HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Why Hillary Lost: An Exh...

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:27 PM

Why Hillary Lost: An Exhaustive Look

Last edited Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Covering all of the bases:
http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2017/01/why-hillary-lost-exhaustive-look.html

63 replies, 10243 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Hillary Lost: An Exhaustive Look (Original post)
tgards79 Jan 2017 OP
TheDebbieDee Jan 2017 #1
jonno99 Jan 2017 #5
still_one Jan 2017 #14
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2017 #8
still_one Jan 2017 #15
dionysus Jan 2017 #19
TheDebbieDee Jan 2017 #23
dionysus Jan 2017 #24
Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2017 #41
BeyondGeography Jan 2017 #28
democratisphere Jan 2017 #2
kenfrequed Jan 2017 #3
underpants Jan 2017 #30
Hoyt Jan 2017 #4
jonno99 Jan 2017 #6
Hoyt Jan 2017 #7
jonno99 Jan 2017 #10
dionysus Jan 2017 #25
Hoyt Jan 2017 #45
dionysus Jan 2017 #47
underpants Jan 2017 #31
40yearyellowdog Jan 2017 #35
Hoyt Jan 2017 #44
40yearyellowdog Jan 2017 #49
Hoyt Jan 2017 #50
pkdu Jan 2017 #9
underpants Jan 2017 #33
Raster Jan 2017 #53
underpants Jan 2017 #11
still_one Jan 2017 #12
tgards79 Jan 2017 #17
dionysus Jan 2017 #26
tgards79 Jan 2017 #46
still_one Jan 2017 #56
still_one Jan 2017 #55
Hoyt Jan 2017 #51
still_one Jan 2017 #54
Hoyt Jan 2017 #57
still_one Jan 2017 #58
Hoyt Jan 2017 #59
still_one Jan 2017 #60
Hoyt Jan 2017 #61
still_one Jan 2017 #62
Hoyt Jan 2017 #63
StevieM Jan 2017 #13
Uponthegears Jan 2017 #32
StevieM Jan 2017 #37
Uponthegears Jan 2017 #39
Blue_Tires Jan 2017 #16
underpants Jan 2017 #34
dionysus Jan 2017 #18
tgards79 Jan 2017 #21
dionysus Jan 2017 #22
JTFrog Jan 2017 #43
LisaL Jan 2017 #20
underpants Jan 2017 #36
Buckeye_Democrat Jan 2017 #27
40yearyellowdog Jan 2017 #29
StevieM Jan 2017 #38
Lil Missy Jan 2017 #40
JTFrog Jan 2017 #42
tgards79 Jan 2017 #48
stonecutter357 Jan 2017 #52

Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:29 PM

1. Except that she didn't lose...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:35 PM

5. Except she did lose in states that Democrats usually win.

And the problem is not just that Hillary lost, but Democrats also lost down-ballot races as well.

We need to understand why, and adjust.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512681084

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 05:24 PM

14. of course 11 days before the election, comey releasing the letter to the republicans in

congress had nothing to do with it, nor the media mischaracterizing it as "the email investigation was being reopened", A LIE, nor the 14 states which added new strict voting, and voter ID requirements since 2013, which included, Wisconsin, Ohio, and North Carolina.

Then of course is the fact that there were people who identified themselves as progressives who refused to vote for Hillary, and either voted third party or didn't vote

47% of those who were eligible to vote didn't.

In Michigan Hillary lost by .3%. Jill Stein won 1.1%. Similar results in Wisconsin and the other swing states.

Hillary didn't lose to those who voted for trump, she lost because of the FBI interference, and because some progressives decided to vote third party or didn't vote.

Those down ballot losses were also a reflection of the FBI interference, which contributed to some of the 47% not showing up to vote

What added insult to injury was the down ballot races.

Russ Feingold and every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states as you mentioned, lost to the establishment, incumbent republican.

I am not sure that Wisconsin can even be designated as a swing state anymore. Wisconsin is now controlled by right to work, anti-union republicans. That Scott Walker not one survived his recall, but won multiple elections in that state is testimony to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:41 PM

8. She lost under the stupid electoral college rules we're stuck with.

If you lose the EC you can win the popular vote by the millions - and she did - and still not get to be President. So she didn't win, unfortunately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 05:35 PM

15. There were a lot of factors, but I think what dealt the worst blow was the FBI interference

11 days before the election.

I am looking forward where the post mortem group will fade away

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:38 PM

19. Yes, she did. Trump is president. You know how the system works.

Thats like saying Al Gore won, despite never taking office.

I don't get this stubborn refusal to admit she lost. Denying reality is a republican trait.

That said, the wording in the OP is childish, and distracts from a thoughtful analysis of the election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:46 PM

23. Sec Clinton got more votes, point blank!

 

All the analysis and dissecting won't explain THAT away!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:48 PM

24. The winner is whoever wins the electoral college, you know this! She got more

votes, yes, a lot more, but she didn't win! Had she won she qould be president!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 08:40 PM

41. For analysis, see: states the campaign neglected

Filed under: wtf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:02 PM

28. That would be nice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:32 PM

2. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Time to move on.

This is exhausting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:32 PM

3. The article is wrong about Stein

Stein was almost a non-factor and if you subtract the numbers of people that voted for her in 2012 or the greens in 2008 it is reduced to even less of a factor.

If your campaign relies on getting all of the votes of a third party candidate, when half of those that vote for that candidate vote third party every year, then your campaign is inviting defeat and failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kenfrequed (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:28 PM

30. Good point. It's too binary to assume every single vote of hers would go to Clinton

There ARE Green Party voters who will always vote that way. That's how you build a party. Likewise there ARE Libertarians who had a 50 state candidate (first time?) and were going to vote Libertarian. Now some of those votes were Brexit/joke/protest votes but not most of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:34 PM

4. Rather than saying "white working class," why don't they just say "racists?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:36 PM

6. Beacuse that will guarantee more Democrat losses in the future. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:39 PM

7. Yeah, we need to attract racists to the Party. Do I need a sarcasm thingie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:42 PM

10. Joe disagrees with your analysis -

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:56 PM

25. Because "non college whites with middling income" are not all racist?

Just a guess. If you think they are, you're mistaken.

WWC is just easier to say.

And like the saying with terrorists, while most racists are part of the wwc, not all wwc are racist.

There are actually racists in all demographics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 08:58 PM

45. I'm sorry, it is obvious Trump is a racist. I think voting for him is too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 10:12 PM

47. No need to apologize, trump caters massively to racists, or is a racist himself.

That much is obvious...

Some amount of his voters believe that when we call him a racist, it's a left wing lie. It's crazy, but it happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:30 PM

31. The media danced around that for his whole campaign

At the beginning it was clear that he was going after the scrim but he was good for ratings and god forbid the media be seen as liberal (which they will anyway).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:42 PM

35. If we treated the pro-union part of the white working class as part of our base (which they are)

rather than dismissing them as racists, we likely would have won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 40yearyellowdog (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 08:56 PM

44. Oh, they voted for an obvious racist because they were called racists.

Last edited Thu Jan 19, 2017, 09:30 PM - Edit history (2)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 09:21 PM

49. I think they voted for the one they thought would work to create jobs in their hometowns and didn't

care if people call him racist or not. Clinton and her PACs outspent Trump and his PACs by 2X. I am glad she has ads pointing out Trump's racist demagoguery, but she didn't need to run those ads continually until they bored people. She would have be more effective if she had had more different types of ads, including some directed at people concerned about job growth in rust-belt towns. We lost by very small margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin; with the right strategy, we could have won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 40yearyellowdog (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 09:33 PM

50. So greed and racism. Their "white plight" is so bad, they'll accept the racist Trump. Ain't right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:41 PM

9. Agree with every single word of this -great summary of all the factors (except for one)

Operation Crosscheck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pkdu (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:31 PM

33. Yes no one mentions that or other suppression moved

This analysis is good but it's missing the carpet when describing the design.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pkdu (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 10:04 PM

53. Heartily agree.... and this is something WE ALWAYS TEND TO OVERLOOK...

...Voter supression is probably the single-most effective nefarious tool the rethuglicans use to affect elections. They don't have to worry about someone voting against them, IF THEY CAN KEEP THEM FROM VOTING. That simple.

Crossheck is yet another rethuglican tool to disenfranchise legal, lawful voters with a patina of legitimacy, when in effect, it still boils down to depriving lawful voters of their chance to participate in democracy.

It fucking sucks. And I wonder -after each election- why this is seemingly never addressed until it is too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:49 PM

11. Marking for later read

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:59 PM

12. Let's ignore the fact that since 2013 14 states added restrictive voter and voter ID requirements.

Let's also ignore the fact that 11 day before the election Comey released a letter to the republicans in Congress where MSNBC was the first to incorrectly report as "Breaking News", that the FBI had reopened the email investigation, and then for the next hour paraded every right wing politician across their screen to propagate the LIE, with other networks soon following suit

Let's also examine those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary by either voting third party or not voting.

Let's also observe that in Michigan Hillary lost by .3%, and Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Similar results in the other swing states.

Let's also observe that every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states, lost to the establishment, republican, incumbent.

and in spite of the media's double standard coverage, misinformation, and falsehoods, Hillary still won the popular vote by more than 3 million.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:11 PM

17. ????

The articles mentions Comey and Jill Stein and the closeness of the turned states. Did you read it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:59 PM

26. I told ya, the mere subject will make heads explode, some will go nuts and not even

read the friggin thing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 09:07 PM

46. You got that right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 10:31 PM

56. I did read the frigging thing, and my head DIDN'T explode. I don't agree that the reason she lost

was primarily due to the white working class voter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 10:28 PM

55. Yes I did. I believe the effect was greater because of the 47% who didn't vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 09:36 PM

51. I think most of the voter ID laws were overturned, or there were ways around them. Agree on Comey

and third parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 10:23 PM

54. Not entirely true. In North Carolina, thousands of voters were removed from the voting roster. The

NAACP successfully challenged the law, and got those voters reinstated, but I suspect since it got reinstated late in the game, some voters who were initially removed from the voting lists, didn't end up voting after all.

Here is a map of those states with strict voter ID laws:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx

While I agree the effect on the results is debatable, I don't think it will be debatable after the next four years, and the republicans have consolidated power by appointing judges who will insure that strict voting requirements get instituted.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #54)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 10:45 PM

57. I got purged from rolls too in a town I had not voted in in 10 years because I moved.

That is reason for a lot of the purging. Not denying GOPers have restricted votes, but their are usually ways around it.

In NC a utility bill, etc., wI'll get you a mail in ballot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 10:52 PM

58. That isn't why the NAACP won the case against North Carolina for the purging of the votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #58)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 11:02 PM

59. That's why it's important to check your registration, vote often, etc.

The Get Out the Vote efforts need to focus on that aspect and encourage people to vote early and by mail when possible. My experience with South Carolinians is that a few alleged purged voters didn't make a difference in Trump winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #59)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 11:04 PM

60. you mean North Carolina?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 11:05 PM

61. Sorry, although not a big difference nowadays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #61)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 11:09 PM

62. North Carolina was pretty close, and Roy Cooper did get in as Governor, I would like to think my

call banking helped, but since Deborah Ross and Hillary lost, I doubt it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #62)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 11:12 PM

63. Lived in Raleigh 50+ years ago. You are right, NC is not always red. I'm south of U.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 05:23 PM

13. I am saddened that he repeats the false claim that Trump did better than Romney among Latinos.

Here is my post on this subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028471760

And here is the article that the post links to:

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-92304395/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:30 PM

32. Is this the claim you are referring to?

 

"Clinton did MUCH worse than Obama among all Non-White voters, a drop of 8 points, some of whom, shockingly, went to Trump (3 points) and more of whom (5 points) went to Johnson/Stein. When you drill down, Trump actually did better among Latinos – a group he directly insulted (at least Mexicans) – than Romney"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uponthegears (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:56 PM

37. Yep, that's the one. I hate that this fictitious claim is still being widely referenced as if

it is a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 08:01 PM

39. I liked your link

 

The methodology is fascinating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 05:58 PM

16. How many different ways can you say

"Not enough Dems turned out to vote?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:34 PM

34. Agreed

Some were suppressed and I think the "she's won" lead others to not think they needed to vote.


My full analysis (because your life wouldn't be complete without it) is below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:36 PM

18. Its a good piece, but sayong "read it and weep" is a bit trollish...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:40 PM

21. Apologies

Changed per your valid critique....thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:46 PM

22. Thanks. I thought it covered everything except GOP voter suppression, which sadly

happens every election. Funny how the poor districts always have few machines, breakdowns, and large lines!

The way you worded ot originally will make heads explode. Hell, posting it worhlit comment will make heads explode.

But it's fair and covers the whole range of reasons, we'd be foolish not to analyze our mistakes and learn from them.

Burying our heads in the sand will not help things one bit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 08:43 PM

43. A bit? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:38 PM

20. One shouldn't forget the media.

Emails, Comey or Russians wouldn't have had an effect they did, if not for the media running with these stories the way media did. 2 weeks before the election, Clinton's coverage turned extremely negative. Comey's vague letter was talked about non-stop, even though we all know there was nothing of importance in the emails. But it wasn't covered that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:48 PM

36. Here's my breakdown 60% was airtime.

Last edited Wed Jan 18, 2017, 08:28 PM - Edit history (2)

60% Airtime
He was on like "The Truman Show" - full speeches (even speech setup while Bernie was addressing 10k or so) - when a product is on that much enough people will convince themselves to buy it.
Hillary got 4 direct contacts with the audience (convention and debates) - we heard ABOUT her not FROM her and CNN had two Trump plants (Lord and Lewandowski) on constantly. CNN was the news network for the middle/"undecided".

10% voter suppression/Crosscheck

10% the 25 year (empty) campaign against Hillary

10% all of Comey's appearances. Couple with the long campaign against her

3% there are Green and Libertarian voters.

5% Brexit/protest/joke votes in all the wrong spots

The remaining 2% was sadly that it was going to be hard for the first woman President to come right after the first black President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:00 PM

27. From the article...

Her Unpopularity. Why is Hillary Clinton so darned unpopular? Clearly, the GOP’s decades-long efforts to demonize her have paid off (for them). Ever since she moved into an office in the West Wing and took on the health care project, ushering in her modern interpretation of First Ladydom, she has been vilified. From Whitewater to Benghazi, through all of her husband’s infidelities, Hillary Clinton has been cast as shifty, sneaky, unprincipled, overly-ambitious, out for herself, ruthless, you name it, unabated for 24 years now. And she has reinforced this with, no doubt, a preference to protect herself through some degree of secrecy and an instinct against transparency. You might do the same if you had undergone decades of being dragged through the mud. But it hurt her.

It seemed to be true in April 2008 as well.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1063a3The08Race.pdf
Obama 49%
McCain 44%

Clinton 45%
McCain 48%

The number of Americans who see Clinton unfavorably overall has risen to a record high in ABC/Post polling, 54 percent – up 14 points since January. Obama’s unfavorable score has reached a new high as well, up 9 points, but to a lower 39 percent. A favorability rating is the most basic measure of any public figure’s popularity; it’s trouble when unfavorable views outscore favorable ones. That’s now the case for Clinton, alone among the current candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:24 PM

29. "If everyone who voted for Jill Stein in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had voted for Hillary

Clinton, Clinton would have won." I am so glad to finally see this in writing, it was like it was illegal to say it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 40yearyellowdog (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 07:59 PM

38. With 11 days to go she was in good enough shape to win even without those votes.

Then James Comey intervened to rig the election.

She ran a great race. But the election just wasn't winnable.

We will never know for sure what they had in store for Sanders or O'Malley. But they certainly would have behaved every bit as unethically, possibly including a bogus FBI investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 08:28 PM

40. Comey n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 08:41 PM

42. Not this shit again.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #42)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 10:24 PM

48. If it is shit you are worried about...

..the shit show is just getting started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tgards79 (Original post)

Thu Jan 19, 2017, 09:38 PM

52. fuck putin and t-rump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread