Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 01, 2016, 08:50:13 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 353
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama vetoes 9/11 bill on: September 28, 2016, 04:27:38 pm
Interesting coalition of nay votes in the House... including people like Raul Grijalva, Jim Clyburn, and Maxine Waters from the Dems and Jason Chaffetz, Don Young, and Steve King from the Republicans.

Where can I find the roll call of the vote? My google fu is failing to find it

ProPublica has maps for congressional votes:

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/votes/114/house/2/564
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Democrats are the party of the rich (the Bloombourgeoisie) on: September 28, 2016, 03:15:48 pm
A somewhat different but related aspect of this discussion makes me much more excited about the 2016 election is the continued divergence between white working class vote and the minority working class vote.  Gore lost working class whites by 17 in 2000, Kerry lost it by 23 in 2004, Obama lost it by 6 in 2008, and Obama lost it by 25 in 2012.  This year it seems that Clinton will lose working class whites by a margin in the mid 30s.  So it is not just that the wealthy class is split between the two parties but the working class vote is split between the two parties as well.  Of course at the same time, the mostly White managerial class is swinging toward Clinton which would explain some of the numbers being posted in this thread.  The political polarization is now manifesting itself in terms of identity than class.  When politics becomes about identity the political rhetoric might lean populist or left (as seems in the first debate from both candidates) but the policies will lean right.  For me it does not matter much who wins the election.  The splintering of the working class vote by identity is a key feature of this election I am very excited about.   Hopefully this split becomes permanent.

Go to hell, fat cat.

That's an overly charitable reaction to Jaichind as far as I'm concerned.
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Clock Boy's father sues Fox News, Beck, Shapiro, ect. for defamation on: September 28, 2016, 02:41:34 pm
The useful idiots still think this real life troll and his son are heroes?  Of course they do.
Call it performance art. Nothing is more American than a frivolous lawsuit.
4  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama vetoes 9/11 bill on: September 28, 2016, 12:59:53 pm
Plus, this bill was and is a bad idea because not only is it unlikely to be enforced, but it sets a terrible precedent because unlike the House of Saud re: 9/11, the US government HAS terrorized other countries as a matter of official policy (especially during the Cold War).

It amazes that  anyone with anything that we would recognize as a functioning moral compass would present this point as an objection to passing this bill.
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama vetoes 9/11 bill on: September 28, 2016, 12:55:16 pm
NY-Times: Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

Quote
President Obama vetoed legislation on Friday that would allow families of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot, setting up an extraordinary confrontation with a Congress that unanimously backed the bill and has vowed to uphold it...

A really bad decision. Saudi Arabia and its government officials should be hold accountable for their involvement in 9/11. We shouldn't care whether they are so called "allies" or not. Justice must be done for the victims and their families. So, no, Mr. President, it does not "undermine US interests".

The only good news is that congress is expected to override the veto. Hope this gets done in a bipartisan effort. This isn't something were Republicans and Democrats should fight but work together instead.

Too bad that there is no information how Clinton and Trump view this.

The problem is that if we do this, then we'll open the door for other countries to file lawsuits in their own courts against American companies (and lets be honest, our companies have directly or indirectly gotten plenty of innocent people killed in the Middle East).  This bill is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but would be a disaster if actually implemented.

I don't see why this is a bad thing either. If a company operates under a foreign jurisdiction they should be subject to that country's laws. Forcing companies to treat people as people is a good thing even if it hurts our GDP.

What happens if the Saudis start demanding that major American companies to pay large enough amounts of money to drive them into bankruptcy after finding them guilty of kangaroo courts on trumped up charges?  What happens if they do that and threaten an embargo if we don't find a way to force the companies to pay?  What happens if they refuse to sell oil to any American companies until all "fines," "penalties," etc have been paid? 

The Saudis are obviously horrible and so are many of the American companies that would be hurt by this, but I really don't think folks who support this idea have thought this through.  Yes, it'd feel good for a few months, but then reality would set in.  If we really want to stick it to Saudi Arabia (and the bad elements of the Israeli government, for that matter), the best thing we can do is dramatically increase funding for research into alternative energy sources.

There's little reason to believe that a dramatic increase in funding for renewable energy research would make much of a difference in world demand for fossil fuels within the decade.

All you can do is all you can do.

But it's not all that we can do. There are numerous federal policies that encourage more driving, larger vehicles, larger houses, more sprawling development, and greater energy consumption across the board. A massive increase in R&D funding for renewable would achieve very little because there simply is not enough capacity to manage it. Technological advances are not a fungible product that can be picked off of a shelf as long as you have enough funding to cover the cost. No one would know how to spend those trillions of dollars effectively - which makes the suggestion no less symbolic than detractors claim that this bill is, and more expensive by several orders of magnitude.
6  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: September 26, 2016, 11:26:37 pm
The user wasn't banned, it was the IP address he was using that was banned.  Same thing happened to me once when I was posting from the wifi at LAX airport; clearly somebody had been using that same wifi when they were banned.

That's how I interpreted Gustaf's post, anyway.

I had the same thought, but cMac sent me a screenshot confirming that it is his account, and not just his IP, that has been banned.

Would really appreciate a confirmation with regard to whether using the same proxy server as known spammers is typically (or has ever previously) served as grounds for banning someone who appeared to be a promising and valuable contributor to the forum.

I understand that it's not practical or advisable to simply mass-ban a gigantic number of these IPs as a prophylactic measure, but I can't understand what purpose this serves. Did the moderators believe that there was an intolerable risk of this poster suddenly posting hundreds of advertisements for penis pumps, or something?

But did he say, why he used a proxy server?

People have plenty of reasons for using proxies and there is no reason to assume malfeasance without other cause.

I share Averroes' concern.  Having a "questionable" public IP should not be grounds alone for banning if a new poster would not otherwise be subject to this sort of scrutiny.

My interactions with this poster were cordial; certainly he was an improvement over the general discourse in the 2016 board.  If we are to ban posters for using public WiFi or proxy servers it is imperative that we at least judge them on their contributions first, no?

Could we please get an answer on A) what is the official policy with regard to proxy servers, B) whether cMac was banned, and C) if so, why?

It's a bit frustrating to have a question left unanswered or partially answered days after two people have asked it multiple times, while another question is answered within hours. (If you charitably choose to describe Torie's barely coherent word salad of quasi-legalese an answer, at least.)

Can anyone answer this, or will I need to ask again in another couple of days?

To be clear, I wasn't involved in the decision and wasn't even aware of it until I searched for it on the Mod Board after seeing your post here. So I'm not the best person to answer your questions (I'm not very internet savvy so I don't trust my own judgment when it comes to assessing this sort of thing).

He was banned, I'm sorry that wasn't clear from my response. I think using proxy servers have been used as sufficient grounds to be banned in the past but for the reasons in my above paragraph I can't say I'm sure about it.

As I said before, I appreciate that you are the only moderator who is even bothering to attempt answering, and I certainly can't blame you for not knowing when there are clearly severe internal communication problems. Can you forward my questions to someone who can answer them? Nym, Dave, TPTB, Klamm, God, or whomever.

cMac36 was banned for appearing to be a sock. There was an ip match to at least three other banned accounts. The use of proxies was just one factor, and not the major one from what I can tell.

To be clear, then, you're saying that in addition to using a proxy, this poster used other addresses that matched several unidentified banned accounts? Or were the matching IP addresses connected to the proxy? If they were, or if they matched some other potentially public IP, it seems awfully quick-on-the-trigger to respond to these matches with a summary ban.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How big a disaster will a Hillary Clinton presidency be? on: September 26, 2016, 11:52:58 am
Remember the presidency of poor old William Henry Harrison, inaugurated at the age of 68 in 1841?

8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Post your tips on how to survive the debates with sanity intact on: September 26, 2016, 11:50:46 am
How to survive the debates with sanity intact:

For this you will need:
   • one room which you will not leave
   • one mattress
   • tomato soup, ten tins of
   • mushroom soup, eight tins of, for consumption cold
   • ice cream, vanilla, one large tub of
   • Magnesia, Milk of, one bottle
   • paracetamol
   • mouth wash
   • vitamins
   • mineral water
   • Lucozade
   • pornography
   • one bucket for urine, one for feces, and one for vomitus
   • one television
   • Valium, one bottle
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama vetoes 9/11 bill on: September 25, 2016, 06:07:39 pm
NY-Times: Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

Quote
President Obama vetoed legislation on Friday that would allow families of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot, setting up an extraordinary confrontation with a Congress that unanimously backed the bill and has vowed to uphold it...

A really bad decision. Saudi Arabia and its government officials should be hold accountable for their involvement in 9/11. We shouldn't care whether they are so called "allies" or not. Justice must be done for the victims and their families. So, no, Mr. President, it does not "undermine US interests".

The only good news is that congress is expected to override the veto. Hope this gets done in a bipartisan effort. This isn't something were Republicans and Democrats should fight but work together instead.

Too bad that there is no information how Clinton and Trump view this.

The problem is that if we do this, then we'll open the door for other countries to file lawsuits in their own courts against American companies (and lets be honest, our companies have directly or indirectly gotten plenty of innocent people killed in the Middle East).  This bill is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but would be a disaster if actually implemented.

I don't see why this is a bad thing either. If a company operates under a foreign jurisdiction they should be subject to that country's laws. Forcing companies to treat people as people is a good thing even if it hurts our GDP.

What happens if the Saudis start demanding that major American companies to pay large enough amounts of money to drive them into bankruptcy after finding them guilty of kangaroo courts on trumped up charges?  What happens if they do that and threaten an embargo if we don't find a way to force the companies to pay?  What happens if they refuse to sell oil to any American companies until all "fines," "penalties," etc have been paid? 

The Saudis are obviously horrible and so are many of the American companies that would be hurt by this, but I really don't think folks who support this idea have thought this through.  Yes, it'd feel good for a few months, but then reality would set in.  If we really want to stick it to Saudi Arabia (and the bad elements of the Israeli government, for that matter), the best thing we can do is dramatically increase funding for research into alternative energy sources.

There's little reason to believe that a dramatic increase in funding for renewable energy research would make much of a difference in world demand for fossil fuels within the decade.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Presidential Ratings and Predictions - New Mexico on: September 25, 2016, 06:00:49 pm
Safe D, Clinton 51-38

Jesus f-cking Christ, this garbage again? Do you think that anyone wants to read this?
11  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: September 21, 2016, 08:47:38 pm
The user wasn't banned, it was the IP address he was using that was banned.  Same thing happened to me once when I was posting from the wifi at LAX airport; clearly somebody had been using that same wifi when they were banned.

That's how I interpreted Gustaf's post, anyway.

I had the same thought, but cMac sent me a screenshot confirming that it is his account, and not just his IP, that has been banned.

Would really appreciate a confirmation with regard to whether using the same proxy server as known spammers is typically (or has ever previously) served as grounds for banning someone who appeared to be a promising and valuable contributor to the forum.

I understand that it's not practical or advisable to simply mass-ban a gigantic number of these IPs as a prophylactic measure, but I can't understand what purpose this serves. Did the moderators believe that there was an intolerable risk of this poster suddenly posting hundreds of advertisements for penis pumps, or something?

But did he say, why he used a proxy server?

People have plenty of reasons for using proxies and there is no reason to assume malfeasance without other cause.

I share Averroes' concern.  Having a "questionable" public IP should not be grounds alone for banning if a new poster would not otherwise be subject to this sort of scrutiny.

My interactions with this poster were cordial; certainly he was an improvement over the general discourse in the 2016 board.  If we are to ban posters for using public WiFi or proxy servers it is imperative that we at least judge them on their contributions first, no?

Could we please get an answer on A) what is the official policy with regard to proxy servers, B) whether cMac was banned, and C) if so, why?

It's a bit frustrating to have a question left unanswered or partially answered days after two people have asked it multiple times, while another question is answered within hours. (If you charitably choose to describe Torie's barely coherent word salad of quasi-legalese an answer, at least.)

Can anyone answer this, or will I need to ask again in another couple of days?

To be clear, I wasn't involved in the decision and wasn't even aware of it until I searched for it on the Mod Board after seeing your post here. So I'm not the best person to answer your questions (I'm not very internet savvy so I don't trust my own judgment when it comes to assessing this sort of thing).

He was banned, I'm sorry that wasn't clear from my response. I think using proxy servers have been used as sufficient grounds to be banned in the past but for the reasons in my above paragraph I can't say I'm sure about it.

As I said before, I appreciate that you are the only moderator who is even bothering to attempt answering, and I certainly can't blame you for not knowing when there are clearly severe internal communication problems. Can you forward my questions to someone who can answer them? Nym, Dave, TPTB, Klamm, God, or whomever.
12  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: September 21, 2016, 10:09:40 am
The user wasn't banned, it was the IP address he was using that was banned.  Same thing happened to me once when I was posting from the wifi at LAX airport; clearly somebody had been using that same wifi when they were banned.

That's how I interpreted Gustaf's post, anyway.

I had the same thought, but cMac sent me a screenshot confirming that it is his account, and not just his IP, that has been banned.

Would really appreciate a confirmation with regard to whether using the same proxy server as known spammers is typically (or has ever previously) served as grounds for banning someone who appeared to be a promising and valuable contributor to the forum.

I understand that it's not practical or advisable to simply mass-ban a gigantic number of these IPs as a prophylactic measure, but I can't understand what purpose this serves. Did the moderators believe that there was an intolerable risk of this poster suddenly posting hundreds of advertisements for penis pumps, or something?

But did he say, why he used a proxy server?

People have plenty of reasons for using proxies and there is no reason to assume malfeasance without other cause.

I share Averroes' concern.  Having a "questionable" public IP should not be grounds alone for banning if a new poster would not otherwise be subject to this sort of scrutiny.

My interactions with this poster were cordial; certainly he was an improvement over the general discourse in the 2016 board.  If we are to ban posters for using public WiFi or proxy servers it is imperative that we at least judge them on their contributions first, no?

Could we please get an answer on A) what is the official policy with regard to proxy servers, B) whether cMac was banned, and C) if so, why?

It's a bit frustrating to have a question left unanswered or partially answered days after two people have asked it multiple times, while another question is answered within hours. (If you charitably choose to describe Torie's barely coherent word salad of quasi-legalese an answer, at least.)

Can anyone answer this, or will I need to ask again in another couple of days?
13  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: For Profit Colleges, what makes them an easy target? on: September 21, 2016, 10:06:21 am
I love the obvious, vital fact you left out that literally is the reason why they were shut down.  That "money" (debt) they "siphoned" off from "the government" (rather than the students' futures).. is legally OWED BY THE STUDENTS PLUS INTEREST.

Yes... the chief problem with the focus on for-profit college scams, insofar as it is problematic at all, is that too many nominally non-profit institutions are assumed to be fair and transparent organizations that provide their students with meaningful education when, in reality, they more like convoluted money-laundering schemes. The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats are using a scalpel to address something that would be better addressed with a cleaver.
14  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Do you want to have kids? on: September 20, 2016, 07:31:24 am
In my experience the general rule is that women tend to recirve criticism from someone no matter what choice they make wrt children and men tend not to unless they father children and literally abandon or abuse them.

Nathan's point about public spaces is interesting but I think it has more to do with (1) the idea that any activity involving kids needs to revolve around them - i.e. they can't just be a presence, they need to be the focal point and (2) our obsession with keeping children constantly supervised and managed to the point that they're never free to run around independently, making their own decisions and doing their own thing, and are instead constantly treated as a burden incapable of doing these things even though most of us know that they can.

(You'd expect this to be different on a college campus, where children are usually excluded, or in social circles in which the norm is to pay for childcare and spend as little time as possible with your children, I guess, to give a non-exhaustive couple of examples.)
15  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: September 19, 2016, 11:01:28 pm
The user wasn't banned, it was the IP address he was using that was banned.  Same thing happened to me once when I was posting from the wifi at LAX airport; clearly somebody had been using that same wifi when they were banned.

That's how I interpreted Gustaf's post, anyway.

I had the same thought, but cMac sent me a screenshot confirming that it is his account, and not just his IP, that has been banned.

Would really appreciate a confirmation with regard to whether using the same proxy server as known spammers is typically (or has ever previously) served as grounds for banning someone who appeared to be a promising and valuable contributor to the forum.

I understand that it's not practical or advisable to simply mass-ban a gigantic number of these IPs as a prophylactic measure, but I can't understand what purpose this serves. Did the moderators believe that there was an intolerable risk of this poster suddenly posting hundreds of advertisements for penis pumps, or something?

But did he say, why he used a proxy server?

People have plenty of reasons for using proxies and there is no reason to assume malfeasance without other cause.

I share Averroes' concern.  Having a "questionable" public IP should not be grounds alone for banning if a new poster would not otherwise be subject to this sort of scrutiny.

My interactions with this poster were cordial; certainly he was an improvement over the general discourse in the 2016 board.  If we are to ban posters for using public WiFi or proxy servers it is imperative that we at least judge them on their contributions first, no?

Could we please get an answer on A) what is the official policy with regard to proxy servers, B) whether cMac was banned, and C) if so, why?

It's a bit frustrating to have a question left unanswered or partially answered days after two people have asked it multiple times, while another question is answered within hours. (If you charitably choose to describe Torie's barely coherent word salad of quasi-legalese an answer, at least.)
16  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Question for atlas democrats on: September 19, 2016, 11:40:22 am
I don't think there's anything especially abnormal about being bigoted, stupid, uneducated, or evil, and that remains true whether we are talking about Republicans, Democrats, or any other group of people.
17  General Politics / Economics / Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income on: September 19, 2016, 11:37:46 am
I am yet to encounter a construction of UBI that does not either a) condemn some poor people to basically starve or b) bankrupts the budget in a way that is totally unsustainable to finance even with higher taxes. Most cases I've seen for it have seen confused to me.
They could, you know, get a job.

Looks as though we have a once-in-a-generation policy genius over here. Astounding insight!
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: JebExclamationPoint announces 2020 bid on: September 19, 2016, 09:58:19 am
Just because we ended up with Trump does not mean that the other options were better.

^^^

(And that's eaving aside the debate about whether Jeb Bush has more to do with Trump's success than any other person. If a widely disliked (among voters) candidate with outdated and unpopular (again, among Republican voters) policies hadn't leveraged his powerful family network to build a virtual monopoly on consultants, donors, and other campaign infrastructure within the traditional Republican mainstream, maybe things wouldn't have turned out this way. Maybe...)

Also, an entitled millionaire from one of the country's most powerful political families does not deserve anyone's sympathy or pity. It shouldn't surprise us that this is what passes for humor on late-night television, I guess, but none of us ought to be laughing along. Virtually everyone here has much more in common with the $12 per hour Uber driver who this couple of rich celebrities are mocking than we do with either the failed political scion or the cloying, sycophantic former comedian who earns millions for telling jokes written by someone else that make no one uncomfortable except for those with too little power to matter.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What will the first debate be like? on: September 18, 2016, 07:38:59 pm
The only prediction that I will hazard is that it will leave most of us feeling embarrassed for our country and afraid of our future.
20  General Politics / Economics / Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income on: September 18, 2016, 04:27:57 pm
For what it's worth, the Department of Health and Human Services and Social Security Administration combined spend $16,800 per household in 2016 terms. That would be a pretty substantial minimum income while leaving programs for survival like unemployment and food stamps intact. Albeit, I'd reform all spending involved pretty significantly.

That's hardly a substantial basic income if one-third or more goes toward paying the un-subsidized annual premium for private health insurance, though. Very likely much more if every elderly person in the country were suddenly purchasing a private plan with no government subsidy or public coinsurance.
21  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: Fremont Election, September 2016 on: September 18, 2016, 04:17:41 pm
Fremont Governor
[  X ] Pikachu
[   ] Write-in:

Fremont Assembly:
[ X  ] GAWorth
[   ] Write-in:
22  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Recent bans on: September 18, 2016, 08:37:05 am
The user wasn't banned, it was the IP address he was using that was banned.  Same thing happened to me once when I was posting from the wifi at LAX airport; clearly somebody had been using that same wifi when they were banned.

That's how I interpreted Gustaf's post, anyway.

I had the same thought, but cMac sent me a screenshot confirming that it is his account, and not just his IP, that has been banned.

Would really appreciate a confirmation with regard to whether using the same proxy server as known spammers is typically (or has ever previously) served as grounds for banning someone who appeared to be a promising and valuable contributor to the forum.

I understand that it's not practical or advisable to simply mass-ban a gigantic number of these IPs as a prophylactic measure, but I can't understand what purpose this serves. Did the moderators believe that there was an intolerable risk of this poster suddenly posting hundreds of advertisements for penis pumps, or something?
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Can you Democrats please stop panicking? on: September 17, 2016, 06:35:18 pm
Jesus Christ. It's times like these that I wish I could be a Republican; they are far more resolute and don't have spines made of noodle.





RESOLVE!

Quote
1) Y'all on this forum should be bright enough to know how the political geography of this country works. It was never going to be some massive blow-out, regardless of who ran. The percentage of persuadables in this country has went from 20% to 10% to more like 5% over the past 25 years. In national contests, it's a matter of turnout: not persuasion. Look at the ground games. Look at who is far above and beyond equipped to tap into what's necessary to turn out voters. Stop worrying about "enthusiasm". People cried about this crap in 2012. At the end of the day, the GE machine prevails.

I think the fact that the Republican Party can nominate someone like Trump and continue to function at a level of competitiveness among the voting public that's beginning to look comparable to 2012 remains a shock to many of us. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. I know that I was unprepared for it.

2) Look at the polls. Subtract the difference due to convention bounces and the different times of the convention and the trajectory of this race in terms of trends have largely followed 2012 all the way up until the July conventions day-for-day; the only divergence is that August 2016 proceeded to look like September 2012 rather than August 2012 because of the earlier conventions.

This is the only point from your post that I might have found especially compelling, but at a glance those graphs looking nothing like each other. There is also very little value in comparing head-to-heads for the 2016 contest prior to May or June, when the nominations were settled.

And to the point that several others have raised, the scary thing isn't that Trump is more likely than not to win, it's that a Trump victory is looking a lot more plausible compared to what most of us believed three weeks ago. Just being as likely to win as Mitt Romney was at the same point in the race is a much more horrifying thing when it's a candidate with Trump's personal history and bizarre behavior.

I'll also be frank and admit that I have little confidence in Clinton as a candidate. The past two weeks have only further eroded that confidence. I don't know what to expect from her over the next month. This worries me more than any changes that we have seen in the polls so far.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump takes to the stage to the tune of 'Do You Hear the People Sing' on: September 17, 2016, 06:10:49 pm


Food beyond compare, food beyond belief.
Mix it in a mincer and pretend it's beef!
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump takes to the stage to the tune of 'Do You Hear the People Sing' on: September 17, 2016, 06:07:46 pm
The real shame in this is that Trump missed an opportunity to use the song from Les Mis that was practically written for him: Master of the House.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 353


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines