Jump to content
ryanlammi

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

"bUt hE's mOsT eLeCtAbLe"

the people who say this are the ones who think that the way to win the election is to pivot as far to the right as possible to get that "cross-over appeal". which is basically what Hillary tried to do, and lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

the people who say this are the ones who think that the way to win the election is to pivot as far to the right as possible to get that "cross-over appeal". which is basically what Hillary tried to do, and lost.

 

In what ways did Hillary change her policy stances to pivot to the right after the primary? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

In what ways did Hillary change her policy stances to pivot to the right after the primary? 

It's arguable that she didn't "pivot" to the right as much as she just "is" more conservative than liberal on some key issues.

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/07/clinton-and-wall-street-whats-the-deal-really/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

In what ways did Hillary change her policy stances to pivot to the right after the primary? 

With her campaign it wasn't as much of a policy thing as much as demographic targeting. There was a very heavy focus on getting suburban voters, especially suburban women. IIRC she mostly stayed with the same positions throughout the campaign. I'm guessing that by 2019 standards she would be to the right of where Warren is now, but in 2016 Medicare for All wasn't quite as big of a litmus test as it is now.

 

Arguments have been made that spurned Sanders voters did not turn out for her, and she should have done more to appeal to them. It's a bit hard to back that up with statistics. The best case for that argument would be Michigan, where Sanders won the primary and Clinton lost in the general.

 

Another argument I've heard is that because she didn't distance herself enough from Wall Street, that opened her up to attacks from Trump about her Wall Street connections. That's not really something that could have been corrected in 2016. I think she would have had to have taken a stronger stance much earlier to deflect that attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 Because I don't fear speech. Lies may circle the globe quickly but the truth will come out and rise to the top.

 

People need to work to be more contemplative and less reactionary. It may be a tall task for many I know.

 

That's incredibly naive.  Whether the truth eventually comes out has no bearing on how much damage can be caused from the lies before that happens.  History is littered with the consequences of unchecked lies, both in the US and abroad.  Jews are greedy invaders.  The Civil War wasn't about slavery.  Native Americans are savages.  Women can't make good voting choices.  America is being invaded by Communists. And on and on.  The point should not be to tolerate the lies and hope for the best outcome eventually.  The point is to counter those lies when they happen so that they can't go that far.  You should fear a movement that is based on lies.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

With her campaign it wasn't as much of a policy thing as much as demographic targeting. There was a very heavy focus on getting suburban voters, especially suburban women. IIRC she mostly stayed with the same positions throughout the campaign. I'm guessing that by 2019 standards she would be to the right of where Warren is now, but in 2016 Medicare for All wasn't quite as big of a litmus test as it is now.

 

Arguments have been made that spurned Sanders voters did not turn out for her, and she should have done more to appeal to them. It's a bit hard to back that up with statistics. The best case for that argument would be Michigan, where Sanders won the primary and Clinton lost in the general.

 

Another argument I've heard is that because she didn't distance herself enough from Wall Street, that opened her up to attacks from Trump about her Wall Street connections. That's not really something that could have been corrected in 2016. I think she would have had to have taken a stronger stance much earlier to deflect that attack.

 

So she didn't actually pivot to the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, surfohio said:

It's arguable that she didn't "pivot" to the right as much as she just "is" more conservative than liberal on some key issues.

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/25/robert-kagan-and-other-neocons-back-hillary-clinton/

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/07/clinton-and-wall-street-whats-the-deal-really/ 

 

Neither of those proves she's more conservative than liberal on key issues. She is a liberal. Solidly left of center. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

Much has been made in recent weeks about Pete's time at McKinsey, what he did, who his clients were, etc.  His campaign did a Friday night news dump, though they are still largely hiding behind the NDA.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-buttigieg-mckinsey-2020-candidate-releases-detailed-timeline-of-work-at-mckinsey-today-2019-12-06/

 

 

That Canadian grocer was almost certainly Loblaw.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/j5vmxp/loblaw-says-sorry-for-fixing-bread-prices-for-14-years-with-a-dollar25-gift-card

 

 

Of course, we have no way of knowing if Pete's work of "analyzing the effects of price cuts" was in any way tied to the price-fixing scheme because he won't release any details about his work.

 

 

According to Wendell Porter, a former healthcare exec, this is industry and corporate speak for cutting costs through layoffs, restructuring, and denying health coverage to those in need.  And don't be fooled by "nonprofit health insurance provider" - they behave in exactly the same way as "for profit" providers.  Blue Cross Blue Shield is a "non profit" health insurer in Michigan, for example.  They called in McKinsey in 2007, actually.  If it was BCBS, they laid off hundreds of people and dramatically increased premiums not long after McKinsey's consultation.  If it was BCBS, the Michigan AG had some things to say - https://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/Blue_Cross_11.29.07_217273_7.pdf

 

But again, voters shouldn't be left guessing what a major candidate for President did for 3 years of work which ended less than a decade ago, work the candidate himself often cites as relevant experience suitable for a background to become President.


https://twitter.com/AmirAminiMD/status/1203821639131172869

 

^And here is Pete dismissing a voter's concern over taking donations from corporations and billionaires, despite Pete's own pledge to "fight the influence of big money in politics."

But the work he did at McKinsey was essentially as a lower level consultant for the company. They get big titles and they talk a bigger game than what they really did, but keep in mind at the end of the day, they are paid consultants. They are not decision makers. They do not have decision authority. Their job is to research and propose options for the decision makers.

 

Acting like he is just a corporate shill because of some work he did in his mid 20s is a bit much. You should not have to pass a purity test to be president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Neither of those proves she's more conservative than liberal on key issues. She is a liberal. Solidly left of center. 

 

Hillary Clinton is a solid right-of-center military hawk. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

 

And in an attempt to try and bring this back on topic, I think there's a significant number of Republican voters that won't cross the aisle in 2020 and vote for someone who they consider "weak" on defense. And perhaps more significantly the defense contractors will be sharpening their knives to go after any candidate R or D that doesn't fit their ideal. 

Edited by surfohio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Acting like he is just a corporate shill because of some work he did in his mid 20s is a bit much. You should not have to pass a purity test to be president.

 

Quote

But again, voters shouldn't be left guessing what a major candidate for President did for 3 years of work which ended less than a decade ago, work the candidate himself often cites as relevant experience suitable for a background to become President.

 

Not a purity test and not acting like he's a corporate shill from this work he's refusing to explain.  Try re-reading again before coming to these unfounded conclusions, if personally direct at me.  If they are directed at "the left" at large, that's fine.  I'm never going to speak for a large group of people.

 

I actually didn't hear much about this McKinsey work until several people on the forums here started talking about it, how it was a little sketchy, etc.  It's gotten a lot of publicity the last couple weeks now.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Hillary Clinton is a solid right-of-center military hawk. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

 

And in an attempt to try and bring this back on topic, I think there's a significant number of Republican voters that won't cross the aisle in 2020 and vote for someone who they consider "weak" on defense. And perhaps more significantly the defense contractors will be sharpening their knives to go after any candidate R or D that doesn't fit their ideal. 

 

LOL the fact that she's happy that a brutal dictator died is proof that she's a right winger? 

 

No one would argue she is a dove on foreign policy but overall her policy positions put her on the left side of the spectrum on most issues.

 

Anyway, I won't respond anymore so this can get back on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

LOL the fact that she's happy that a brutal dictator died is proof that she's a right winger? 

 

No one would argue she is a dove on foreign policy but overall her policy positions put her on the left side of the spectrum on most issues.

 

Anyway, I won't respond anymore so this can get back on topic.

 

LOL foreign policy is arguably the most important philosophical attribute for any president. And I hope most of us agree it's absolutely unbecoming for an American leader to glorify a horrendously violent death in such an irreverent and cartoonishly stupid way. We never saw GWB or Barack Obama act in that way. We see Donald Trump act in that way. 

 

Anyhow, here's some more insight. The author splits the frontrunners into three camps: liberal internationalist hawks (Biden), Obama-redux (Buttigieg), and progressives (Sanders and Warren). 

 

Biden’s long record includes voting for the Iraq war in 2008. His lead foreign policy adviser is Antony Blinken, a former Obama official who pushed for Obama’s Libya intervention and served as deputy secretary of state at the beginning of the US support for the Saudi/UAE war in Yemen.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/12/2020-democratic-forerunners-foreign-policy-hawks-doves

Edited by surfohio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But the work he did at McKinsey was essentially as a lower level consultant for the company. They get big titles and they talk a bigger game than what they really did, but keep in mind at the end of the day, they are paid consultants. They are not decision makers. They do not have decision authority. Their job is to research and propose options for the decision makers.

 

Acting like he is just a corporate shill because of some work he did in his mid 20s is a bit much. You should not have to pass a purity test to be president.

You can argue that Pete did nothing evil at McKinsey (doubtful), but McKinsey does evil things. There are endless examples, such as consulting for ICE, where their proposals for cutting food and medical supplies to detained migrants shocked even the ICE careerists. Godwinning myself, but they are basically in the same category as IBM helping the Nazis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, the biggest knock you probably have on Buttigieg from that is that he didn't resign in disgust--that his values allowed him to work there at all.  Not unless he was high enough there that he had the ability to shape firm policy with respect to taking engagements.

 

McKinsey is often hired specifically to be the bad guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also Pete related but not Alex Jones bunker dweller conspiracy theorist related is below... honest reporting on Pete’s record with the AA community in South Bend, which IMO is the best indicator of how he would handle things when promoted to President Pete.

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/pete-buttigieg-black-support-south-bend

 

Also why aren’t you guys looking into Elizabeth Warren’s questionable record in law? Or Donald Trump’s questionable record in every aspect of life? 
 

The Pete/McKinsey “he did evil as some lowly grunt worker at a Fortune 500 consulting firm” is a witch hunt.

Edited by SWOH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SWOH said:

Also why aren’t you guys looking into Elizabeth Warren’s questionable record in law? Or Donald Trump’s questionable record in every aspect of life? 

 

Feel free to post/discuss what's questionable about her record in law.

 

Donald Trump isn't being discussed here because he's not running in the Democratic primary.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gramarye said:

Nevertheless, the biggest knock you probably have on Buttigieg from that is that he didn't resign in disgust--that his values allowed him to work there at all.  Not unless he was high enough there that he had the ability to shape firm policy with respect to taking engagements.

 

McKinsey is often hired specifically to be the bad guy.

 

Actually, kind of this. Here was a Rhodes scholar with degrees from Harvard and Oxford - he could have had his pick of where to work in 2007. He actively *chose* McKinsey and routinely says he thinks the people there have good intentions.  They're one of the most evil companies on the planet - and I'm talking beyond the usual "lay people off, hike prices" type of corporate consulting. Look at their recent work with ICE or the many dictators they've consulted.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

You can argue that Pete did nothing evil at McKinsey (doubtful), but McKinsey does evil things. There are endless examples, such as consulting for ICE, where their proposals for cutting food and medical supplies to detained migrants shocked even the ICE careerists. Godwinning myself, but they are basically in the same category as IBM helping the Nazis.

you can say that about any large consulting or law firm, etc.

You have to work for your client and do what they are requiring of you unless you choose to not work there. Drawing a line in the sand on these matters in not always practical. If he saw something or was uncomfortable with Mckinsey, he should not be obligated to quit right away. It would not be fair to him to just abruptly quit and throw caution to the wind and figure out how he will make ends meat or obtain other means to live during that period. Quitting a job is a process. He left McKinsey for whatever personal reason he choose. He should not be punished for that.

 

Same for Warren and her law firm connections. She may have represented cases that she did not love, but that is part of what lawyers do. Her firm may have represented clients she felt were abhorrent to her values, but that again is what firms do. You look at any top firm in the country and you have attorneys who are both democrat and Republican working with each other and getting along. Eric Holder and John Boehner work under the same firm umbrella. Holding people to a purity test for their past work in the private sector is not productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, this is all going pretty much in Trump's favor.  He's got the cult, and Democrats are doing nothing but trashing their own candidates instead of showing any united front on anything.  What a way to win, guys.  I called Trump's win the first time around, and I have less confidence by the day that we can pull this one out.  I sure hope something changes between now and then.  

 

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Frankly, this is all going pretty much in Trump's favor.  He's got the cult, and Democrats are doing nothing but trashing their own candidates instead of showing any united front on anything.  What a way to win, guys.  I called Trump's win the first time around, and I have less confidence by the day that we can pull this one out.  I sure hope something changes between now and then.  

 

Would you rather the flaws in candidates become apparent now, during the primary, or later, in the general?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

Would you rather the flaws in candidates become apparent now, during the primary, or later, in the general?

 

Whatever flaws, real or imagined, will come out anyway in the general.  So far, every frontrunner is being torn apart by Democrats.  I just don't see that as a good strategy if the ultimate goal is to beat Trump.  Republicans are going to vote Republican no matter what.  I really cant say that about the Democrats/liberals and whatever candidate gets the nomination.  We're setting ourselves up for a split vote, and that's going to lose us the election.  I get wanting the best candidate or the candidate that best matches your values, but come on... if we're looking for perfection, it's not available.  The only goal should be beating Trump.  And the sooner we're on the same page with that, the relatively minor character flaws of Biden or Buttigieg or whoever stop mattering as much.  The clear and present danger is already here.  

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

Frankly, this is all going pretty much in Trump's favor.  He's got the cult, and Democrats are doing nothing but trashing their own candidates instead of showing any united front on anything.  What a way to win, guys.  I called Trump's win the first time around, and I have less confidence by the day that we can pull this one out.  I sure hope something changes between now and then.  

 

 

I didn't, though as the election got very close and I saw friends that despised him grumbling and shaking their heads I begin to think it was possible.  I almost made a bet at the 8-1 odds, but couldn't quite stomach it any more than I could stomach voting for him.  Hopefully, you made the wager.  🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Whatever flaws, real or imagined, will come out anyway in the general.  So far, every frontrunner is being torn apart by Democrats.  I just don't see that as a good strategy if the ultimate goal is to beat Trump.  Republicans are going to vote Republican no matter what.  I really cant say that about the Democrats/liberals and whatever candidate gets the nomination.  We're setting ourselves up for a split vote, and that's going to lose us the election.  I get wanting the best candidate or the candidate that best matches your values, but come on... if we're looking for perfection, it's not available.  The only goal should be beating Trump.  And the sooner we're on the same page with that, the relatively minor character flaws of Biden or Buttigieg or whoever stop mattering as much.  The clear and present danger is already here.  

 

Trump's beatable, but I don't think the candidate that can beat him can get nominated.   The "progressives" are firmly in control of the party machinery.    Bill Clinton couldn't get the Dem nomination this time around.  You need an economic populist that still shows some skepticism of government and isn't shy about taking on the extremes of the left.   Executive experience all but essential.

Edited by E Rocc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you're talking about Sanders. There is a path to his nomination... He has to win Iowa, and then 2/3 of NH/SC/NV. Then he has a great chance of winning CA and the nomination.

 

There's a possibility of DNC shenanigans, but if it's not close, they should fall in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Trump's beatable, but I don't think the candidate that can beat him can get nominated.   The "progressives" are firmly in control of the party machinery.    Bill Clinton couldn't get the Dem nomination this time around.  You need an economic populist that still shows some skepticism of government and isn't shy about taking on the extremes of the left.   Executive experience all but essential.

Executive experience is clearly not essential given current circumstances.  And I think you’re overselling how left the Democrats are.  In Europe, even Bernie would be considered a moderate. Only in America is he considered far left, as our Right is very, very Right. I think Clinton could still win, but he’d need to obviously update a few social positions from the 1990s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

I didn't, though as the election got very close and I saw friends that despised him grumbling and shaking their heads I begin to think it was possible.  I almost made a bet at the 8-1 odds, but couldn't quite stomach it any more than I could stomach voting for him.  Hopefully, you made the wager.  🙂

Once he survived, if not thrived after the Access Hollywood tape, I figured he had a good chance of winning.  Any other candidate would’ve been done, but that was the final straw that hit home that his supporters would forgive anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who keep attacking Pete for his past are the same people who write off Warren's past. She was a poster child for Reagan Republicans until the mid-1980s. She wrote papers advocating for the deregulation of utilities! She was a registered Republican until 1996!! She made money consulting for Dow Chemical. When Congress forced certain companies to contribute to coal miners medical benefits funds, she was paid to consult for the companies to challenge the mandate!

 

But you know what? I still like Elizabeth Warren. These aren't cardinal sins. I would be happy to vote for her, just like I would be happy to vote for Pete Buttigieg.

 

People need to really relax about Pete. Peoples' perceptions of the world can change. People can make mistakes working for a company that they might not realize is as bad as it is. My opinions certainly have changed over time. To some of you it seems Warren is allowed to have changing political opinions, but Pete isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

The people who keep attacking Pete for his past are the same people who write off Warren's past. She was a poster child for Reagan Republicans until the mid-1980s. She wrote papers advocating for the deregulation of utilities! She was a registered Republican until 1996!! She made money consulting for Dow Chemical. When Congress forced certain companies to contribute to coal miners medical benefits funds, she was paid to consult for the companies to challenge the mandate!

 

But you know what? I still like Elizabeth Warren. These aren't cardinal sins. I would be happy to vote for her, just like I would be happy to vote for Pete Buttigieg.

 

People need to really relax about Pete. Peoples' perceptions of the world can change. People can make mistakes working for a company that they might not realize is as bad as it is. My opinions certainly have changed over time. To some of you it seems Warren is allowed to have changing political opinions, but Pete isn't.

 

Buttigieg was 14 in 1996.  Certainly, people can (and should) change over the course of their careers.  Comparing Warren's work from 25+ years ago to Pete's work ~10 years ago is an apples to oranges comparison.  Warren has very much been a consumer advocate for the last 12+ years -> she advocated against the bankruptcy bill and entered into politics via founding the CFPB.

 

Advocating that you'll fight big money in politics while simultaneously taking that big money isn't changing.  It's "not living your values," to use a Pete phrase.

 

You'll also note Warren is tanking in the polls.  So I think a lot of this stuff is having an effect and that's part of why she's not currently the front runner.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DarkandStormy said:

You'll also note Warren is tanking in the polls.  So I think a lot of this stuff is having an effect and that's part of why she's not currently the front runner.

 

wait. What's having an effect? Attacks on Warren?

 

I don't see much of that. The only thing I've seen is some ridiculous headline that she made something like $2 Million over her 3 decades of consulting. Which comes out to a very unremarkable $66k/year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

The people who keep attacking Pete for his past are the same people who write off Warren's past. She was a poster child for Reagan Republicans until the mid-1980s. She wrote papers advocating for the deregulation of utilities! She was a registered Republican until 1996!! She made money consulting for Dow Chemical. When Congress forced certain companies to contribute to coal miners medical benefits funds, she was paid to consult for the companies to challenge the mandate!

 

But you know what? I still like Elizabeth Warren. These aren't cardinal sins. I would be happy to vote for her, just like I would be happy to vote for Pete Buttigieg.

 

People need to really relax about Pete. Peoples' perceptions of the world can change. People can make mistakes working for a company that they might not realize is as bad as it is. My opinions certainly have changed over time. To some of you it seems Warren is allowed to have changing political opinions, but Pete isn't.

 

I mean, we're talking about politicians here.  None of them are going to be squeaky clean or have ideologically pure records.  The bottom line here is- if Pete or someone else some liberals aren't in love with becomes the nominee, will they vote for him?  Because that's all that really matters.  If they're not committed to beating Trump, then all this is for nothing.  Pete doesn't have to be perfect.  He just has to easily be better than Trump, and he is. If some liberal or Democrat ends up voting 3rd party or staying home because they don't get their preferred candidate, they have no ground to ever complain again if Trump wins another term.  They'll be just as responsible making it happen, the same as those people were in 2016.  We'll either be united to do the right thing or we won't be.

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonoh81 said:

 

I mean, we're talking about politicians here.  None of them are going to be squeaky clean or have ideologically pure records.  The bottom line here is- if Pete or someone else some liberals aren't in love with becomes the nominee, will they vote for him?  Because that's all that really matters.  If they're not committed to beating Trump, then all this is for nothing.  Pete doesn't have to be perfect.  He just has to easily be better than Trump, and he is. If some liberal or Democrat ends up voting 3rd party or staying home because they don't get their preferred candidate, they have no ground to ever complain again if Trump wins another term.  They'll be just as responsible making it happen, the same as those people were in 2016.  We'll either be united to do the right thing or we won't be.

you know we get to vote in the primary first right?? do you know something we don't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/786314251/elizabeth-warrens-journey-from-pro-business-academic-to-consumer-advocate

 

Here's a good article about Warren's transformation as an economic conservative to a consumer advocate liberal.

Interesting article, some good insights on Warren having the same type of ideological evolution that virtually everyone has experienced. Though I sincerely believe "pro-business" and "consumer advocacy" are not mutually exclusive positions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some fairly big news out of Georgia which could be very huge if turned blue. Stacey Abrams now says she is open to being a running mate.  I think Biden better go grab her before Mayor Pete does.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/10/stacey-abrams-says-she-would-consider-being-vice-president-i-will-not-diminish-my-ambition/%3foutputType=amp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

you know we get to vote in the primary first right?? do you know something we don't?

 

Of course, but I also remember 3 years ago when a lot of people stayed home because Hillary was the nominee, or because Bernie wasn't.  I would much rather see less tearing down of candidates and just supporting the Democrats in general at this point.  Vote for who you want in the primary, by all means, but be ready to enthusiastically support whoever the nominee is, because I don't think anything less is going to cut it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...