2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

6,101 to 6,150 of 7,079 << first < prev | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Edit: The email thing has been re-opened because they keep finding more shady stuff.

Really? How do you now it is "shady?" Because apparently, not even the FBI knows. What they said amounted to "we're looking at some more e-mails." That's it.


Actually, it does equal criminality. It's called negligence


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

The instructions for changing the toilet paper rolls at the Pentagon are probably labelled "confidential." It is literally the lowest level of classification possible.

Carelessness != criminality.

Much of it classified after the fact.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Actually, it does equal criminality. It's called negligence

Apparently the director of the FBI disagreed with you.


bugleyman wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Edit: The email thing has been re-opened because they keep finding more shady stuff.
Really? How do you now it is "shady?" Because apparently, not even the FBI knows. What they said amounted to "we're looking at some more e-mails." That's it.

If everything was fine and dandy, why would they have considered it new and sufficient evidence to start investigating again?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
If everything was fine and dandy, why would they have considered it new and sufficient evidence to start investigating again?

Thank you for illustrating why we have the Hatch act.


bugleyman wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Actually, it does equal criminality. It's called negligence
Apparently the director of the FBI disagreed with you.

Go watch the congressional hearing and form your own opinion rather than let people tell you your opinion.

Dark Archive

Jaçinto wrote:
For people saying it is all the hate is just because she is a woman, then wow. No.

If it was entirely because she was a woman, then people would have cared when Condoleeza Rice kept her Secretary of State emails on a private server. They didn't, just as no one cared when Colin Powell did that same thing as well (or when thirteen separate Benghazi's happened while Bush was President).

So it's less a 'woman did it' thing and more a 'Democrat did it' thing.


Guilty-until-proven-innocent aside...when did we start talking about "real" liberals? Is there a decoder ring? :P


Jaçinto wrote:
Go watch the congressional hearing and form your own opinion rather than let people tell you your opinion.

...and here come the underhanded insults. I wish I were surprised.


Set, I'm not excusing anyone ever doing that stuff. I would consider them all on the same level.


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
All-in-all, Gore and Nader share the blame for that mess. Actually, there was probably voting fraud going on there, so maybe Gore, Nader and Bush should share it. :P

That I can fully agree with. The myriad faults of the Gore campaign were lampshaded hilariously on Doonesbury, from renderings of the Gore Bot to Gore trying to figure out if this was a week to praise Clinton or bury him in his campaign strategy.

I'd leave out blaming Bush. It was after all his JOB to win the race.

Can I blame Jeb Bush for his attempts to throw the state to his brother? And his Secretary of the State, Katherine Harris, for doing the dirty work. Mostly voter purges and the like?

Absolutely.. you can throw in as many villains as you want and and find evidence for.

But no matter how many you throw in, that does not absolve Nader for his part, unless you can prove that his influence on the vote total was a significantly neutral one, and that's a hard sell.


Jaçinto wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Actually, it does equal criminality. It's called negligence
Apparently the director of the FBI disagreed with you.
Go watch the congressional hearing and form your own opinion rather than let people tell you your opinion.

Obviously it's better to watch a few hours of partisan political theater and base your opinion on that than to pay attention to what the professionals reviewing the actual evidence decided.


Ohhh where's Kobold Cleaver to quote the actual law at this guy? It's so fun to watch someone more knowledgeable simply destroy an argument don't you think?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Absolutely.. you can throw in as many villains as you want and and find evidence for.

But no matter how many you throw in, that does not absolve Nader for his part, unless you can prove that his influence on the vote total was a significantly neutral one, and that's a hard sell.

The thing I always find interesting about 2000 is that there is no debate that Gore got more votes than Bush, but both our electoral process and our judiciary ensured that the person who didn't get the most votes won. So...Democracy? :P


Actually, I would like to know the legal definition as I am not a legal expert.

Political theatre? What do you think the entire election is? Why is one "political theatre" not okay and the other one is okay? Besides, it's congress. We can't take what congress says into account?


Bugley, I absolutely agree with you on the Gore thing. It just goes to show that the popular vote is absolutely meaningless on deciding president. The electoral college is the only vote the matters on that, so why bother?

Also, techncially, isn't the USA not a democracy? I believe it is a Republic, but I need to look that up.


bugleyman wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Absolutely.. you can throw in as many villains as you want and and find evidence for.

But no matter how many you throw in, that does not absolve Nader for his part, unless you can prove that his influence on the vote total was a significantly neutral one, and that's a hard sell.

The thing I always find interesting about 2000 is that there is no debate that Gore got more votes than Bush, but both our electoral process and our judiciary ensured that the person who didn't get the most votes won. So...Democracy? :P

The electoral system by its nature allows for this possibility. The election of the President unlike that for state governor is not a direct democratic process, if it were, the Electoral College would never have been established. And there would be no such things as battleground states. It's arguable however that a direct democracy might disenfranchise more people, or at least regions of the country than it would help.

Whether it should exist, is a whole nother bucketfull of s**# storm debate which is not really tangent here. It's not going away in the next two weeks.


Not so strange.

As I said before, every election process lives and dies on its CLARITY of results. And if it is unclear, no matter how undesired the result is, things will go from bad to much, much, MUCH worse in moments.

Obama has said it again and again. It is an absolutely central part of the election process that the loser admits defeat to the winner.

Because the only alternative is? Yes. Civil war, or at least the attempt at such.

America has a CLEAR system. The people choose the electors. The electors choose the president. Within that logic, there is no room for other interpretations. Be thankful of that.

Whether more people actually voted for Gore or not is very far down the list of interesting results of the election.


Jaçinto wrote:

Bugley, I absolutely agree with you on the Gore thing. It just goes to show that the popular vote is absolutely meaningless on deciding president. The electoral college is the only vote the matters on that, so why bother?

Also, techncially, isn't the USA not a democracy? I believe it is a Republic, but I need to look that up.

A republic is one very well known and accepted form of a democratic society. Please don't start that, you too.


Jaçinto wrote:
Also, techncially, isn't the USA not a democracy? I believe it is a Republic, but I need to look that up.

Technically, I believe we're a Democratic Republic. The power comes from the people, and goes through elected officials who make decisions on the people's behalf. In some cases, the explicit consent of the people is required for something to be approved, regardless of what the elected officials think.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Edit: The email thing has been re-opened because they keep finding more shady stuff.
Really? How do you now it is "shady?" Because apparently, not even the FBI knows. What they said amounted to "we're looking at some more e-mails." That's it.
If everything was fine and dandy, why would they have considered it new and sufficient evidence to start investigating again?

No, as has been said before a few pages back, the investigation wasn't re-opened; the FBI had not closed the "Clinton emails" investigation. (FYI, the 9/11 investigation isn't closed either, and they only recently closed the D.B. Cooper case. Yes, really.)

Again, to recap from pages back: the FBI had been digging into Anthony Weiner because he is being investigated for sexting with a 15-yro in North Carolina. Huma Abedin had already turned in her work laptop back when Clinton originally turned over her emails originally. It came to the FBI's notice that there was a personal laptop that both Abedin and Weiner had used for various everyday household/personal tasks. Abedin voluntarily turned the notebook over to the FBI. When an agent asked if she had used it for work for Clinton, she said she didn't remember if she did or didn't. The FBI took possession of the notebook, and then had to wait until Sunday afternoon before their warrant went through. They didn't start any forensic analysis on the notebook until then, in order to not invalidate any possible evidence for either case.

The FBI didn't know what was on the laptop or wasn't. If there were emails from Abedin's work for Clinton, they didn't know what was in those emails, if they were classified or not (or what classification level), or if they were duplicate copies of what Clinton already turned in. This wasn't because they suspected anything "shady" or had proof of "new evidence" on Clinton's or Abedin's part. This was just routine followup, just chasing a possible lead. That's it. Comey said all this in his poorly-worded, poorly-handled letter.

The only one's who seem certain this is a smoking gun of Clinton's wrongdoing are the same people who have been gunning for her: Jason Chaffetz (R), Trey Gowdy (R), anti-Clinton voices in the media like Rush Limbaugh (R), the Trump Campaign (R)... and everyone else convinced that after 25+ years of slinging monkey poop at the Clinton's, this time, they'd finally have their proof.


bugleyman wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Absolutely.. you can throw in as many villains as you want and and find evidence for.

But no matter how many you throw in, that does not absolve Nader for his part, unless you can prove that his influence on the vote total was a significantly neutral one, and that's a hard sell.

The thing I always find interesting about 2000 is that there is no debate that Gore got more votes than Bush, but both our electoral process and our judiciary ensured that the person who didn't get the most votes won. So...Democracy? :P

Republic


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Nothing found in Hillary's emails? No, I watched some of the congressional hearing. They found stuff. She released stuff that was labeled confidential. She just claimed she didn't notice. So, now ignorance is an excuse? From what I saw, the FBI said there was wrongdoing but they did not believe they could get anyone willing to prosecute, so they dropped it. That's not saying she did nothing wrong in any way. That's saying yeah, she did some shady stuff but meh, whatever.

I watched the hearings, too. And no, the FBI didn't say there was wrongdoing—they said there was carelessness.

And there was. Do I like that Hillary made that fumble? No. But tons of other politicians do it without getting harassed about it. She's acknowledged it was a mistake.

I watched the hearings. In fact, I watched the last one all the way through—and that one went half a day. I watched a bunch of Republicans reduce a critical governmental process to, as you guys put it, "political theater", bringing down biased attack after biased attack in a transparent effort to simply tire the former Secretary of State out. And her voice went out! But what did I not watch? I did not watch "the choke moment". I did not watch anything we didn't already know. Not even the most minuscule grain of evidence has surfaced to indicate any sort of evil intent—Hillary did not do Benghazi, she did not cause Pence's plane to fly off the runway, and she did not use a private email server to rig the election against Donald Trump.

No law was broken. She made a minor mistake. I don't like that, but only in this polarized environment could the GOP actually inflate that to claim she deserves to be in jail. It's truly pathetic.


Sissyl wrote:
Whether more people actually voted for Gore or not is very far down the list of interesting results of the election.

Disagree. Of course most of us understand how the electoral college works, and yet we often still talk about the election as if the electoral college didn't exist. That's what I find interesting.


Perhaps this because "we the people" wish to see that the winner takes the majority of the popular vote by however slim a margin?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.

HRC is notorious for buying 11, sometimes even 12, items in the "10 Items or Less" lane at the supermarket when they have a good BOGOF. Also, she sometimes forgets to bring in her cloth shopping bags from the car, forcing the bagger to use plastic. GUILTY!

Bill jaywalks all over the damn place. You can't stop him. Streets, lanes, driveways, boulevards, tarmacs... the thug life chose him. Hell, he jaywalks in his sleep. GUILTY!

Chelsea was born a Clinton. GUILTY!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Set, I'm not excusing anyone ever doing that stuff. I would consider them all on the same level.

Which is why you are just as vocally chasing downn Trey Gowdy, and Darrel Issa right?

After all you were obviously paying attention so you are aware they both actually released information publically instead of had some after the fact inadvertent possible spillage?

And you are just as vehement in chasing down the AOL account of Powel (that he admitted was for avoiding public scrutiny) and the RNC servers the Bush administration used right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Set, I'm not excusing anyone ever doing that stuff. I would consider them all on the same level.
Which is why you are just as vocally chasing downn Trey Gowdy, and Darrel Issa right?

Issa shouldn't be too hard to find. I think he's still in the local hospital's burn unit.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.

HRC is notorious for buying 11, sometimes even 12, items in the "10 Items or Less" lane at the supermarket. Also, she sometimes forgets to bring in her cloth shopping bags from the car, forcing the bagger to use plastic. GUILTY!

Bill jaywalks all over the damn place. You can't stop him. Streets, lanes, driveways, boulevards, tarmacs... the thug life chose him. Hell, he jaywalks in his sleep. GUILTY!

False equivalency. People still act like Bill is somehow this nice, likable guy. I know moderates and Democrats who like him and yet utterly despise Hillary. Nevermind the fact that he's probably both more corrupt and more right-leaning than she is. He's a dude and he's a good speaker, so we like him and demonize (literally) her.

Silver Crusade

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

No, as has been said before a few pages back, the investigation wasn't re-opened; the FBI had not closed the "Clinton emails" investigation. (FYI, the 9/11 investigation isn't closed either, and they only recently closed the D.B. Cooper case. Yes, really.)

"Reopen" is an apprporiate general term for what happened, and is one every news organization is using. "Reactivated" is probably more accurate, but I haven't heard it used even once.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Edit: The email thing has been re-opened because they keep finding more shady stuff.
Really? How do you now it is "shady?" Because apparently, not even the FBI knows. What they said amounted to "we're looking at some more e-mails." That's it.
If everything was fine and dandy, why would they have considered it new and sufficient evidence to start investigating again?

No, as has been said before a few pages back, the investigation wasn't re-opened; the FBI had not closed the "Clinton emails" investigation. (FYI, the 9/11 investigation isn't closed either, and they only recently closed the D.B. Cooper case. Yes, really.)

Again, to recap from pages back: the FBI had been digging into Anthony Weiner because he is being investigated for sexting with a 15-yro in North Carolina. Huma Abedin had already turned in her work laptop back when Clinton originally turned over her emails originally. It came to the FBI's notice that there was a personal laptop that both Abedin and Weiner had used for various everyday household/personal tasks. Abedin voluntarily turned the notebook over to the FBI. When an agent asked if she had used it for work for Clinton, she said she didn't remember if she did or didn't. The FBI took possession of the notebook, and then had to wait until Sunday afternoon before their warrant went through. They didn't start any forensic analysis on the notebook until then, in order to not invalidate any possible evidence for either case.

The FBI didn't know what was on the laptop or wasn't. If there were emails from Abedin's work for Clinton, they didn't know what was in those emails, if they were classified or not (or what classification level), or if they were duplicate copies of what Clinton already turned in. This wasn't because they suspected anything "shady" or had proof of "new evidence" on Clinton's or Abedin's part. This was just routine followup, just chasing a possible lead. That's it. Comey...

And presumably FBI Director Chemey...if only to prove that he's not an Obama-Clinton stooge.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.

HRC is notorious for buying 11, sometimes even 12, items in the "10 Items or Less" lane at the supermarket. Also, she sometimes forgets to bring in her cloth shopping bags from the car, forcing the bagger to use plastic. GUILTY!

Bill jaywalks all over the damn place. You can't stop him. Streets, lanes, driveways, boulevards, tarmacs... the thug life chose him. Hell, he jaywalks in his sleep. GUILTY!

False equivalency. People still act like Bill is somehow this nice, likable guy. I know moderates and Democrats who like him and yet utterly despise Hillary. Nevermind the fact that he's probably both more corrupt and more right-leaning than she is. He's a dude and he's a good speaker, so we like him and demonize (literally) her.

Like I said, different standards apply. We're not as evolved socially to accept the behavior we admire in men in the same way when we see it in women.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.

HRC is notorious for buying 11, sometimes even 12, items in the "10 Items or Less" lane at the supermarket. Also, she sometimes forgets to bring in her cloth shopping bags from the car, forcing the bagger to use plastic. GUILTY!

Bill jaywalks all over the damn place. You can't stop him. Streets, lanes, driveways, boulevards, tarmacs... the thug life chose him. Hell, he jaywalks in his sleep. GUILTY!

False equivalency. People still act like Bill is somehow this nice, likable guy. I know moderates and Democrats who like him and yet utterly despise Hillary. Nevermind the fact that he's probably both more corrupt and more right-leaning than she is. He's a dude and he's a good speaker, so we like him and demonize (literally) her.

Oh, I'm not saying Bill Clinton is a saint. He has mythic level Charisma and has gotten away with ethically-dubious-but-not-illegal things. He seems to often go into full schmooze mode without considering the consequences. And the crap he has put his wife, his daughter, and other women through makes me nauseous. But overall, I think he's a fairly typical wealthy white guy of privilege who has spent too long amongst all the other douchebags in politics. That's not an excuse of his behavior, just an observation that we need a better class of leaders... and that we should figure out why we like male !ssholes in charge, so we can stop electing/hiring/promoting them.

Why HRC gets so much more hate than him... well, if Obama's Presidency re-exposed this country's long-festering racism, HRC's candidacy (and hopefully her Presidency) is slowly peeling back the filthy bandage on the country's deep sexism. The country isn't going to do much of anything about either problem, but it's darn sure gonna complain about the worst of all sins: being called sexist (and racist).


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Set, I'm not excusing anyone ever doing that stuff. I would consider them all on the same level.
Which is why you are just as vocally chasing downn Trey Gowdy, and Darrel Issa right?
Issa shouldn't be too hard to find. I think he's still in the local hospital's burn unit.

Well there it is. I can't even fathom how he can call want he has done working with President Obama. That's shake my head level nuts. Especially considering how democrats were running from their successes in the midterms, and now Issa wants to be all chummy? WoW.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Set, I'm not excusing anyone ever doing that stuff. I would consider them all on the same level.
Which is why you are just as vocally chasing downn Trey Gowdy, and Darrel Issa right?
Issa shouldn't be too hard to find. I think he's still in the local hospital's burn unit.
Well there it is. I can't even fathom how he can call want he has done working with President Obama. That's shake my head level nuts. Especially considering how democrats were running from their successes in the midterms, and now Issa wants to be all chummy? WoW.

Either 1) prolonged high-levels of cognitive dissonance causes brain damage, or b) keeping one's cranium tucked in one's cranial cavity deprives one's brain of oxygen, causing brain damage.

If you were drowning 50 feet from shore, Issa would throw you 25 feet of rope only so he could claim he met you half way.


bugleyman wrote:
Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.

She's mainly guilty of being someone born in the Pre-Internet Stone Age trying to adapt to the world of Networking.


How dare hillary have email thats on multible computers!!!!!


randomwalker wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
My major concern with a nuclear winter is the whole polluting our air quality much like people that want to use volcanoes to do the whole cooling down the planet.

Ironically, the Icelandic volcano eruption in 2010 was calculated to the 'net environmentally friendly' since emission reductions from grounded planes outweighed direct emissions. (not the same effect as you were thinking of, but shows where people get crazy ideas from)

For the record, I'm against natural disasters.

(ps. a fundamental problem with US politics is that you have only 2 major parties, which makes negative campaigning way overpowered and prevents cooperation. Unfortunately there's no clear way out of it).

For the record I'm only against earthquakes and forest fires. Floods I can survive. Same thing with long term winter/ice ages. But poor air makes for bad survival.


I don't know if I said it here or elsewhere but;

Trump brags he could shoot someone and not lose any support to show how popular he is...
Trump also says Hillary could shoot someone and get away with it to show how corrupt she is...

Tell me again how there is no double standard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of double standards: [Newsweek] "Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders"

Edit: It's also their cover.


I am actually learning a lot here and yes, things I have believed have been changed based on what I am taking in. I like too be devil's advocate though to try to get people to discuss stuff.

Kobold Cleaver, I have been trying to find complete hearings on youtube but can only find clips. Can you help me out? I love watching that kind of stuff.

Abraham Spalding, rather than trying to be accusatory of me, please listen. I am not aware of most of what you said. I just know what I saw in clips I have seen online, which is kind of equal to what you see on TV as they only show clips as well. I try to find entire things without commentary but I am having difficulty. I do oppose any actual wrongdoing by these people but I am talking about Clinton as it is happening right now and it is quite prevalent. I hope I used that word correctly. I don't think there is anything wrong with the congressperson Gowdy grilling her in the hearing, as that is his job. Ask the hard questions. point out every tiny inconsistency. That is a good thing to do here because the point is to get all the information and get every explanation, then see what matches the evidence and if anything contradicts. There is no room for playing nice in that situation. If her answers are consistent and matches the gathered evidence, including other testimonies, then what is the big deal? She should get no special treatment and should have to explain everything she is involved with as to the best of her ability. I hate question dodging and every time it is done, like in debates, I think there should be some kind of penalty as it just eats up time.

I don't officially agree or disagree with anything Gowdy does outside the hearings. I do agree with him grilling her because there are things that need to be investigated and resolved.

BigNorseWolf, the issue is that she sent work related emails through a private computer and server. That actually is an issue.

Oh and anyone that thinks Hillary actually did the Benghazi thing needs to smarten up. People are responsible for their own actions. I say she is innocent of that. I don't believe she actively tried to organize that kind of stuff. Wether information she sent out was used by others to do something like that, I don't entirely blame on her. I just say she should have known better than to release work related files, especially ones labeled as confidential, to people not working there. Since it was on a private system, it could not be monitored and tracked by a systems admin at her work, and now there is this whole kerfuffle.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

Speaking of double standards: [Newsweek] "Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders"

Edit: It's also their cover.

Then it is his turn on the block as well to answer for this. No special treatment. Either both get grilled and punished, or neither of them should. The thing with Hillary is setting precedent I guess so hopefully they are both punished for their actions.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

Speaking of double standards: [Newsweek] "Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders"

Edit: It's also their cover.

...Has it not yet been made clear that basically everything he blames someone else for doing is, in fact, what he's done? XD;


Rednal wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

Speaking of double standards: [Newsweek] "Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders"

Edit: It's also their cover.

...Has it not yet been made clear that basically everything he blames someone else for doing is, in fact, what he's done? XD;

Has anyone here actually claimed Trump was any good? Hillary sucks but come on, so does Trump.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
The thing with Hillary is setting precedent I guess so hopefully they are both punished for their actions.

No, Colin Powell set the precedent when he was Secretary of State. She did not do anything that her predecessors hadn't already done.


Rednal wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

Speaking of double standards: [Newsweek] "Donald Trump's Companies Destroyed Emails in Defiance of Court Orders"

Edit: It's also their cover.

...Has it not yet been made clear that basically everything he blames someone else for doing is, in fact, what he's done? XD;

Which circles me back again to Trump's claims the election will be rigged.


So they're all scummy?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
So they're all scummy?

All humans are flawed in their own unique ways.

6,101 to 6,150 of 7,079 << first < prev | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards