Could Trump do anything to make you stop supporting him?

[Sculpt]

And since this result itself was fraudulent.

When a vote is proven fraudulent or otherwise ineligible during the process, it's thrown out of the total. There were some cases of that. A corrected vote total doesn't make any specific election result "fraudulent". You're playing loose with words.

I love looking at specifics. Do you have any?

 

[ZNP]

These people are not stupid, evil yes, stupid no.

They know that the 91 indictments made Trump more popular and they know that taking Trump off the ballot in two states irrelevant to Trump will only provoke more polarization in the country and more support for Trump. According to Sun Tzu you are not to assume your adversary is stupid, therefore I don't believe the goal is to keep Trump from winning, rather the goal is to split the country into a civil war.

When Colorado took Trump off, Texas and Florida responded by seeking to remove Biden. Now we have Maine doing an even more blatant attempt and we can expect more states responding tit for tat. They know the election is over. They know that things in the US will get much worse and there is no way anyone will vote for Biden again, nor will Newsom or Obama have a chance. Since they know they will lose their plan now is to burn down the country in a civil war.

 

[Cameron143]

I don't support Biden over Trump. But what you stated is vague and merely innuendo.


Vague innuendo doesn't change anything.


I have no trouble believing more voters came out to vote against Trump in 2020... I listened to them face-to-face every day. A little birdie told me Obama was going to win over John McCain and Sarah Palin. That Obama election had 9.4 million less votes than then prior Bush/Kerry election. Innuendo doesn't spotlight truth.


Yes, it's odd. Still, only 66.1% of eligible voters bothered to vote in that election, up from 59.2%, and 2008 had 62.5%. You know how hyper political the country has become since 2015. Surprising, but it's not evidence of fraud.


I know Biden Admin was active in that. It's the best reason to vote against the Biden Admin.


Trump told people not to vote by mail-in-ballot, and the Democrat party pushed it. That the vast majority of those mail-in-votes were for Biden is merely logical.

Your innuendos about fraud are reasons to competently research the specific details, report the hard facts and push to fix specific problems, otherwise they're just innuendos that prove nothing and merely preaches to the choir.

My innuendos, as you call them, aren't coming from thin air. I have a degree in Political Science, and have studied politics for more than 40 years. I'm fascinated as to why people choose the leadership they do.

American politics, as are all free societies, is driven primarily by cash. The saying...voting with your wallet...is most often true. People vote for their best financial interests, at least as they perceive them to be.
There are 2 things that can alter this voting pattern. The first is cause. When enough of the electorate is sufficiently stirred behind a cause, they will vote based on a desire to right a wrong.
The other thing that can alter the pattern of voting for personal gain is corruption. Americans have historically had little tolerance for unscrupulous leaders.

Because of the venue of this post, I have only given a basic premise and no evidence for the premise I have posited. I'll be glad to do so if you like. But a basic review of presidential elections in America bears this out...until very recently. From the 1970's to the 2012 election, I picked every winner of presidential elections based on the earlier premise I espoused.
According to my political theory, Obama should have lost in 2012. The cause on which he was elected he only exacerbated. And the economy never recovered from the 2008 bank failures.
Also, according to my political theory, Trump should have won the last election. Nearly every group in American society benefitted from the Trump presidency.
Something changed. Either the reasons Americans vote for candidates changed, or something else changed.

Now I will grant you that what I have laid out before you is simple in form, and elections are more complex than described here. But there has been plenty of evidence laid out on this site by @ZNP, @PennEd,@mailmandan, and others of voter fraud and irregularities to open national investigations into the matter. 2020 was not the most secure election ever, and not by a long shot. Should the matter be investigated. Certainly. Should I trust your evaluation. No. But not because I don't think you are truthful. I do. But you are hardly as skeptical as you should be. But mostly I don't accept your assessments because you don't have access to all the information. You believe your limited research is all there is. It would take an unhindered investigation by a neutral party interested only in truth, and who gains access to all pertinent records and testimony. This isn't likely to happen.

 

[Sculpt]

These people are not stupid, evil yes, stupid no.

They know that the 91 indictments made Trump more popular and they know that taking Trump off the ballot in two states irrelevant to Trump will only provoke more polarization in the country and more support for Trump. According to Sun Tzu you are not to assume your adversary is stupid, therefore I don't believe the goal is to keep Trump from winning, rather the goal is to split the country into a civil war.

When Colorado took Trump off, Texas and Florida responded by seeking to remove Biden. Now we have Maine doing an even more blatant attempt and we can expect more states responding tit for tat. They know the election is over. They know that things in the US will get much worse and there is no way anyone will vote for Biden again, nor will Newsom or Obama have a chance. Since they know they will lose their plan now is to burn down the country in a civil war.

I hope their goal is not civil war and open dictatorship. That would be stunning ignorance of history. I rather think the Evil side of the 1% didn't like the Occupy Wall St, Bernie Sanders and the Tea Party movement... they don't like Rank Order Voting, political participation, and the reducing the influence of money in politics... so they decided to foment divisiveness among the 80%: manufacturing attention on race, religion, regionalism, abortion, sexuality, biological males in women sports, wars, etc. Divide and rule. It worked again.

 

[Magenta]

I rather think the Evil side of the 1%

I am not a very political person, and I do not have the time or inclination to start fact checking all the numbers and allegations and he-said she-saids. LOL. Just wanting to get that out of the way to say this: I have edited your post to just this snippet because that small percentage of society has historically wielded much influence over the course of events that have landed us where we are today. Take for example the fact that atheists used to comprise a very small % of American populations, yet they managed to get the rest of society to dispose of the ten commandments from schools and other public places. When I look up the numbers now in a general search, it says: In the United States, between 6% and 15% of citizens demonstrated nonreligious attitudes and naturalistic worldviews, namely atheists or agnostics. Those numbers are higher now than they were back when it became illegal for public school teachers to display the Ten Commandments in their classrooms or for public schools to display them anywhere else in a school building. Maybe that was just one State? But it has had widespread reverberations. The same is true of the % of people who are homosexual or transgendered. Social views have changed drastically around these issues in the past few decades. Gallup estimates that 7.2% of the U.S. adult population is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. We used to have 2 genders. Now? Now it is ridiculous, and it has become against the law (at least in Canada) not to use a person's preferred pronoun. Someone mentioned in another thread that there are now 54 genders. How is that even possible? .

 

[Sculpt]

My innuendos, as you call them, aren't coming from thin air. I have a degree in Political Science, and have studied politics for more than 40 years. I'm fascinated as to why people choose the leadership they do.

American politics, as are all free societies, is driven primarily by cash. The saying...voting with your wallet...is most often true. People vote for their best financial interests, at least as they perceive them to be.
There are 2 things that can alter this voting pattern. The first is cause. When enough of the electorate is sufficiently stirred behind a cause, they will vote based on a desire to right a wrong.
The other thing that can alter the pattern of voting for personal gain is corruption. Americans have historically had little tolerance for unscrupulous leaders.

Because of the venue of this post, I have only given a basic premise and no evidence for the premise I have posited. I'll be glad to do so if you like. But a basic review of presidential elections in America bears this out...until very recently. From the 1970's to the 2012 election, I picked every winner of presidential elections based on the earlier premise I espoused.
According to my political theory, Obama should have lost in 2012. The cause on which he was elected he only exacerbated. And the economy never recovered from the 2008 bank failures.
Also, according to my political theory, Trump should have won the last election. Nearly every group in American society benefitted from the Trump presidency.
Something changed. Either the reasons Americans vote for candidates changed, or something else changed.

Now I will grant you that what I have laid out before you is simple in form, and elections are more complex than described here. But there has been plenty of evidence laid out on this site by @ZNP, @PennEd,@mailmandan, and others of voter fraud and irregularities to open national investigations into the matter. 2020 was not the most secure election ever, and not by a long shot. Should the matter be investigated. Certainly. Should I trust your evaluation. No. But not because I don't think you are truthful. I do. But you are hardly as skeptical as you should be. But mostly I don't accept your assessments because you don't have access to all the information. You believe your limited research is all there is. It would take an unhindered investigation by a neutral party interested only in truth, and who gains access to all pertinent records and testimony. This isn't likely to happen.

I hear ya, brother. See my last post.

Talking politics can be entertaining or an exhaust valve, but if it doesn't change anything, it's not worth much. I've followed a fair amount of the election fraud issues of 2020. It's not new to me either. I'm simply saying there's a line between what's proven and what's innuendo. I didn't see any evidence of mass fraud nor any to the extent that it changed the result. I can't say it didn't happen; I just would never state the vote was stolen unless I had proof. I think that's in keeping with christian values. I think innuendo in place of specific facts usually doesn't help.

I heard Rosanne Barr insinuate something about it may be impossible for Biden to have gotten 81 mil votes from 38 countries. Not sure what she meant cause she wasn't specific. I'm all ears to hearing about proposed mathematical impossibilities. Happy to test them. Or any specific evidence.

If one cares enough, they can investigate or support orgs that do. That's real change for good. Computerized voting is just stupid. America doesn't need to save money in regard to voting. I'm sure you agree.

 

[Sculpt]

I am not a very political person, and I do not have the time or inclination to start fact checking all the numbers and allegations and he-said she-saids. LOL. Just wanting to get that out of the way to say this: I have edited your post to just this snippet because that small percentage of society has historically wielded much influence over the course of events that have landed us where we are today. Take for example the fact that atheists used to comprise a very small % of American populations, yet they managed to get the rest of society to dispose of the ten commandments from schools and other public places. When I look up the numbers now in a general search, it says: In the United States, between 6% and 15% of citizens demonstrated nonreligious attitudes and naturalistic worldviews, namely atheists or agnostics. Those numbers are higher now than they were back when it became illegal for public school teachers to display the Ten Commandments in their classrooms or for public schools to display them anywhere else in a school building. Maybe that was just one State? But it has had widespread reverberations. The same is true of the % of people who are homosexual or transgendered. Social views have changed drastically around these issues in the past few decades. Gallup estimates that 7.2% of the U.S. adult population is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. We used to have 2 genders. Now? Now it is ridiculous, and it has become against the law (at least in Canada) not to use a person's preferred pronoun. Someone mentioned in another thread that there are now 54 genders. How is that even possible? .

Ten Commandments displayed in a public school is quite simply a complicated issue.

The founders of the US Constitution were against having a state church... like the Church of England, Roman Catholicism or inventing a new one. I certainly agree.

How to apply that premise to every issue is really difficult. Another premise is freedom of conscience. We don't want to force anyone to speak or do things against their conscience... as much as it is possible. Obviously, there's things that are going to be against the law regardless of personal conscious, like murder. With decentralization, local states and cities should have latitude to live the way they want.

Children should be allowed to pray in schools and learn the 10 Commandments at home, or at school in Social Studies. But I don't think there's a need for it to be hanging in a public school if local students/parents object to it. Spreading the gospel is more a person-to-person format, not a legislative format.

 

[Cameron143]

I hear ya, brother. See my last post.

Talking politics can be entertaining or an exhaust valve, but if it doesn't change anything, it's not worth much. I've followed a fair amount of the election fraud issues of 2020. It's not new to me either. I'm simply saying there's a line between what's proven and what's innuendo. I didn't see any evidence of mass fraud nor any to the extent that it changed the result. I can't say it didn't happen; I just would never state the vote was stolen unless I had proof. I think that's in keeping with christian values. I think innuendo in place of specific facts usually doesn't help.

I heard Rosanne Barr insinuate something about it may be impossible for Biden to have gotten 81 mil votes from 38 countries. Not sure what she meant cause she wasn't specific. I'm all ears to hearing about proposed mathematical impossibilities. Happy to test them. Or any specific evidence.

If one cares enough, they can investigate or support orgs that do. That's real change for good. Computerized voting is just stupid. America doesn't need to save money in regard to voting. I'm sure you agree.

I admire that you have a high regard for truth and facts, at least when it comes to elections. But I'm guessing you aren't so inclined in most areas of your life. For example, when your car breaks down, do you demand proof of the problem before you allow the vehicle to be fixed? When you go to the doctor's office, do you demand proof that a particular prescription will work? I'm guessing not.
Reasonable people draw conclusions from more than available facts. I do believe if all the facts were to be made known that it would be easily seen that the 2020 election was a sham. But it is the nature of lawbreakers to conceal their crimes and destroy evidence. This doesn't make innuendo wrong; just difficult to prove.

I wonder...do you believe O J Simpson was guilty of murder? Most people do. Yet he wasn't convicted. Are these people unreasonable? I don't think so. They drew their own conclusions based on the evidence and their own understanding and experience. That's what always happens when facts are only partial and the process of finding facts are difficult or deliberately manipulated and construed.

