• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Ted Cruz to Hugh Hewitt: “The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats”

Cruz to Hugh Hewitt on why Democrats are trying to get felon voting rights back “The Democrats know that convicted felons tend to vote D”
Click to expand...

Teddy just inches away from a statement that would get him arrested in Germany.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Teddy just inches away from a statement that would get him arrested in Germany.
Click to expand...

Must we do some research on the most recent string of domestic terror in our nation? It's an even split between Ds and Rs, I am sure, mixed in with a whole lot of hate and ignorance. Political affilition shouldn't even be considered in domestic terror situations. Focus on the individual and the rhetoric that they spew as they are committing crimes.

Besides. The Rs have a giant monopoly on gay sex scandals, but let's not go there, Teddy.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Wilsongt said:
Must we do some research on the most recent string of domestic terror in our nation? It's an even split between Ds and Rs, I am sure, mixed in with a whole lot of hate and ignorance. Political affilition shouldn't even be considered in domestic terror situations. Focus on the individual and the rhetoric that they spew as they are committing crimes.

Besides. The Rs have a giant monopoly on gay sex scandals, but let's not go there, Teddy.
Click to expand...

It's just a "black people are criminals!" dogwhistle.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Maybe someone saw Christie getting a Surge slushie from Burger King, tweeted about it, and it somehow got misinterpreted and twisted into a story about a "resurgence."
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
BertramCooper said:
Maybe someone saw Christie getting a Surge slushie from Burger King, tweeted about it, and it somehow got misinterpreted and twisted into a story about a "resurgence."
Click to expand...

Given the current percentage points of everyone beloe Rubio, I am sure you can justify a half a percentage point as a resurgance when your closer competition is sitting between 0 - 4%.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
What is Rubio even doing right now?

Outside of him endorsing Sharia Law right after making that fear mongering Paris ad, he's been completely out of sight for a few weeks...
 
G

Giant Panda

Member
Plinko said:
You said it was "trying to force religion on others" if you vote because you believe God would want it that way.

I am a Christian. I also believe that Jesus would be absolutely disgusted with the massive gap between the rich and the poor right now and how republicans seem to want to do everything in their power to get the rich as much money as possible at the expense of the poor and middle class. As a result, I vote democrat because they care more about the poor than republicans do.

In no way are my votes "trying to force religion on others." My votes are merely what I believe God would want ME to do as a representative of His, nothing more.
Click to expand...

The question is then do you only care about the poor and inequality because you think Jesus and God care? If you have additional reasons, then you're not forcing your religion on others because you have a non-religious justification for your supported policies.
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
What is Rubio even doing right now?

Outside of him endorsing Sharia Law right after making that fear mongering Paris ad, he's been completely out of sight for a few weeks...
Click to expand...

I read something today about him attending a "No BS Backyard BBQ" in NH if that says anything about the current state of his campaign.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Retro, ew.

Anyway I think Christie is the new Fiorina. They tried with her and she blew it with her Hillary Clinton and PP shit, so now they are moving on to Christie with his...Hillary Clinton and PP shit.

Him being in and doing well is good for Trump I think.
 
U

User 406

Banned
Veritigo_X said:
I read something today about him attending a "No BS Backyard BBQ" in NH if that says anything about the current state of his campaign.
Click to expand...

09142014_Sanders.jpg
Click to expand...

The American people see what you did theah!


I just couldn't think of a way to acronym something synonymous with "field offices" or "ground game" coz Rubio has No of them haw get it
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
http://www.vox.com/a/thanksgiving-family-debates-2015

http://www.yourrepublicanuncle.com/

http://freebeacon.com/blog/guest-column-how-to-talk-to-your-pansy-marxist-nephew-at-thanksgiving/
Happy Thanksgiving and thanks for publishing my column.

I’m a big fan of this holiday because few things are more American than boozing up and chowing down ’til your ankles swell and your corduroys pop. In between, you get to watch some football and share your thoughts on the trainwreck presidency of Barack Hussein Obama (hint hint).

I consider myself a knowledgable debater because I read up on the blogs and I’m typically one of the most “liked” commenters on the articles.

The reason I’m writing this is because my brother’s dumb kid likes to get chatty with me. I’ve never seen anyone bring so many printouts to the dinner table. His “talking points,” he says. Reminds me of my last divorce, all those friggin’ printouts. This kid, my nephew, will never admit to being a communist, it’s always this “moderate independent” crap. But his Facebook feed is full of Bernie Sandinista, if you know what I mean, and he recently tweeted some gibberish about riding the bus in Czechoslovakia and identifying as a “human being” instead of what he is, an American. He’s been a “student” at some Ivy League circlejerk for the better part of a decade. I think he’s 29, who the hell even cares? If he’s the future, this country’s digging its own grave and I’m glad I won’t be there when it finally kicks the bucket.

When I was his age, I was flying Ranger battalions into Grenada in ’83. I spent Thanksgiving there, and believe me, we didn’t have any damn printouts. We had a war, son. A lot of my buddies have similar situations in their families, and they’re always asking me for advice on how to put up with this left-wing propaganda. Well, I’ll give you a taste. He’s gonna be all like “you’re just giving ISIS what they want.” I’ll come back at him with something like: “You know, you raise an interesting point there, Brayden. I’ll tell you what, why don’t you invite one of your ISIS pals around the house and we’ll see how much he likes it when I slash his guts out with the turkey knife. You think that’s what he wants? They want us to crush them? Tell me something, how did you feel when your Little League team got mercy-ruled by those country boys in the district finals? Is that what you wanted? Were you just phoning it in for the “participant” trophy? Is that why you’re too afraid to shave that pathetic beard? Because that’s what ISIS wants? Am I othering you right now? Did I carpet bomb your safe space?

Maybe, just maybe, what ISIS really wants is a world with fewer people like me, who’ve looked evil in the eye and given a few titty-twisters in our day, and more people like the skinny jean cycle jockeys you pal around with at Yale, with your ska music and your websites and “fantasy” sports. Maybe what ISIS wants is your dental floss forearms that can barely hold a selfie stick, much less a BAR. Do those Vox cards have a talking point for that? Oh, really? Because I was under the impression that in A-m-e-r-i-c-a, the proper way to usher in the holiday season is with a stiff Rusty Nail, not a “dialogue” about small pox and genocide, unless you want to share your feelings about the mass murder ISIS wants to bring down on your ass? Is that a topic we can let marinate?

I bet you had to print out the lyrics to our national anthem when you went to sing it in the quad the night we elected President Hopey Change. No, you listen. You listen, Brayden. When’s the last time you got a blister on those hands? Don’t mention the time you tried eating the vegan hotdog at the WNBA game you made me take you to out of “fairness.” You didn’t even watch the game. You just tweeted about sexism on your iPad. You know, that little computer screen made by Apple, which last I checked was a corporation, Mr. Occupy. Don’t deny it, I was watching you. You only looked up when Taylor Swift came over the PA system. How do you think that made Brittney Griner feel? Remind me: What’s the name of the union for people who Twitter all day from an air conditioned office? Because I don’t think “amateur food photographer” counts as a real job.”

I plan to say this to the little pansy in a firm but slightly mocking tone as I pour another bourbon while eating processed turkey and holding a lit cigarette. Email me at rawdawg61@yahoo.com with any questions. Carpe cibum!
Click to expand...
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Crab said:
Yeah, I can't understand not voting the Democratic nominee at all. It's just nuts. Like, if accelerationism worked, maybe I'd consider the short-term harms worth it, but it just doesn't seem clear it does. After two terms of Reagan and one of Bush senior, we got Bill Clinton, who's about as milquetoast a liberal as you can possibly get. No acceleration there.
Click to expand...
Not to mention 8 years of Bush Jr. got us Obama, who many of the more vocal Bernie supporters see as just as much a shill and a sellout as they see Hillary.

In fact Bush Jr. seems to me like the ur example of why this is a stupid strategy. After he won, Bush still wasn't taken seriously by Democrats who figured 2004 would be an easy win. Then 9/11 happened, he started a couple wars and the American people re-elected him. Great plan, assholes. I know a term of Trump might be funny to those who look at politics for shits and giggles more than anything substantive, but there's no telling what could happen during his hypothetical presidency. There could very well be another 9/11 or great recession or something, whether caused by him or by outside forces, which could boot him out of office or inspire a rally effect that sends him to a second term and hands Republicans what is essentially a permanent majority (winning the 2018 midterm would allow them to redistrict again, mostly regardless of what happens in 2020, and obviously the Supreme Court).

Democrats are not winning the House in 2016 (I think even with ideal conditions against Trump the odds of picking up anything north of +20 is marginal at best), they might win the Senate but they'd be at risk of losing it again in 2018. RBG might as well throw in the towel day 1 of the next administration. We need a Democratic president to ensure the court isn't stacked with Scalia clones and that (sigh) Speaker Ryan isn't allowed to destroy the social safety net. I've seen a lot of people suggest we should throw the 2016 presidential election in hopes of making midterm gains in 2018, but I would always rather have the presidency. The amount of fuckwitticism that goes on in this party is infuriating.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
We need a Democratic president to ensure ... that (sigh) Speaker Ryan isn't allowed to destroy the social safety net.
Click to expand...
The last seven Republican Presidents have made a better defense of the one they inherited than two of the last three Democratic Presidents.

Just sayin'
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
benjipwns said:
The last seven Republican Presidents have made a better defense of the one they inherited than two of the last three Democratic Presidents.

Just sayin'
Click to expand...
Of all the Republican presidents of the past fifty years, only Bush II had a Republican Congress and he tried to privatize that shit. Eisenhower and Hoover were so long ago I don't know how much relevancy they would have in contemporary political analysis, might as well pass Go and call the Democrats segregationists.

HK-47 said:
How much trouble can Congress make for Supreme Court appointments?
Click to expand...
Only the Senate matters, and it's rare that the Senate will reject a nominee, regardless of which party controls it. A slim Democratic majority under Hillary or Bernie would probably be able to appoint someone fairly liberal. GOP Senate would probably approve someone more centrist, which would be good or bad depending on which justice was being replaced.
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Only the Senate matters, and it's rare that the Senate will reject a nominee, regardless of which party controls it. A slim Democratic majority under Hillary or Bernie would probably be able to appoint someone fairly liberal. GOP Senate would probably approve someone more centrist, which would be good or bad depending on which justice was being replaced.
Click to expand...

Smart thing to do if there's a Republican Congress - pull the old Bork/Scalia manuever. Only this time on purpose. Nominate an actual crazy liberal William O Douglas type of judge (if there are any left), let 'em get wacked around, then nominate some federal judge who's young but has crazy awesome background who the Senate can't deny because she (and it's likely going to be a she) has no paper trail to nail her on.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
Of all the Republican presidents of the past fifty years, only Bush II had a Republican Congress and he tried to privatize that shit. Eisenhower and Hoover were so long ago I don't know how much relevancy they would have in contemporary political analysis, might as well pass Go and call the Democrats segregationists.
Click to expand...
Eisenhower had Robert Taft and William Knowland as his two Republican Senate Majority/Minority Leaders. It was the first time the GOP had power since the New Deal.

And how far did W. Bush get with his Permanent Republican Majority on adding another public option with actual accounts to Social Security? Nothing ever even got introduced by the PRM.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
JesseEwiak said:
Smart thing to do if there's a Republican Congress - pull the old Bork/Scalia manuever. Only this time on purpose. Nominate an actual crazy liberal William O Douglas type of judge (if there are any left), let 'em get wacked around, then nominate some federal judge who's young but has crazy awesome background who the Senate can't deny because she (and it's likely going to be a she) has no paper trail to nail her on.
Click to expand...
Scalia was nominated before Bork to replace Rehnquist who moved to Chief, Bork's seat went to Kennedy.

The Meirs (lol)/Alito situation with the shuffled nominations was because a second seat became open during Roberts' nomination when Rehnquist kicked the bucket.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
Cerium said:
Dems have been grooming Goodwin Liu for a long time now. Republicans truly loathe him though, so I'm not sure Hillary would have the guts to go through with him.
Click to expand...
In 2015, Justice Liu joined in the California Supreme Court’s unauthored opinion, In re Hong Yen Chang, which posthumously admitted Chang to the State Bar. Chang was denied admission to the bar by the court in 1890, due to the federal Chinese Exclusion Act. Justice Liu and the rest of the California Supreme Court abrogated the court’s previous decision and held that “the discriminatory exclusion of Chang from the State Bar of California was a grievous wrong” that “denied Chang equal protection of the laws.”
Click to expand...
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!
 
D

Daniel B·

Banned
I never thought I'd say this, but having spent the afternoon / evening viewing the case against human generated Global Warming (I'll perhaps share how I got onto this subject for another day; 4,900), I have to say, I now agree with Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, in calling this a hoax, of astounding proportions!

Essentially, the extra carbon dioxide produced by human activity, since the Industrial Revolution (in 1760) has not contributed to the 0.8°C increase in global temperatures recorded since 1880, and global temperature trends are due entirely to natural factors, primarily the Sun's level of activity. Even Roger Revelle PhD (Al Gore was his student), one of the scientists who co-authored the source, the 1957 research paper, entitled "Carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that threatens our climate", wrote to Congressman Tim Bates, in 1988, stating that "we should wait another 10 or 20 years to be really convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings". Revelle died in 91, but if he had lived to witness the following decades, he would most certainly have concluded there is no link, given that there has only been a negligible increase in temperatures.

This obviously does not mean we should still be giving billions in tax breaks to Big Oil & Gas, and we should be doing everything possible to prevent further destruction of the World's precious and irreplaceable rain forests. But, the billions spent on this likely non-issue could be better spent elsewhere. If solar plants or wind farms are relatively cost effective, compared to un-subsidised fossil fuels, they should most certainly given priority as they are inherently a cleaner fuel source (air pollution (excluding CO2) is still a factor with coal - just look at the smog China is currently having to deal with).

Why has this ballooned into such a massive issue? As Cenk would say (what has happened to TYT, since first debate, as they have gone completely off the boil, with mainly fluff videos (my theory is Bernie turned down an interview and they perhaps felt a little miffed as they certainly made a significant contribution to the cause)...), "Follow the money, Lebowski" - lovely research funds and must keep the developing World under foot...

Videos used in evidence (in order viewed, recommend John Coleman's vid as it's an easy to digest summary):

The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie
John Coleman (founder of The Weather Channel) Global Warming Scam
Ted Cruz demolishes Sierra Club president on global warming hoax
The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies
 
C

Cerium

Member
Daniel B·;187378341 said:
I never thought I'd say this, but having spent the afternoon / evening viewing the case against human generated Global Warming (I'll perhaps share how I got onto this subject for another day; 4,900), I have to say I now agree with Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, in calling this a hoax, of astounding proportions!
Click to expand...
This is now performance art.
 
O

Orbis Tabula

Member
It's like he went to the Boys in the Back Room and told them that everyone was starting to ignore the Bernie schtick, and this is what they've puttered up now.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
For PD: https://newrepublic.com/article/124391/yes-she-can
There has always been a sense among the black old guard that Obama lacks a natural feel for them, or for black folk writ large—that he didn’t really know who we are. Crime-bill-signing, welfare-reform-promoting, Jackson-backstabbing Bill Clinton—now he knew black folk. And that is why they were so angry at Hillary in 2008: because they felt Bill had betrayed them. “Some African Americans have not forgiven the couple for statements they made in 2008 ... that were interpreted as racially insensitive or that seemed to suggest black voters owed a political debt to the Clintons,” The Washington Post’s Vanessa Williams wrote in November. Bill Clinton had indeed given black folk access, started a conversation on race, and offered blacks more cabinet posts than any president in history. (More, even, than Obama would.) And Hillary had been burned by the flocking of black folk to Obama, a devastating blow that demanded its own healing. Clinton, predictably, didn’t see it that way, telling me earlier, “I’m neither my husband nor President Obama, and I’m not running for either of their third terms. I’m running for my first term.” But it was one thing for Ted Kennedy to fly the coop; it was another for John Lewis. There were a few who stuck it out until the end: Emanuel Cleaver, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and my wife, Marcia Dyson. But most of the big black figures had gathered in Obama’s tent.

...

Obama never had to face the heat of Black Lives Matter as he ran for office. His slow action on police problems, and his reluctance to confront racial crises, opened a leadership vacuum into which this movement has slipped. Obama has been a big disappointment to many of the black people who, like me, looked to him for leadership. On race, as his conservative opponents like to say about foreign policy, he has led from behind. He has offered lectures about failed black morality but, until recently, avoided embracing race as an issue, for fear that it would damage his ability to “get things done” with the white mainstream.

Which means that Obama has been, until late in his presidency, of little practical use to black folk, the same people who magnified his symbolic value while deflecting attention from his failure to adopt substantive policies to counter, for instance, black unemployment, or persistent intergenerational poverty, or until recently, a criminal justice system that has engulfed the lives of millions of his people. Obama and his fellow Democrats, unlike the BLM activists, have mostly steered safely clear of the folklore of race, the strains of anti-blackness that thread through American history and shape this country’s policies, perspectives, and politics.

...

Obama, meanwhile, argued that what was good for America was good for black folk, when exactly the opposite is true: Helping black folk turns out to help America. Tamping down the war on drugs, which targeted black and brown folk, also spared hundreds of thousands of white youth hooked on methamphetamine. Strengthening the social safety net for our most vulnerable black and brown citizens also helped struggling white families hit hard by the recession. Obama’s handsome black face and megawatt smile were enough to blind black folk to the stunning underperformance of his administration on race.

...

If Bill Clinton gave black America bad policy and Obama gave black America no policy, then Hillary Clinton is left only with good policy.
Click to expand...
 
A

Armoured Priest

Member
Daniel B·;187378341 said:
I never thought I'd say this, but having spent the afternoon / evening viewing the case against human generated Global Warming (I'll perhaps share how I got onto this subject for another day; 4,900), I have to say, I now agree with Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, in calling this a hoax, of astounding proportions!

Essentially, the extra carbon dioxide produced by human activity, since the Industrial Revolution (in 1760) has not contributed to the 0.8°C increase in global temperatures recorded since 1880, and global temperature trends are due entirely to natural factors, primarily the Sun's level of activity. Even Roger Revelle PhD (Al Gore was his student), one of the scientists who co-authored the source, the 1957 research paper, entitled "Carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that threatens our climate", wrote to Congressman Tim Bates, in 1988, stating that "we should wait another 10 or 20 years to be really convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings". Revelle died in 91, but if he had lived to witness the following decades, he would most certainly have concluded there is no link, given that there has only been a negligible increase in temperatures.

This obviously does not mean we should still be giving billions in tax breaks to Big Oil & Gas, and we should be doing everything possible to prevent further destruction of the World's precious and irreplaceable rain forests. But, the billions spent on this likely non-issue could be better spent elsewhere. If solar plants or wind farms are relatively cost effective, compared to un-subsidised fossil fuels, they should most certainly given priority as they are inherently a cleaner fuel source (air pollution (excluding CO2) is still a factor with coal - just look at the smog China is currently having to deal with).

Why has this ballooned into such a massive issue? As Cenk would say (what has happened to TYT, since first debate, as they have gone completely off the boil, with mainly fluff videos (my theory is Bernie turned down an interview and they perhaps felt a little miffed as they certainly made a significant contribution to the cause)...), "Follow the money, Lebowski" - lovely research funds and must keep the developing World under foot...

Videos used in evidence (in order viewed, recommend John Coleman's vid as it's an easy to digest summary):
Click to expand...

Obligatory:
climate-summit-what-if-its-a-big-hoax-and-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing.jpg
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Giant Panda said:
Because a religious justification isn't a real justification in my view. Justifications should be based on actual real world facts. This hypothetical socialist Christian only cares about the religious outcome, not the actual outcome. It's another case of trying to force their religion on others.
Click to expand...

Well, you're consistent, at least. Realize, though, that the "actual real world facts" principle wouldn't affect how religious people vote. Religious people believe their religiously motivated votes are based on actual real world facts. You should also consider that the religious person's religiously motivated vote may be cast defensively, so that he or she doesn't participate in wrongdoing--even tacitly--by voting differently or not voting at all. In the end, this is democracy in an overwhelmingly religious world--people will vote according to their moral and political beliefs, and they won't all agree with each other.
 
T

theprodigy

Member
Daniel B·;187378341 said:
I never thought I'd say this, but having spent the afternoon / evening viewing the case against human generated Global Warming (I'll perhaps share how I got onto this subject for another day; 4,900), I have to say, I now agree with Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, in calling this a hoax, of astounding proportions!

Essentially, the extra carbon dioxide produced by human activity, since the Industrial Revolution (in 1760) has not contributed to the 0.8°C increase in global temperatures recorded since 1880, and global temperature trends are due entirely to natural factors, primarily the Sun's level of activity. Even Roger Revelle PhD (Al Gore was his student), one of the scientists who co-authored the source, the 1957 research paper, entitled "Carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that threatens our climate", wrote to Congressman Tim Bates, in 1988, stating that "we should wait another 10 or 20 years to be really convinced that the greenhouse is going to be important for human beings". Revelle died in 91, but if he had lived to witness the following decades, he would most certainly have concluded there is no link, given that there has only been a negligible increase in temperatures.

This obviously does not mean we should still be giving billions in tax breaks to Big Oil & Gas, and we should be doing everything possible to prevent further destruction of the World's precious and irreplaceable rain forests. But, the billions spent on this likely non-issue could be better spent elsewhere. If solar plants or wind farms are relatively cost effective, compared to un-subsidised fossil fuels, they should most certainly given priority as they are inherently a cleaner fuel source (air pollution (excluding CO2) is still a factor with coal - just look at the smog China is currently having to deal with).

Why has this ballooned into such a massive issue? As Cenk would say (what has happened to TYT, since first debate, as they have gone completely off the boil, with mainly fluff videos (my theory is Bernie turned down an interview and they perhaps felt a little miffed as they certainly made a significant contribution to the cause)...), "Follow the money, Lebowski" - lovely research funds and must keep the developing World under foot...

Videos used in evidence (in order viewed, recommend John Coleman's vid as it's an easy to digest summary):

The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie
John Coleman (founder of The Weather Channel) Global Warming Scam
Ted Cruz demolishes Sierra Club president on global warming hoax
The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies
Click to expand...

I see you've switched to a new gimmick now
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
PantherLotus said:
The problem with debating SuperPAC effectiveness is that essentially every other election has been decided by whoever raised the most money. (right?).
Click to expand...
Don't ask Linda McMahon or Michael Huffington.

EDIT: Ooop, you said "raised." Which would be a dependent variable.
 
R

Retromelon

Member
In that ted cruz demolishes sierra club person clip that the eminent dan b linked, ted cruz said with a very straight face that obama's green environment regulations could cost up to 10 million jobs. I loled
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom