Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:39 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,451
Canadian. He'd apologize.
  #252  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:08 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I get that concern. As a Warren/Sanders supporter (order changes day by day), that freaking terrifies me. And someone who supports Biden because they think he's more electable? Totally a reasonable position.

At the same time, I worry that that's the sort of thinking Republicans had in 2016 about Trump, during the primary; and I worry that's the same sort of thinking that Democrats had about Sanders in 2016, during the primary. Democrats chose the electable candidate. Republicans chose the immoderate blunt-talking populist candidate, the clearly unsafe, unelectable candidate.

And Republicans won with theirs, and Democrats lost with theirs.
This is an interesting narrative mainly because it shows a tendency I find to be almost universal with "very liberal" Democrats, which I'll define as Sanders supporters generally and probably "most" Warren supporters. There's a built in concept that the only valid reason someone would have supported Hillary in 2016 or Biden in 2020, is because they believe those candidates were more electable. It entirely discounts that non-progressive Democrats even exist, and it almost furthers this idea that all Democrats are "very liberal" and only vote moderate out of...fear?

I'm not a Democrat, haven't been involved in local Democratic party politics like I have been with Republican politics, etc; but as an outsider looking in I actually think the reality is a lot of Democrats are genuinely moderate, centrist, or even (a shrinking portion) conservative. These are people picking the more moderate candidate because the voter is actually more moderate than Sanders or etc.

Quote:
Real Clear Politics shows that Sanders beats trump by an average of 3.5 points. Biden's got a 4.6 spread. Warren's got a 1.0 spread. Those are all pretty close to one another, especially the Sanders and Biden.
There's decent evidence out there that maybe any non-Hillary Democrat can just beat Trump straight up, and we're al fighting over nothing. I'm not sure anyone can be honest and intelligent AND think they know the answer to this for sure though.

Quote:
I hear from a lot of midroad Trump supporters a complete disgust with politicians in general, a belief that they're all liars in it for themselves. I think that there are some establishment Democrats who feel the same way about Sanders, but there are also some voters who see Sanders as more honest than Biden, or even Warren (as someone who likes Warren a touch more than Sanders, I'd agree Sanders is more honest than Warren).

The polling is complicated and fraught. Anyone who's claiming certainty about how a Sanders/Trump matchup would go, especially compared to how a Biden/Trump matchup went, didn't learn the fundamental lesson of humility that 2016 tried to teach.
I think there's definitely some element of people who like any outsider candidate, which would probably benefit Bernie and not Biden, and that benefited Trump. Given the available evidence I don't know that I believe that makes Bernie a slam dunk win, and I have serious concerns when the full nature and scope of how he plans to implement his policies is given the full glare of a general election campaign, he could collapse to Dukakis or Mondale levels of failure.

I'm honestly kind of blase about it and generally disengaged from politics at this point. I'll admit to having "lost some of it" when my party that I'd supported my entire life just went so far off the edge I realized it'd never recover. I know that I'll vote for most Democrats, I know I cannot vote for Bernie Sanders. I'm one vote, in Virginia, so like I said before you guys don't really need me. I would like to see a non-Sanders Democrat nominated though, because I'd like to see Trump defeated and I genuinely believe Sanders is the highest risk nominee. I don't think any of the current slate of Dems is a slam dunker though.
  #253  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:13 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
This is an interesting narrative mainly because it shows a tendency I find to be almost universal with "very liberal" Democrats, which I'll define as Sanders supporters generally and probably "most" Warren supporters. There's a built in concept that the only valid reason someone would have supported Hillary in 2016 or Biden in 2020, is because they believe those candidates were more electable. It entirely discounts that non-progressive Democrats even exist, and it almost furthers this idea that all Democrats are "very liberal" and only vote moderate out of...fear?
I apologize if I gave that impression. Certainly there are some Clintonites who like her conservative Democrat policies, no doubt.

But I wasn't responding to them. I was responding to your specific doubts about Sanders's electability. It's a little odd for you to raise those doubts, and then when I raise similar doubts about Clinton, to act like I'm saying nobody likes her policies.

Quote:
There's decent evidence out there that maybe any non-Hillary Democrat can just beat Trump straight up, and we're al fighting over nothing. I'm not sure anyone can be honest and intelligent AND think they know the answer to this for sure though.
And that's what I'm saying. There are good reasons to doubt Sanders's electability. But there are also good reasons to doubt Biden's, based on what happened in 2016.
  #254  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:44 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,677
I find it interesting that Hillary Clinton spends a lot more time and energy publicly denouncing Bernie Sanders, who's worst crime is not agreeing with her politically, than she does with former close friends like Harvey Weinstein who's now well-known for decades of sexual harassment which he used his connections with her and her husband to cover up or war criminal Henry Kissinger. She seems much more interested in slinging mud at a politician who seems to be doing significantly better than her than she is in say, making amends to the people she indirectly helped victimize or even saying a single bad thing about someone with a body count of 3-4 million people, and I know I'd personally rather hang with 'Bernie Bros' than sex offenders and war criminals.
  #255  
Old 01-24-2020, 03:04 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Yes, it's really really interesting that Hillary is asked and volunteers to talk about politics rather than Weinstein's rape trial. After all, her life has been spent in the backrooms of Hollywood. Her 2016 campaign is ancient history, why would anyone be interested in her opinion of Sanders now?

Veeeeery interesting
  #256  
Old 01-24-2020, 10:32 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yes, it's really really interesting that Hillary is asked and volunteers to talk about politics rather than Weinstein's rape trial. After all, her life has been spent in the backrooms of Hollywood. Her 2016 campaign is ancient history, why would anyone be interested in her opinion of Sanders now?
Yep - the fact that Hillary is willing to keep defending and associating with war criminal Henry Kissinger, who's responsible for the deaths of 3-4 million people (though most of them are brown so don't actually matter to a lot of people) and to deny any responsibility for her long association with a serial sex abuser who used his connection with her to silence people with a simple 'oh, how could I have known anything about this open secret' is a good bit of information to keep in mind about her.

I am interested in her opinion of Sanders now, but not in the way that you mean - the fact that she's interested in spending what political capital she has left decrying one of the front runners in the attempt to get Trump out of office rather than getting behind 'get him out at any cost' makes it even more clear how bankrupt the 'if you don't vote for the Democratic candidate you're voting for Trump' line of argument is. And the fact that she's fine with lionizing war criminal Henry Kissinger really underscores the kind of person and politician that she is. You would think that "I will not support any candidate who thinks that carpet bombing civilians in a country that we haven't even declared war on is acceptable behavior" would be a non-controversial position, but that's what her continued praise of Kissinger means in practice. And while her 2016 campaign attempted to paint her as the non-harassing alternative to Trump, it turns out that, while she doesn't do that herself, she has close friends who do and she keeps associating with them even when what they do is well-known, as long as it's not provable.

Mostly it makes me regret my 'hold your nose and vote for her' vote in 2016 even more.
  #257  
Old 01-24-2020, 10:38 AM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I apologize if I gave that impression. Certainly there are some Clintonites who like her conservative Democrat policies, no doubt.
I mean I don't even agree she's a "conservative Democrat", her platform in 2016 was the most liberal the party has ever put forward. A conservative Democrat is someone like Jim Webb, Hillary certainly isn't Bernie Sanders but he is so far left that he has largely chosen to not be a part of the Democratic party for most of his career.

Quote:
But I wasn't responding to them. I was responding to your specific doubts about Sanders's electability. It's a little odd for you to raise those doubts, and then when I raise similar doubts about Clinton, to act like I'm saying nobody likes her policies.
Well it's not odd when you literally say:

Quote:
At the same time, I worry that that's the sort of thinking Republicans had in 2016 about Trump, during the primary; and I worry that's the same sort of thinking that Democrats had about Sanders in 2016, during the primary. Democrats chose the electable candidate. Republicans chose the immoderate blunt-talking populist candidate, the clearly unsafe, unelectable candidate.
I'm simply responding to what has been posted.

Quote:
And that's what I'm saying. There are good reasons to doubt Sanders's electability. But there are also good reasons to doubt Biden's, based on what happened in 2016.
Sure, agreed. I don't even think electability should be a real topic of discussion because it's always phrased as some sort of ephemeral attribute. I think it's more helpful to actually be direct:

Is this person going to be able to win this specific election? Is this person the most likely candidate who can win this specific election? Will this person make a good President?

All of those are important questions in a primary. I never doubted Trump could win in 2016, but as a Republican I advocated strongly against his nomination because I felt he would be a disastrous President, I also felt his Presidency would represent a sort of "own goal." A short term win that makes die hard conservatives strut around and be happy, but sets conservatism up for a generational period "lost in the woods" when the reckoning comes. The first two predictions I made were true, the third hasn't yet, but I still suspect it will.
  #258  
Old 01-24-2020, 10:39 AM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Yep - the fact that Hillary is willing to keep defending and associating with war criminal Henry Kissinger, who's responsible for the deaths of 3-4 million people (though most of them are brown so don't actually matter to a lot of people) and to deny any responsibility for her long association with a serial sex abuser who used his connection with her to silence people with a simple 'oh, how could I have known anything about this open secret' is a good bit of information to keep in mind about her.

I am interested in her opinion of Sanders now, but not in the way that you mean - the fact that she's interested in spending what political capital she has left decrying one of the front runners in the attempt to get Trump out of office rather than getting behind 'get him out at any cost' makes it even more clear how bankrupt the 'if you don't vote for the Democratic candidate you're voting for Trump' line of argument is. And the fact that she's fine with lionizing war criminal Henry Kissinger really underscores the kind of person and politician that she is. You would think that "I will not support any candidate who thinks that carpet bombing civilians in a country that we haven't even declared war on is acceptable behavior" would be a non-controversial position, but that's what her continued praise of Kissinger means in practice. And while her 2016 campaign attempted to paint her as the non-harassing alternative to Trump, it turns out that, while she doesn't do that herself, she has close friends who do and she keeps associating with them even when what they do is well-known, as long as it's not provable.

Mostly it makes me regret my 'hold your nose and vote for her' vote in 2016 even more.
Henry Kissinger isn't a war criminal. Hillary does not maintain a relationship with Harvey Weinstein.
  #259  
Old 01-24-2020, 10:43 AM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yes, it's really really interesting that Hillary is asked and volunteers to talk about politics rather than Weinstein's rape trial. After all, her life has been spent in the backrooms of Hollywood. Her 2016 campaign is ancient history, why would anyone be interested in her opinion of Sanders now?

Veeeeery interesting
1. No one questioned Mitt Romney, John Kerry, John McCain, or any other number of "Presidential losers" who proffered opinions to the press. Anyone who is a major party nominee for President is a serious and famous political figure. It is neither surprising or unusual for them to offer opinions on politics to the press. Ex-Presidents generally refrain, out of respect for seeming to try to influence politics after their Presidency ended. But there's no such normal convention for "Presidential losers", and many such election losers actually continue to have careers in politics--Kerry as Secretary of State, McCain continued as Senator from Arizona until his death, Romney is now a Senator from Utah etc. The fact that people are acting like Hillary proffering an opinion is improper or weird shows a pervasive and frankly, probably gendered/sexist, negative obsession with Hillary that clouded a lot of people's thinking in 2016.

Now, all that being said, I personally don't care about Hillary's opinions. I'm a conservative and I only voted for her to stop Trump and because she hadn't strayed so far left that I was unwilling to vote for her even to do that, but c. 2020 her opinion doesn't matter to me. I don't have any problem with her expressing it though, and neither should anyone else. She has earned the right to express her opinions.

2. The idea that Hillary has spent most of her life hanging out in "Hollywood backrooms" is false and deceptive.

3. People are interested in her opinion because she's a famous politician, this isn't weird. As evidence that it isn't weird many other (male) politicians in similar shoes have been asked opinions and it wasn't considered controversial for them to express them.
  #260  
Old 01-24-2020, 11:09 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
I was being sarcastic and mocking the idea that Clinton should be spending her time denouncing Weinstein.
  #261  
Old 01-24-2020, 11:11 AM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
1. No one questioned Mitt Romney, John Kerry, John McCain, or any other number of "Presidential losers" who proffered opinions to the press. Anyone who is a major party nominee for President is a serious and famous political figure. It is neither surprising or unusual for them to offer opinions on politics to the press. Ex-Presidents generally refrain, out of respect for seeming to try to influence politics after their Presidency ended. But there's no such normal convention for "Presidential losers", and many such election losers actually continue to have careers in politics--Kerry as Secretary of State, McCain continued as Senator from Arizona until his death, Romney is now a Senator from Utah etc. The fact that people are acting like Hillary proffering an opinion is improper or weird shows a pervasive and frankly, probably gendered/sexist, negative obsession with Hillary that clouded a lot of people's thinking in 2016.

Now, all that being said, I personally don't care about Hillary's opinions. I'm a conservative and I only voted for her to stop Trump and because she hadn't strayed so far left that I was unwilling to vote for her even to do that, but c. 2020 her opinion doesn't matter to me. I don't have any problem with her expressing it though, and neither should anyone else. She has earned the right to express her opinions.

2. The idea that Hillary has spent most of her life hanging out in "Hollywood backrooms" is false and deceptive.

3. People are interested in her opinion because she's a famous politician, this isn't weird. As evidence that it isn't weird many other (male) politicians in similar shoes have been asked opinions and it wasn't considered controversial for them to express them.
Yeah, itís interesting how rare it is for the losing candidate to not speak up. Michael Dukakis became almost invisible after 1988 and Gore has been pretty quiet.

Some of that may be due to that Dukakis was a governor and sought no other offices after his term ran out and Gore turned to environmental activism.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #262  
Old 01-24-2020, 11:31 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
Well it's not odd when you literally say:



I'm simply responding to what has been posted.
As was I. You brought up electability. I showed it was a two-edged sword. That's all.
  #263  
Old 01-24-2020, 12:11 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
Henry Kissinger isn't a war criminal. Hillary does not maintain a relationship with Harvey Weinstein.
There's also the simple fact that she is just answering honestly and bluntly the questions she is being asked, which are apparently the questions that some care about hearing what she has to say something about.

Very few give two shits about what she thinks about Kissinger (we already know she did not think him evil incarnate and respected his intelligence) and what she has to say about Weinstein isn't likely to interest many much. If the documentary maker asked them (I doubt) they may not air the questions/answers because they would be boring.


FWIW to the question of voting for any Democrat over Trump ... I'd have a hard time with Gabbard. I think that she would be even more Putin manipulable than Trump is, and long term even more harmful as she would damage all Ds with generational impacts. Even another Trump term would be less harmful than her.
  #264  
Old 01-24-2020, 12:14 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Elizabeth Warren refuses to defend Bernie about the nobody likes him allegation.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...ot-going-there

The very slim of support from any of Sanders colleagues in the Senate goes to show why he’d be a horrible president. Bullheaded stubbornness and my way or the highway might be good traits if you’re looking to hire a football coach, but not in a President.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #265  
Old 01-24-2020, 12:24 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Elizabeth Warren refuses to defend Bernie about the nobody likes him allegation.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...ot-going-there.
Good on her. There's no percentage in Warren getting drawn into Clinton's bullshit drama, nor in letting herself be baited by reporters looking for juicy gossip. This campaign shouldn't be about that. Dale, you should take some pointers from Warren.
  #266  
Old 01-24-2020, 12:58 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Good on her. There's no percentage in Warren getting drawn into Clinton's bullshit drama, nor in letting herself be baited by reporters looking for juicy gossip. This campaign shouldn't be about that. Dale, you should take some pointers from Warren.
Iím a loudmouth on Twitter and a nobody on a message board, standards are different for me than a senator or candidate.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #267  
Old 01-24-2020, 01:09 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
But why be a loudmouth? You often display the traits you hate in the Berniest of Bernie Bros. It's certainly not the way Mayor Pete asks his supporters to act, istm. I remember a while back you going off on Sanders' wife. Nobody can take you seriously when you're so venomous.
  #268  
Old 01-24-2020, 01:38 PM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 550
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Hasn't she embarrassed herself enough? What's she angling at with this? A VP consolation prize from whoever ends up beating Bernie to the nomination?
She is already past her sell-by date. Maybe a decade ago. Who cares now what she says or does? If she had any sense, she would see that any influence she has is negative. She isn't a kingmaker, she isn't anything but a has-been.
  #269  
Old 01-24-2020, 02:36 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brayne Ded View Post
... Who cares now what she says or does? ...
[Checks thread and sees that it is on page 6 and that the story gets airplay.]

Apparently quite a few people.

It really isn't her fault that people do. And I really do believe that she is just saying what she honestly thinks in response to questions she is asked and enjoying the freedom she finally has to not think about whether or not she should say it anymore.
  #270  
Old 01-26-2020, 09:17 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
Henry Kissinger isn't a war criminal.
You help sabotage a peace settlement just so the other party can't take credit for ending the war, then help keep the war going for another 4 years, resulting in additional hundreds of thousands of deaths in that country, plus bombing and destabilizing two neighboring countries, resulting in even more deaths there - fuck yeah, he's a war criminal.
  #271  
Old 01-27-2020, 10:27 AM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
Just because leftists like Christopher Hitchens and Seymour Hersh claim Kissinger is a war criminal, that doesn't approach proof. Kissinger isn't even in the direct chain of command for U.S. military activities so it's very unlikely any such charges would ever be sustained against him if they had ever been prosecuted. He was an adviser to Nixon and largely took actions in line with most 20th century American Secretaries of State.
  #272  
Old 01-27-2020, 11:35 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
Henry Kissinger isn't a war criminal. Hillary does not maintain a relationship with Harvey Weinstein.
Carpet bombing civilians in a country we're not even at war with is a war crime. Hillary did maintain a relationship with Harvey Weinstein up until his crimes became to obvious to feign ignorance of, and defends her previous association with him through a dismissive 'oh, well I couldn't know about the open secret that even people who don't follow hollywood news have heard of'. If Hillary supporters are going to keep ranting about 'Bernie Bros' with its shifting definition, I think it's only fair to look at 'Hillary Bros', and the fact that "Hillary Bros" are people who like carpet bombing civilians and sexually assaulting women is pretty damning.
  #273  
Old 01-27-2020, 11:42 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
There are no Hillary supporters because she's not running for anything. But when she was, she did indeed get some grief for her friendliness towards Kissinger. Not the Weinstein thing though, cause that's a little whacky.
  #274  
Old 01-27-2020, 12:14 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Carpet bombing civilians in a country we're not even at war with is a war crime. Hillary did maintain a relationship with Harvey Weinstein up until his crimes became to obvious to feign ignorance of, and defends her previous association with him through a dismissive 'oh, well I couldn't know about the open secret that even people who don't follow hollywood news have heard of'. If Hillary supporters are going to keep ranting about 'Bernie Bros' with its shifting definition, I think it's only fair to look at 'Hillary Bros', and the fact that "Hillary Bros" are people who like carpet bombing civilians and sexually assaulting women is pretty damning.
Cite that Henry Kissinger has ever dropped a single bomb in his entire life. Kissinger to my knowledge doesn't even know how to fly an airplane. So he never personally dropped a bomb. So did he order bombs to be dropped? I'd question how that could occur, the Secretary of State can't order the lowest private in the armed forces to make him a ham sandwich, let alone order a bombing campaign.

Even if what you allege is true (which legally it can't be, since SecState isn't in the military chain of command), large scale bombing is not a war crime under treaties to which the U.S. is bound. [As a note: Protocol I is an amendment to the Geneva Convention, issued in 1977, that does make "carpet bombing" a war crime. The United States signed it but has never ratified it, meaning we are not participants in it, although I believe our military essentially follows it as if it was ratified. However note that this amendment to the GC did not happen until 1977, years after Kissinger was out of office.] Under the law that the U.S. adhered to in 1968-1972 it is only a war crime if there is no legitimate military interest and the only purpose is to deliberately target and kill civilians.
  #275  
Old 01-27-2020, 12:19 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
After all, her life has been spent in the backrooms of Hollywood.
What the ever-loving fuck are you talking about?
  #276  
Old 01-27-2020, 12:37 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
I already explained that was sarcasm.
  #277  
Old 01-27-2020, 01:22 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
A new NYT article (may be paywalled) about Bernie’s troll army.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/u...ters-2020.html

So glad he’s getting some vetting as his support is so strong. Everyone gets their time under the microscope. Bernie never really got that in 2016, but this race is different and Bernie is leading a lot of polls not just a novelty septuagenarian worshipped by millennials.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017