by comparison. Because for the people in the room it mostly doesn’t.  And after Clinton’s “hot sauce in my purse” and Trump’s... well, everything, it’s likely rather confusing that a man who would be the first openly gay nominee is considered “not other enough” to pick up that mantle. 

It’s a disconnect he has with the online world.  I’m not sure it’s a killer with voters in general, but it’s certainly a disconnect between him and the millennial/GenZ groups. 

 
zftcg said:
I agree with this follow-up tweet:

My worry coming into this race was that the Dems would try too hard to be the "next Obama". But I figured it would be someone like Harris or Booker. The problem with Pete is not that he plagiarized a speech (I mean, he didn't, technically. I don't know what you call what he did.) The issue is that he very deliberately drew a comparison that he had to have known would make him look bad by comparison. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I distrust him and think he's basically an empty suit representing the corporate state, but the flashlight thing was a nice little moment. 

What's funny about the Obama comparisons is that it really does seem like Pete has been trained to mimic him.  The flowery language, the cadence, even his linguistic patterns seem derivative of Obama.  I knew that "hope & change" brand felt familiar.  

 
Emulating Obama's stump speeches is not the worst thing one can do. Yeah, it was recent and might feel cribbed, but if it's an honest aspiration, I say it's not a bad one. It's better than sitting down for an outdoor pow wow with the local library and proceeding to praise Castro and the Sandinistas and all that #### that Bernie was doing when he was a decade older than Pete is.

 
Widbil83 said:
What?!

Bill de Blasio@BilldeBlasio

And hey @PeteButtigieg, try to not be so smug when you just got your ### kicked. You know how we form a winning coalition to beat Trump? With a true multi-racial coalition of working Americans: something @BernieSanders has proven he can do + you haven’t. Dude, show some humility

https://twitter.com/billdeblasio/status/1231392649384472576?s=21
Click to expand...
Lol. That's certainly one way to reinforce the bernie bros stereotype. 

 
Peteyjudge is tapping something that is not natural for him - he's a guy who makes sense, not noise. But he is desperately confused as to why his most-out-of-nowhere-ever candidacy hasnt catapulted him to obvious frontrunner as previous out-of-nowhere Dem candidacies did. so he's bringin in da hype -

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
784
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top