I don't need all the facts to know there was massive fraud in the elections. There has already been shown enough both to know it exists and something should be done to get to the bottom of it. But that isn't going to happen. But that doesn't make my claims of fraud wrong or innuendo. It just means that as a nation we have not thought it important enough to prove in a court of law. So if you are going to play the Christian card and tell me what is in line with Christian values, I have no problem with that. I'll even assume you mean well. Just don't assume for me a higher standard than your own.

 

[ZNP]

I am not a very political person, and I do not have the time or inclination to start fact checking all the numbers and allegations and he-said she-saids.

Well CNN is both political and has the money and resources to check the numbers and they have just discovered something alarming!

During the next presidential term Biden will be 86! They had no idea! He has already had two brain aneurisms and the cocaine medicine is not helping. Anyway in the spirit of democracy CNN is providing a list of 10 acceptable options to replace him (they are all suitably servile to the deep state). (This has nothing to do with the baseless allegations of corruption and all the so called "facts" like bank records and eye witness accounts. After all the biggest witness of the fraud they have is a crack head who didn't pay his taxes and can be convicted on numerous felonies. They will easily be able to discredit his testimony, pictures, bank records, emails, text messages, etc.)

 

[ZNP]

Ten Commandments displayed in a public school is quite simply a complicated issue.

The founders of the US Constitution were against having a state church... like the Church of England, Roman Catholicism or inventing a new one. I certainly agree.

How to apply that premise to every issue is really difficult. Another premise is freedom of conscience. We don't want to force anyone to speak or do things against their conscience... as much as it is possible. Obviously, there's things that are going to be against the law regardless of personal conscious, like murder. With decentralization, local states and cities should have latitude to live the way they want.

Children should be allowed to pray in schools and learn the 10 Commandments at home, or at school in Social Studies. But I don't think there's a need for it to be hanging in a public school if local students/parents object to it. Spreading the gospel is more a person-to-person format, not a legislative format.

Fine, why should you have to pay for public school if your kid is homeschooled or goes to a private school? This is "taxation without representation". Parent wants the child taught certain things, the school says they won't but you have to pay for the school anyway?

What has to happen is money taxed for education follows the child. If they are homeschooled it would create some regulatory issues, but I can see a church being used as a hub for homeschoolers, perhaps 50 or so kids could use that building as one of their resources and as one of the services the church could receive the money for these children to buy educational materials. In most states schools get $10-$12,000 per student. Churches could buy computers, books, school bus, and pay for trips as well as full time staff who help with the homeschooling.

 

[ZNP]

Who says Joe Biden can't draw a crowd!

Kari Lake GOES OFF WITH on Mass Voter Fraud CRIME From Coast To Coast |‘Fix This Or America is OVER’

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

As I predicted, a lot of people will attempt to dodge the question.

if he was to cut that beautiful hair he has and he was bald as a coot, who knows, maybe I would not vote for him then 😋

 

[ZNP]

As I predicted, a lot of people will attempt to dodge the question.

I didn't dodge the question, but I am still waiting for you to tell me what line Biden would have to cross.

 

[ZNP]

Maine Secretary of State Who REMOVED Trump From Ballot Getting IMPEACHED | Eff Around And FIND Out

She is mindful that no President has ever been removed from the ballot before and no president has ever been convicted of insurrection, but she has decided to go ahead and remove Trump from the ballot for insurrection because in her mind she should.

This is what the rule of law looks like in Joe Biden's America. Some unelected bureaucrat decides who you can and cannot vote for.

If you want to get technical you could say that Trump was exonerated of any insurrection charge, but there is no such thing as exoneration in this woke paradise of Joe Biden. If you don't get the ruling you want just go to another state, another judge, another AG until you find someone who will agree with you.

 

[Sculpt]

I admire that you have a high regard for truth and facts, at least when it comes to elections. But I'm guessing you aren't so inclined in most areas of your life. For example, when your car breaks down, do you demand proof of the problem before you allow the vehicle to be fixed? When you go to the doctor's office, do you demand proof that a particular prescription will work? I'm guessing not.

You'd be guessing wrong. I do my own research on new medications. Obviously, one can't be an expert on everything. On top of my own repair assessments, I'll get second onions from the experts (if we're talking about enough money). I think your next paragraph is tightly bound to the first, so I'll move on.

Reasonable people draw conclusions from more than available facts. I do believe if all the facts were to be made known that it would be easily seen that the 2020 election was a sham. But it is the nature of lawbreakers to conceal their crimes and destroy evidence. This doesn't make innuendo wrong; just difficult to prove.

There's apples and oranges. I can make a less informed decision about ice cream, but I'm not going to execute OJ.

Of course, corrupt people try to conceal... you think that means you can take action based on assumptions? So, you think there was election fraud but can't prove it... and what? You want yourself and others to take over, force a redo until you don't assume there was fraud? That's what you're saying right? That's not how our laws and constitution is set, and for good reason... you wouldn't want the opposition to take your attitude.

If that's not what you're saying, I already agreed with you: anyone who finds something fishy should go ahead research it and see if you can find proof of it. You find some holes and loopholes, then report it, lobby, hold protests to get them fixed.

I wonder...do you believe O J Simpson was guilty of murder? Most people do. Yet he wasn't convicted. Are these people unreasonable? I don't think so. They drew their own conclusions based on the evidence and their own understanding and experience. That's what always happens when facts are only partial and the process of finding facts are difficult or deliberately manipulated and construed.

I watched some reviews of the OJ trial. But I was not a juror, nor was I able to watch every minute of the trial. And that specifically means I'm disqualified to pronounce his guilt or innocence. Anyone who didn't see every minute of the trial can't know what they missed. They can have their fun declaring guilt or innocence. If they think they KNOW for sure just from what they've gleamed, I worry about them. Doesn't mean anyone needs to have OJ babysit their kids.

So, you're positive OJ is guilty? What you gonna do about it? Execute him?

I don't need all the facts to know there was massive fraud in the elections.

I don't see how you can know. That doesn't seem to bother you, but I think it should. Based on what you've posted in reply to me, I don't even see a reason to think it was likely.

There has already been shown enough both to know it exists and something should be done to get to the bottom of it. But that isn't going to happen.

There has been things done about the known fraud. Votes have been removed; prosecutions made. And nothing done about the "non-known" fraud. That's how our legal system works: innocent until proven guilty. You might appreciate that more if you can imagine being on the other side of the accusation.

But that doesn't make my claims of fraud wrong or innuendo.

It doesn't mean you're wrong, it just doesn't mean you're right. Which is why it's innuendo. Again, I'm just going by what you've posted to me in reply. There's 171 thread pages, I didn't read them all. If you want to cut and paste something, I'm all eyes.

It just means that as a nation we have not thought it important enough to prove in a court of law.

Many cases were taken to court. (Giuliani took some of the matters to courts.) Some were corrected and for some there was not enough evidence to act on it. Maybe there were some cases where more should have been done. Feel free to point out something specific.

So if you are going to play the Christian card and tell me what is in line with Christian values, I have no problem with that. I'll even assume you mean well. Just don't assume for me a higher standard than your own.

Where did I assume a higher standard for you that I didn't apply to myself?

 

[Cameron143]

You'd be guessing wrong. I do my own research on new medications. Obviously, one can't be an expert on everything. On top of my own repair assessments, I'll get second onions from the experts (if we're talking about enough money). I think your next paragraph is tightly bound to the first, so I'll move on.


There's apples and oranges. I can make a less informed decision about ice cream, but I'm not going to execute OJ.

Of course, corrupt people try to conceal... you think that means you can take action based on assumptions? So, you think there was election fraud but can't prove it... and what? You want yourself and others to take over, force a redo until you don't assume there was fraud? That's what you're saying right? That's not how our laws and constitution is set, and for good reason... you wouldn't want the opposition to take your attitude.

If that's not what you're saying, I already agreed with you: anyone who finds something fishy should go ahead research it and see if you can find proof of it. You find some holes and loopholes, then report it, lobby, hold protests to get them fixed.


I watched some reviews of the OJ trial. But I was not a juror, nor was I able to watch every minute of the trial. And that specifically means I'm disqualified to pronounce his guilt or innocence. Anyone who didn't see every minute of the trial can't know what they missed. They can have their fun declaring guilt or innocence. If they think they KNOW for sure just from what they've gleamed, I worry about them. Doesn't mean anyone needs to have OJ babysit their kids.

So, you're positive OJ is guilty? What you gonna do about it? Execute him?


I don't see how you can know. That doesn't seem to bother you, but I think it should. Based on what you've posted in reply to me, I don't even see a reason to think it was likely.


There has been things done about the known fraud. Votes have been removed; prosecutions made. And nothing done about the "non-known" fraud. That's how our legal system works: innocent until proven guilty. You might appreciate that more if you can imagine being on the other side of the accusation.


It doesn't mean you're wrong, it just doesn't mean you're right. Which is why it's innuendo. Again, I'm just going by what you've posted to me in reply. There's 171 thread pages, I didn't read them all. If you want to cut and paste something, I'm all eyes.


Many cases were taken to court. (Giuliani took some of the matters to courts.) Some were corrected and for some there was not enough evidence to act on it. Maybe there were some cases where more should have been done. Feel free to point out something specific.


Where did I assume a higher standard for you that I didn't apply to myself?

I'm not going to rehash everything. You are free to believe as you like. But there has been sufficient evidence given over the course of this thread to show massive fraud in the last election...from illegal law changes, malfunctioning machines, mules stuffing ballots in boxes, dead people voting, suddenly found stores of ballots, testimony of postal workers hauling ballots, illegals voting, illegal ballot harvesting.
Little of this has found its way into courtrooms. And that's not because there are no evidence. It's because there is no will to compel the evidence. When people come forward, the press dismisses and redirects the narrative. And those who could pursue the issues lack the fortitude to do so. If congress had pursued voter fraud the way they have pursued Biden's illegal political and business activity, we would have much to talk about.

I'll leave you with this: why did over 30 states change their voting laws after the 2020 election?

 

[Smoke]

You'd be guessing wrong. I do my own research on new medications. Obviously, one can't be an expert on everything. On top of my own repair assessments, I'll get second onions from the experts (if we're talking about enough money). I think your next paragraph is tightly bound to the first, so I'll move on.


There's apples and oranges. I can make a less informed decision about ice cream, but I'm not going to execute OJ.

Of course, corrupt people try to conceal... you think that means you can take action based on assumptions? So, you think there was election fraud but can't prove it... and what? You want yourself and others to take over, force a redo until you don't assume there was fraud? That's what you're saying right? That's not how our laws and constitution is set, and for good reason... you wouldn't want the opposition to take your attitude.

If that's not what you're saying, I already agreed with you: anyone who finds something fishy should go ahead research it and see if you can find proof of it. You find some holes and loopholes, then report it, lobby, hold protests to get them fixed.


I watched some reviews of the OJ trial. But I was not a juror, nor was I able to watch every minute of the trial. And that specifically means I'm disqualified to pronounce his guilt or innocence. Anyone who didn't see every minute of the trial can't know what they missed. They can have their fun declaring guilt or innocence. If they think they KNOW for sure just from what they've gleamed, I worry about them. Doesn't mean anyone needs to have OJ babysit their kids.

So, you're positive OJ is guilty? What you gonna do about it? Execute him?


I don't see how you can know. That doesn't seem to bother you, but I think it should. Based on what you've posted in reply to me, I don't even see a reason to think it was likely.


There has been things done about the known fraud. Votes have been removed; prosecutions made. And nothing done about the "non-known" fraud. That's how our legal system works: innocent until proven guilty. You might appreciate that more if you can imagine being on the other side of the accusation.


It doesn't mean you're wrong, it just doesn't mean you're right. Which is why it's innuendo. Again, I'm just going by what you've posted to me in reply. There's 171 thread pages, I didn't read them all. If you want to cut and paste something, I'm all eyes.


Many cases were taken to court. (Giuliani took some of the matters to courts.) Some were corrected and for some there was not enough evidence to act on it. Maybe there were some cases where more should have been done. Feel free to point out something specific.


Where did I assume a higher standard for you that I didn't apply to myself?

I haven't really noticed you posting prior to a week or so ago, but I have to say it's refreshing to find someone civil and objective. I enjoy your posts brother.

 

[ZNP]

He who shall not be named

COLLAPSE: Fox News 2023 Ratings TANK After FIRING Tucker: 'Worst in 10 Yrs!' Tucker Breaks

 

[ZNP]

Interesting analogy

OMG!!NEWS MEDIA is Corrupt!!… This was BROADCASTED live EVERYWHERE

 

[Sculpt]

I haven't really noticed you posting prior to a week or so ago, but I have to say it's refreshing to find someone civil and objective. I enjoy your posts brother.

Thank you, Smoke