• 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 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shinra-bansho

Member
ugaboga232 said:
Not even frankly, it is 100% a pyramid scheme outside of a few different research schemes (private research like allen institute which is a weird public/private hybrid is cool, and the old bell labs was very horizontally oriented with regards to researchers and the "PI's".

Just got published a few weeks ago, the costs were a few thousand (and even more to make it public which is so dumb I can't even). The system needs to change. But a lot of people are happy with the status quo and those people have power (story of the whole political system) so I guess things are gonna suck for a bit longer (europe has a bit less of a pyramid scheme but its not perfect there either).
Click to expand...
Basically this.
I love research.
I also think the structure is broken. And that's part of why so many people leave it for fields like finance.
Needs a revolution, methinks.
 
C

Cesare Borgia

Banned
Daniel B·;194389548 said:
Why Wall Street is fed up with the White House—and Republicans too, but apparently, not Hillary:



Yeah, Hillary is totally the right presidential candidate to introduce sweeping legislation, and appoint regulators with a singular mission; to guarantee that the financial sector can never again put this nation on its knees...
Click to expand...

Interesting that you post that article.

When financial markets crashed just prior to his election, Obama’s cadre of Wall Street supporters expected their donations had earned for them a measure of understanding from the White House. And in keeping with the practice of both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush years, the finance executives also felt entitled to at least a couple of significant administration jobs going to one of their own—not to mention fairly regular access to the president, either via White House visits or get-togethers in New York. After all, they had important policy recommendations to make on everything from financial reform to deficit reduction to trade policy and immigration; previous administrations had a record of being very interested in their views. But under Obama, very little of this happened. “It’s not that there weren’t any meetings. It’s just that nothing ever happened after the meetings, and people fell out of love,” said one senior Wall Street banker who gave to the Obama campaign in 2008 and attended many of the early confabs.

Disillusionment set in quickly as Obama’s disdain for extensive relationships with the Wall Street wealthy became clear. He had no use for the niceties and glad-handing that Bill Clinton elevated to an art form, aided by a Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, who came straight to the job from Goldman Sachs and his role as Clinton’s top Wall Street rainmaker. One senior Wall Street executive says his realization that the financial industry under Obama would instead become a regular punching bag dates to a meeting in early 2009 with then-White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. According to this executive, Emanuel told an assembled group of financiers that the administration did not plan to “waste” the financial crisis—a common refrain of his in public and private—and would push for the strongest Wall Street reform measures possible, including having the White House respond swiftly and brutally to any industry efforts to water down the final product.

“I knew right at that moment, standing in Rahm’s office, that they did not really have any interest in understanding Wall Street or working with us in any significant way,” says the executive, who, like most interviewed for this article, spoke on condition that they not be identified by name or by firm to avoid possible political retribution.
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047#ixzz3zMh8u44j

Do you view Obama as a progressive, and why do you think corporate types are upset with him. I hold no illusions here, I recognize Obama is in many ways a corporatist like most US presidents; it comes with the territory of being president. But clearly Obama has been more progressive on this issue than he's given credit for by Sanders supporters and the far left in general.
 
K

Kangi

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Right to Rise will be on that shit by Sunday night, don't worry.
Click to expand...

tumblr_n8pugpS5WJ1twssf3o1_500.gif
 
M

Makai

Member
campfireweekend said:
:/

This is extremely anti-intellectual and disheartening. Not to mention untrue in the vast majority of cases.

NBER, the journal from which I drew the study I linked, is like the most respected economic journal. It is not a racket.
Click to expand...
It seems a little too easy to get your goat.

P.S. I heard Social Security is a pyramid scheme!
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
campfireweekend said:
Man, that is a milquetoast as fuck statement. How is that controversial?

Beating wall street up, demagouging them, lying about what they do (apparently entirely fraud is the only acceptable answer as per sanders) doesn't solve anything.

That doesn't mean you don't reform them.
Click to expand...
It portrays her as a typical politician who says whatever the people in the room want to hear.

It's not nearly as bad as Romney's '47%' quote, but it's of the same kind. It shows where her alliances are.
 
W

watershed

Banned
I think Sanders just views Obama as progressive within the established mainstream political spectrum and Sanders truly views himself as a complete outsider whose views are not in alignment with the political mainstream. That's why he always talks about a political revolution. If he were a stock democratic liberal, it wouldn't take a political revolution for him to win.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Rafa=FedKilla said:
I can't even begin to comprehend this ad.
Click to expand...

"Jimmy Carter is worried about Ted Cruz because he knows that Cruz, unlike the phonies Cruz is running against, will actually deliver conservative policies. Vote for Ted Cruz if you want conservative change to actually happen in the White House. Vote for the man that has liberals scared."
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
Officerrob said:
I don't think Sanders views Obama as a progressive at all.
Click to expand...
That's because, economically, Obama isn't a progressive. Militarily, he's not a progressive, either. Regarding privacy, he's not a progressive. Regarding transparency, he's not a progressive.

He only seems progressive because he's a rational moderate among a sea of lunatics and obstructionists. That doesn't make him a progressive.
 
J

Jack Remington

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I want to do a study on the impacts of land taxes on vacant lots when I go to grad school (next year), but the data for vacant lots seems so terrible...
Click to expand...

I work in public policy right now. Data is terrible.

When you start you imagine there's going to be all this data everywhere. Like if it's not on the first page of your Google search, you'll call someone up and they'll be like, "Vacant lots, right away. Do you want that in an Excel file? I'll copy in a tab showing property values in the area around each lot while I'm at it."

Instead you call someone who thinks she might know someone who might know about the vacant lots, but that person is on vacation for the next two weeks, and when he gets back it turns out he only has data for about half the lots, because the other half are under the jurisdiction of some other agency, and these people never talk.

Then it takes two weeks and 3-4 follow up emails from you before the dude gets back to you with anything, and when he does reply, it's like,

"Great talking to you Jack. See responses to your questions in bold."

"Does the city have a plan for development of any of these vacant lots?"
Yes.

It's really the worst.

Or maybe Navigant Research or one of those fuckers did a study on vacant lots in your area, but it's behind a paywall and costs $8000.
 
O

Officerrob

Banned
disastermouse said:
That's because, economically, Obama isn't a progressive. Militarily, he's not a progressive, either. Regarding privacy, he's not a progressive. Regarding transparency, he's not a progressive.

He only seems progressive because he's a rational moderate among a sea of lunatics and obstructionists. That doesn't make him a progressive.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that Bernie is lying about Obama being a progressive because telling the "truth" would hurt him politically? Sounds like a typical politician...
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
Officerrob said:
So what you're saying is that Bernie is lying about Obama being a progressive because telling the "truth" would hurt him politically? Sounds like a typical politician...
Click to expand...

I'd imagine the average voter views fibbing on Obama's progressiveness to be less sinister than what they feel Hillary stretches the truth on. Sanders outpaces Clinton handily on perceived trustworthiness/honesty among the entire voting base, not just disastermouse.
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
Officerrob said:
So what you're saying is that Bernie is lying about Obama being a progressive because telling the "truth" would hurt him politically? Sounds like a typical politician...
Click to expand...
I don't know. I don't speak for Bernie. And Bernie is a politician, and a rather successful one at that.

TPP was what turned my mind about Obama. The very nature of that trade deal is pure corporatism over any expectation of plain dealing with our nation's citizens. But when I say 'Obama's not a progressive', I'm speaking from my own opinion.

Bernie isn't as far left as I am, but that's because I'm a socialist, not a Social Democrat. Personally, I want to see the largest companies in our nation to be publically owned, I want them to be worker-managed with community input. I'm not a progressive, I'm strictly anti-capitalist in the sense that I not only believe that huge corporations shouldn't have over-sized political influence in our country, I believe that the large corporations should not exist as private enterprises.

So Bernie is a progressive, but I'm not. I just happen to be to the left of progressivism (i.e. 'Reformist Capitalism').
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
http://www.businessinsider.com/donor-hints-at-biden-run-for-president-2016-2

A prominent Democratic donor worried about the party's chances of winning the presidency emailed dozens of fans of Vice President Joe Biden on Friday, urging them to remain prepared to donate if Biden jumps into the race.

The donor, Bill Bartmann, cited new polling showing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont nearly tied with Hillary Clinton, eroding the 30-point lead the former secretary of state held at the end of last year.

Bartmann and other party insiders are concerned that Sanders, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, is too far to the left to win against a Republican in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

"We cannot afford to lose the White House," Bartmann wrote in the email, seen by Reuters.

The email drew a string of affirmative responses, also seen by Reuters.

Biden announced in October that he would not seek the presidency, despite support from a group of backers under the name "Draft Biden 2016." But whispers have continued among some donors who hope that Biden could be convinced to run after all should Clinton's campaign prove fruitless.

"My sitting on the sidelines has a lot to do with my disappointment that the vice president decided not to get in the race," Patrick Baskette, one of the recipients of Bartmann's email, told Reuters. Baskette, a public affairs consultant in Tampa, Florida, was a special assistant to Biden during his time as a senator.

Baskette said he was not opposed to either Clinton or Sanders. "I don't think that they offer the solutions to our nation's future that Joe Biden does," he added.

Clinton only barely squeaked out a win against Sanders in the Iowa caucus this week, adding to fears that she could lose a nomination that once was thought all but inevitable for her. Clinton is widely expected to lose the New Hampshire primary to Sanders on Tuesday.

"Count me in," Gary Hindes, chief executive of the Delaware Bay Company LLC and a former chairman of the Delaware Democratic Party, wrote on the email chain.

"I am hoping that the stars line up right and that Joe becomes the nominee," Hindes said to Reuters. "Sanders is too far to the left," he added, saying Clinton could be vulnerable as well.

"My heart is with Joe," Hindes said.
Click to expand...
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
OrangeGrayBlue said:
I'd imagine the average voter views fibbing on Obama's progressiveness to be less sinister than what they feel Hillary stretches the truth on. Sanders outpaces Clinton handily on perceived trustworthiness/honesty among the entire voting base, not just disastermouse.
Click to expand...
To be frank, three decades of scalphunting by the GOP and journalists (because really, who doesn't want that instant Pulitzer for taking down a Clinton?) will tend to do that to you. Three decades in the public eye having to take very publicly scrutinized decisions, in part because of who you're married to, will do that to you.

A couple articles I came across that somewhat highlight this.

Clinton has the benefits and drawbacks of an insider, and Sanders has the benefits and drawbacks of an outsider. Her view of the political system is realistic, her knowledge of the issues is deep, and her social ties are strong. All these qualities would likely make her an effective president. But they also mean she's captured by the political system, and that she is implicated in virtually everything Americans hate about it.

Sanders's view of the political system is idealistic, his ideas are unbounded by pragmatic concerns and interest group objections, and his calls for political revolution are thrilling. All these qualities make him an inspiring candidate. But they also mean he'll be perceived as an enemy by the very system he intends to lead, and that his promises of sweeping change might collapse into total disappointment.
Click to expand...
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10921320/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-debate

Vince Foster. Whitewater. Too many -gates to name. Benghazi. Emails.
It doesn't help that these are sometimes self-inflicted wounds, obviously.
With the exception of maybe Barack Obama, whom they’ve irrationally loathed with the fire of a thousands suns, it’s tough to name anyone conservatives have more vigorously derided throughout the years than Hillary Clinton. Even her husband, as much as they tried to take him down at every turn, earned a begrudging respect from many in the Republican party. Beating him up for, say, his sexual proclivities was the height of Beltway hypocrisy and they knew it, but politics demanded they grab onto any potential scandal they could with both hands and ride it as far as it would take them. While it’s true many were bitterly jealous of Clinton’s seemingly depthless charisma and sorcerer’s way with voters, for the GOP leadership at the time it wasn’t personal — just really dirty business. Hillary on the other hand has always been cast as an arrogant bitch, a soulless bête noire, an irredeemably corrupt and fundamentally dishonest political hustler. From the very beginning of her time in the national political limelight, she was vilified for refusing to simply sit back and be an ornament on the White House Christmas tree, as she was apparently supposed to. And when she ventured out into her own separate political career, what was considered calculating but somehow forgivable from her husband became merely calculating — and nefariously so — from her. Bill was allowed to be Slick Willy. Hillary was just a rotten to the core.
Click to expand...
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/hillary-gop-smears/
 
R

Republic of Ezo

Member
disastermouse said:
That's because, economically, Obama isn't a progressive. Militarily, he's not a progressive, either. Regarding privacy, he's not a progressive. Regarding transparency, he's not a progressive.

He only seems progressive because he's a rational moderate among a sea of lunatics and obstructionists. That doesn't make him a progressive.
Click to expand...

That's also because progressive doesn't mean anything.

The first progressive president was Teddy Roosevelt who was the ultimate imperialist. Progressives were originally for alcohol prohibition too.

People are just scared to call themselves liberals because republicans have tainted the word in the last 30 years. Most are using it to mean Social Democrat.
 
O

Officerrob

Banned
Republic of Ezo said:
That's also because progressive doesn't mean anything.

The first progressive president was Teddy Roosevelt who was the ultimate imperialist. Progressives were originally for alcohol prohibition too.

People are just scared to call themselves liberals because republicans have tainted the word in the last 30 years. Most are using it to mean Social Democrat.
Click to expand...

BINGO!!
 
D

disastermouse

Banned
Republic of Ezo said:
That's also because progressive doesn't mean anything.

The first progressive president was Teddy Roosevelt who was the ultimate imperialist. Progressives were originally for alcohol prohibition too.

People are just scared to call themselves liberals because republicans have tainted the word in the last 30 years. Most are using it to mean Social Democrat.
Click to expand...
'Liberal' is just as problematic a term, though, as it originally meant something closer to 'libertarian' than it does now. It sprang from the Enlightenment.

'Humanist' is also a loaded term.
 
P

Polari

Member
Jack Remington said:
I work in public policy right now. Data is terrible.

When you start you imagine there's going to be all this data everywhere. Like if it's not on the first page of your Google search, you'll call someone up and they'll be like, "Vacant lots, right away. Do you want that in an Excel file? I'll copy in a tab showing property values in the area around each lot while I'm at it."

Instead you call someone who thinks she might know someone who might know about the vacant lots, but that person is on vacation for the next two weeks, and when he gets back it turns out he only has data for about half the lots, because the other half are under the jurisdiction of some other agency, and these people never talk.

Then it takes two weeks and 3-4 follow up emails from you before the dude gets back to you with anything, and when he does reply, it's like,

"Great talking to you Jack. See responses to your questions in bold."

"Does the city have a plan for development of any of these vacant lots?"
Yes.

It's really the worst.

Or maybe Navigant Research or one of those fuckers did a study on vacant lots in your area, but it's behind a paywall and costs $8000.
Click to expand...

omg yes. Part of my job at the moment is trying to put the platforms in place that will enable us to alleviate some of this pain. The public sector sucks at data.
 
V

VRMN

Member
disastermouse said:
'Liberal' is just as problematic a term, though, as it originally meant something closer to 'libertarian' than it does now. It sprang from the Enlightenment.

'Humanist' is also a loaded term.
Click to expand...

Language is constantly evolving and past common meanings of words don't always correspond to the present common meaning.

Getting hung up on labels is...a very American thing in politics.
 
R

Republic of Ezo

Member
VRMN said:
Language is constantly evolving and past common meanings of words don't always correspond to the present common meaning.

Getting hung up on labels is...a very American thing in politics.
Click to expand...

My point is that the current meaning is essentially meaningless. There is no true progressive like there is no true Scotsman. On foreign policy especially, saying that anti-interventionism is "progressive" means absolutely nothing.

I also generally dislike the paternalism of the term progressive since it implies that everyone who doesn't follow that philosophy is literally impeding social progress. The original progressives were for literacy tests to prevent the ignorant from voting (aka trying to disenfranchise blacks in the south) and it's worth noting that a "progressive" democrat president, Woodrow Wilson, literally segregated the federal government. Many U.S. "Progressives" in the original
Progressive Era were also supporters of eugenics. In other words, it's a much more problematic term than the original meaning of "liberal" will ever be.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I'm getting pretty tired of people ganging up on the banks! Why doesn't Hillary come out and say the truth, which is that poor people should not have houses and should live in communes where they can be more easily monitored by the government so Rick Synder can more easily poison them? So much bullshit with blaming people like Jamie Dimon, who is a hero, instead of your average poor person.
 
D

Diablos

Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg

Lots of people talking about this video. It's the Elizabeth Warren video from back in 2004.

The logic people are using in their response to this and why they can't vote for Hillary is ridiculous. "See, she doesn't care, I'm just not voting for her." These are things that happened a long time ago and Hillary has refined her positions as she runs for President.

You don't like the fact that she shifts positions? Welcome to politics. What's really concerning to me is what seems like a growing number of voters are eating up Bernie's 'revolution' message, a goal that really can't be achieved, instead of Hillary's which is grounded in reality (i.e. divided Congress, electorate) and a willingness to protect what the party has acheived since Obama took office -- which is a lot -- and focus on the things you can still work on instead of promising voters a revolution. Like it or not, this is the best we can hope for. It's either that or GOP scorched earth politics. What do you want?

A lot of Bernie supporters strike me as being naive, unrealistic/out of touch and unable to realize that Hillary's platform may not come off as being as progressive as Bernie's, but it's a lot more realistic and reliable in a general election. Wake up!
 
N

noshten

Member
First she was invoking 9/11 to defend her wall street ties, thinking this is somehow a good defense while it only really angers people. Now it seems as though she is instead using it to show how Sanders is going negative on her - which is absolutely hilarious. It appears she thinks this is not a major issue and she shouldn't be defending herself on such ties, speaking arrangements or the insinuation that the whole government and the bills being past are entirely shaped by outside interests. I think a lot of people are underestimating how important this type of questioning could be in a possible Trump race for example and Clinton is extremely vulnerable and keep brushing it off.
Like I said in the past it was a bad idea to do those speeches, if she planned to run. It's a bad idea to go right now to Wall Street and try to raise money. And it's another thing that will cause her problems this election.
In the first debate Hillary talked about stopping the revolving door between big corporations and government, she doesn't seem to understand that making $153 million in speaking fees is a part of the revolving door system.
 
F

FiggyCal

Banned
Las7 said:
First she was invoking 9/11 to defend her wall street ties, thinking this is somehow a good defense while it only really angers people. Now it seems as though she is instead using it to show how Sanders is going negative on her - which is absolutely hilarious. It appears she thinks this is not a major issue and she shouldn't be defending herself on such ties, speaking arrangements or the insinuation that the whole government and the bills being past are entirely shaped by outside interests. I think a lot of people are underestimating how important this type of questioning could be in a possible Trump race for example and Clinton is extremely vulnerable and keep brushing it off.
Like I said in the past it was a bad idea to do those speeches, if she planned to run. It's a bad idea to go right now to Wall Street and try to raise money. And it's another thing that will cause her problems this election.
In the first debate Hillary talked about stopping the revolving door between big corporations and government, she doesn't seem to understand that making $153 million in speaking fees is a part of the revolving door system.
Click to expand...

To be fair: invoking 9/11 is not a policy stance. She evaded the question and people are quick to move on because they like her as a candidate, but at the same time it doesn't really tell us what her policies are.

I'm guessing that Wall Street just wants a stable economy. You get that with establishment candidates like Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. You elect any other republican on that side or the remaining democratic candidate and you get what they see as chaos. So it's not totally unexpected that she'd be favored.
 
D

dramatis

Member
Hillary Clinton Lobbied on Health Care as Secretary of State

Today, on the emails!!!
“She was helpful when we needed votes, having served in the Senate and still having friends and colleagues there,” said one former Senate adviser, who asked not to be identified in discussing internal deliberations. “She did have credibility. She was considered an expert.”

That expertise is clear in some of the email messages, in which, for example, Mrs. Clinton questioned a decision by Senator Max Baucus of Montana, a main drafter of the legislation, to use nonprofit health insurance cooperatives to compete with profit-making insurers, rather than a government-run health plan, known as the public option.

“But the ‘system’ let the Blues go public,” she wrote in a message to Ms. Tanden, referring to the health insurance giant Blue Cross/Blue Shield, after learning of the Baucus plan. “What’s to prevent the co-ops from incorporating down the road? The return of nonprofits would have to require no changes.”
Click to expand...
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I HATE people who say "thx".

You're saying thank you to someone. Fucking type it out. Lazy.

Anyway, seems like a good outcome? She's a progressive!!
 
D

Diablos

Member
dramatis said:
Hillary Clinton Lobbied on Health Care as Secretary of State

Today, on the emails!!!
Click to expand...
But in 1995 Hillary hugged a Wall Street exec who now probably wants to gut Obamacare. See, I just knew I can't trust her!! And my Facebook says that a national poll has Sanders leading Clinton! It's all over! I should just lay down and take it while the GOP capitalizes on my ignorance and paranoia! I'm such an overly idealistic yet foolish and selfish voter, I just can't help myself!
 
T

Teggy

Member
I wonder what the narrative will be if Rubio goes 3-2-2 (or 3-2-3 which is what it looks like currently). 3-2-1 is being awfully confident.
 
Yoda

Yoda

Member
campfireweekend said:
Man, that is a milquetoast as fuck statement. How is that controversial?

Beating wall street up, demagouging them, lying about what they do (apparently entirely fraud is the only acceptable answer as per sanders) doesn't solve anything.

That doesn't mean you don't reform them.
Click to expand...

The financial sector of our economy use to serve the industries that produced real goods and services. Now it's reversed, where those industries fight to appease Wall St. out of fear their cashflows/lines of credit will be disrupted. This incentivizes short-term tactics to increase profitability vs. the long-term health of a given company. It's a zero-sum game for everyone save the financial industry because they create margins when people fail and when people succeeded. Of course when they fail, due to the ridiculous amount of power they've amassed, they socialize their loses and continue as if nothing had happened. When progressives lament Wall St. greed, they are taking aim at the culture that has become endemic in corporate America, but in most cases you HAVE to adopt this culture. Bucking the trend is usually a death sentence for most companies (there are some exceptions); there is simply no choice in doing ridiculous crap such as layoffs when it comes time to report earnings, using extra cash-on-hand for dividends instead of R&D, etc...

Sec. Clinton swapped her vote on credit-card regulation, is in favor of TPP, doesn't want to re-instate Glass–Steagall(sp?), ... She is a moderate at best when it comes to financial regulation. It's a valid position to take, but she needs to own it. Right now she's evading the question and trying to question the very act of questioning her on the merits of her claiming she'd spend political capital on regulating Wall St. I
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Updated Thread Assignments

Nevada Caucuses, South Carolina Primary- Wilsongt, NeoXChaos
Super Tuesday-b-dubs
Super Tuesday Part 2- NeoXChoas

*After Super Tuesday PoliGAF handles the rest of the primaries.

*Veepstakes is going to be in PoliGAF

2016 Republican National Convention-b-dubs
2016 Democratic National Convention- NeoXChaos

1st Presidential Debate-b-dubs
Vice Presidential Debate-Ebay Huckster
2nd Presidential Debate-kingkitty
3rd Presidential Debate-

General Election 2016-Aaron Strife

Republican Debates
10 - Feb 26 CNN - Makai
11 - March 3 Fox News - Makai
10 - March 10 CNN - Makai

Democratic Debates
7 March 6-kingkitty
8 March 9 Univision/Washington Post NeoXChaos
9 April-kingkitty
10 May-Slayven
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
234
42K
Bloobs replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
59K
DGrayson replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2022 Edition
3 4 5 6 7
333
76K
zephiross replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
Top Bottom