jcocktosten posted:

Not really sure what Clinton has to do with the current situation. 

It doesn't. What the pathetic Trumpublicans do is engage in "whataboutism." Interestingly it comes from a technique that Russia tried during the cold war to deflect from their crimes and mistreatment of their own people. It also is known by the translated Russian phrase, "And you are lynching Negros."

jcocktosten posted:

Not really sure what Clinton has to do with the current situation.  In addition to everything else, he did not destabilize our system of government; attack the free press;  appoint completely incompetent people to every post; fill the judiciary with moronic ideologues . . .

Clinton's relevant only insofar as the historical lesson of unintended consequences that have arisen from impeachment proceedings.  The similarities between the public response to Clinton's impeachment and Trump's impeachment are interesting to me.  Ironically, impeachment increased the president's popularity in Clinton's case and the same seems to be happening with Trump. 

Speaker Pelosi has invited Pres. Trump to give the state of the union address to Congress on February 4.

Kumbaya.

 

csm posted:
jcocktosten posted:

Not really sure what Clinton has to do with the current situation.  In addition to everything else, he did not destabilize our system of government; attack the free press;  appoint completely incompetent people to every post; fill the judiciary with moronic ideologues . . .

Clinton's relevant only insofar as the historical lesson of unintended consequences that have arisen from impeachment proceedings.  The similarities between the public response to Clinton's impeachment and Trump's impeachment are interesting to me.  Ironically, impeachment increased the president's popularity in Clinton's case and the same seems to be happening with Trump. 

A bit of a stretch, csm.  Clinton had a pretty good approval rating, even after Starr accused him of lying under oath.  He was in the mid to upper 50%s, and rose to a 71% approval rating  after the articles of impeachment were brought against him.  He never fell below the low 60s after.

tRump was somewhere in the low 40s in late October, and even with a couple point pickup in the past week or so, is stuck at an unenviable 43% approval rating.  Apples and oranges, methinks.  I'll wager that the dotard will never hit 50% in his (hopefully) short tenure.

Most of us know that polls are of limited utility, but the difference between these men, and the difference in the circumstances of their impeachments is quite different.  When evangelical magazines start to bail on this guy, it's not a good sign for his longevity.  

PH

I have to say all of Washington is an absolute shit show.  The dems can't / won't even provide the articles to the Senate.  And then want to tell them how to run their trial.  A lot of chutzpah and hypocrisy. Listen, Trump is an extremely petty, narcissistic and I don't think a very religious person.  But his overall view of what Washington needed I think is quite right.

That place is a disaster.  Still rather have him than Hillary.  Although...the interview she did with Howard Stern was fairly entertaining and she came off well.   Lies too much (as does Trump).  But watching the Dem debate...none of them are beating Trump.  

Old man...going to be a rough four more years for you.

napacat posted:


Old man...going to be a rough four more years for you.

You seem to spend a lot of your time thinking about me. (I think of you only when you write one of your pathetic defenses of the bigot in chief's actions.)  As for your racist in chief winning, I've already said the bad guys sometimes win. And with dumb-clucks such as you and your ilk. it's certainly possible again.

"...and I don't think a very religious person." Gee, do you think? I'd settle for just half-way decent. You are truly pathetic.

Last edited by The Old Man

One of the great skills in life is keeping your mouth shut when you don't know something.  Instead of expressing an opinion on a topic about which you know nothing, You just remain silent and let the experts discuss it.

Well, I don't know anything about wind and these wind turbines.  I mean, I know that there is some energy associated with wind and that it would be nice to harness it, but I can't understand how these turbines can suck up the energy, store it, and deliver it, so you can flick on the lights. Actually, I'm not sure that is what the turbines do. I just don't understand it.   I don't understand it and I don't need/want to understand it. Therefore, I don't babble about how great they are or how horrible they are. 

But, not knowing about these things doesn't stop everyone from commenting upon them.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/don...mills-080051820.html

 

purplehaze posted:
csm posted:
jcocktosten posted:

Not really sure what Clinton has to do with the current situation.  In addition to everything else, he did not destabilize our system of government; attack the free press;  appoint completely incompetent people to every post; fill the judiciary with moronic ideologues . . .

Clinton's relevant only insofar as the historical lesson of unintended consequences that have arisen from impeachment proceedings.  The similarities between the public response to Clinton's impeachment and Trump's impeachment are interesting to me.  Ironically, impeachment increased the president's popularity in Clinton's case and the same seems to be happening with Trump. 

A bit of a stretch, csm.  Clinton had a pretty good approval rating, even after Starr accused him of lying under oath.  He was in the mid to upper 50%s, and rose to a 71% approval rating  after the articles of impeachment were brought against him.  He never fell below the low 60s after.

tRump was somewhere in the low 40s in late October, and even with a couple point pickup in the past week or so, is stuck at an unenviable 43% approval rating.  Apples and oranges, methinks.  I'll wager that the dotard will never hit 50% in his (hopefully) short tenure.

Most of us know that polls are of limited utility, but the difference between these men, and the difference in the circumstances of their impeachments is quite different.  When evangelical magazines start to bail on this guy, it's not a good sign for his longevity.  

PH

You mean after Clinton actually lied under oath

I didn't say they were identical, but there are some undeniable similarities I think.  The impeachment proceedings for both are correlated with a big jump in approval ratings .  I've seen polls, from the New Yorker, that say Trump up over 10% in approval rating, almost entirely from undecided/independent voters.  I've said all along, that the impeachment proceedings will be the best thing that ever happened to Trump and will ultimately be what gets him re-elected. 

csm posted:
purplehaze posted:
csm posted:
jcocktosten posted:

Not really sure what Clinton has to do with the current situation.  In addition to everything else, he did not destabilize our system of government; attack the free press;  appoint completely incompetent people to every post; fill the judiciary with moronic ideologues . . .

Clinton's relevant only insofar as the historical lesson of unintended consequences that have arisen from impeachment proceedings.  The similarities between the public response to Clinton's impeachment and Trump's impeachment are interesting to me.  Ironically, impeachment increased the president's popularity in Clinton's case and the same seems to be happening with Trump. 

A bit of a stretch, csm.  Clinton had a pretty good approval rating, even after Starr accused him of lying under oath.  He was in the mid to upper 50%s, and rose to a 71% approval rating  after the articles of impeachment were brought against him.  He never fell below the low 60s after.

tRump was somewhere in the low 40s in late October, and even with a couple point pickup in the past week or so, is stuck at an unenviable 43% approval rating.  Apples and oranges, methinks.  I'll wager that the dotard will never hit 50% in his (hopefully) short tenure.

Most of us know that polls are of limited utility, but the difference between these men, and the difference in the circumstances of their impeachments is quite different.  When evangelical magazines start to bail on this guy, it's not a good sign for his longevity.  

PH

You mean after Clinton actually lied under oath

I didn't say they were identical, but there are some undeniable similarities I think.  The impeachment proceedings for both are correlated with a big jump in approval ratings .  I've seen polls, from the New Yorker, that say Trump up over 10% in approval rating, almost entirely from undecided/independent voters.  I've said all along, that the impeachment proceedings will be the best thing that ever happened to Trump and will ultimately be what gets him re-elected. 

The fivethirtyeight website which I think is most reliable for polling as it's a weighted aggregate of polls based on the strength of each shows only modest growth in approval with Trump still deep underwater overall. 

irwin posted:

One of the great skills in life is keeping your mouth shut when you don't know something.  Instead of expressing an opinion on a topic about which you know nothing, You just remain silent and let the experts discuss it.

Well, I don't know anything about wind and these wind turbines.  I mean, I know that there is some energy associated with wind and that it would be nice to harness it, but I can't understand how these turbines can suck up the energy, store it, and deliver it, so you can flick on the lights. Actually, I'm not sure that is what the turbines do. I just don't understand it.   I don't understand it and I don't need/want to understand it. Therefore, I don't babble about how great they are or how horrible they are. 

But, not knowing about these things doesn't stop everyone from commenting upon them.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/don...mills-080051820.html

 

Electricity from wind turbines is only generated when the wind is blowing and turning the blades.  If the wind is not blowing wind the blades are not turning, then no electricity is generated.  Because of this, electricity is intermittent and electricity supply is not as dependable as electricity power generated by coal, gas, or nuclear plants.  This unreliability along with the cost of making and installing wind turbines along with a total life of 20years or less makes wind energy more expensive than traditional sources.  Also, wind turbines may be placed in remote areas which requires significant investments in transmission lines.  Not to mention they are real eyesores and kill a significant amount of birds.

thistlintom posted:
irwin posted:

One of the great skills in life is keeping your mouth shut when you don't know something.  Instead of expressing an opinion on a topic about which you know nothing, You just remain silent and let the experts discuss it.

Well, I don't know anything about wind and these wind turbines.  I mean, I know that there is some energy associated with wind and that it would be nice to harness it, but I can't understand how these turbines can suck up the energy, store it, and deliver it, so you can flick on the lights. Actually, I'm not sure that is what the turbines do. I just don't understand it.   I don't understand it and I don't need/want to understand it. Therefore, I don't babble about how great they are or how horrible they are. 

But, not knowing about these things doesn't stop everyone from commenting upon them.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/don...mills-080051820.html

 

Electricity from wind turbines is only generated when the wind is blowing and turning the blades.  If the wind is not blowing wind the blades are not turning, then no electricity is generated.  Because of this, electricity is intermittent and electricity supply is not as dependable as electricity power generated by coal, gas, or nuclear plants.  This unreliability along with the cost of making and installing wind turbines along with a total life of 20years or less makes wind energy more expensive than traditional sources.  Also, wind turbines may be placed in remote areas which requires significant investments in transmission lines.  Not to mention they are real eyesores and kill a significant amount of birds.

😂🤣... It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt! 

thistlintom posted:
irwin posted:

One of the great skills in life is keeping your mouth shut when you don't know something.  Instead of expressing an opinion on a topic about which you know nothing, You just remain silent and let the experts discuss it.

Well, I don't know anything about wind and these wind turbines.  I mean, I know that there is some energy associated with wind and that it would be nice to harness it, but I can't understand how these turbines can suck up the energy, store it, and deliver it, so you can flick on the lights. Actually, I'm not sure that is what the turbines do. I just don't understand it.   I don't understand it and I don't need/want to understand it. Therefore, I don't babble about how great they are or how horrible they are. 

But, not knowing about these things doesn't stop everyone from commenting upon them.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/don...mills-080051820.html

 

Electricity from wind turbines is only generated when the wind is blowing and turning the blades.  If the wind is not blowing wind the blades are not turning, then no electricity is generated.  Because of this, electricity is intermittent and electricity supply is not as dependable as electricity power generated by coal, gas, or nuclear plants.  This unreliability along with the cost of making and installing wind turbines along with a total life of 20years or less makes wind energy more expensive than traditional sources.  Also, wind turbines may be placed in remote areas which requires significant investments in transmission lines.  Not to mention they are real eyesores and kill a significant amount of birds.

My understanding is that they store their energy so if the wind is not blowing there is still no disruption in power. Nor do I find them to be eyesores.  They dot the landscape across acres of farmland near my hometown and I and others find them very calming. They do though kill some birds. 

bman posted:
thistlintom posted:
irwin posted:

One of the great skills in life is keeping your mouth shut when you don't know something.  Instead of expressing an opinion on a topic about which you know nothing, You just remain silent and let the experts discuss it.

Well, I don't know anything about wind and these wind turbines.  I mean, I know that there is some energy associated with wind and that it would be nice to harness it, but I can't understand how these turbines can suck up the energy, store it, and deliver it, so you can flick on the lights. Actually, I'm not sure that is what the turbines do. I just don't understand it.   I don't understand it and I don't need/want to understand it. Therefore, I don't babble about how great they are or how horrible they are. 

But, not knowing about these things doesn't stop everyone from commenting upon them.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/don...mills-080051820.html

 

Electricity from wind turbines is only generated when the wind is blowing and turning the blades.  If the wind is not blowing wind the blades are not turning, then no electricity is generated.  Because of this, electricity is intermittent and electricity supply is not as dependable as electricity power generated by coal, gas, or nuclear plants.  This unreliability along with the cost of making and installing wind turbines along with a total life of 20years or less makes wind energy more expensive than traditional sources.  Also, wind turbines may be placed in remote areas which requires significant investments in transmission lines.  Not to mention they are real eyesores and kill a significant amount of birds.

My understanding is that they store their energy so if the wind is not blowing there is still no disruption in power. Nor do I find them to be eyesores.  They dot the landscape across acres of farmland near my hometown and I and others find them very calming. They do though kill some birds. 

But the point of the original post is that Trump clearly knows nothing about them, contradicts himself in a single sentence and continues to make things up. No doubt his audience had a good laugh at his expense as does the rest of the world on a daily basis. 

bman posted:
My understanding is that they store their energy so if the wind is not blowing there is still no disruption in power. Nor do I find them to be eyesores.  They dot the landscape across acres of farmland near my hometown and I and others find them very calming. They do though kill some birds. 

The technology to "store" energy produced by wind turbines is still mostly undeveloped.  Typically, un-needed power is sold off to local utilities via the power grid.  When the turbines are not generating power due to lack of wind, power from other sources is available via the grid. No one I know of is proposing wind as a primary source of energy, however as costs continue to drop in this area, they will become an increasing percentage of the mix.

I think they're kind of creepy looking, and yes... they kill a lot of birds.  Nowhere near the number killed by the large glass enclosed skyscrapers that our president is so fond of building.

PH

Last edited by purplehaze

And please, could someone translate this for me?

We’ll have an economy based on wind. I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody. I know it’s very expensive. They’re made in China and Germany mostly — very few made here, almost none. But they’re manufactured tremendous — if you’re into this — tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint — fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything — right? So they make these things and then they put them up.

PH

purplehaze posted:

And please, could someone translate this for me?

We’ll have an economy based on wind. I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody. I know it’s very expensive. They’re made in China and Germany mostly — very few made here, almost none. But they’re manufactured tremendous — if you’re into this — tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint — fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything — right? So they make these things and then they put them up.

PH

Translation:

I’m a complete fuckhead, and proud of being the stupidest piece of shit in any room I walk into. The only persons capable of being anywhere close to me on the moron scale are the brainless assholes going to my rallies. They are followed closely by ignorant twats who copy and paste Fox bullshit to support the nonsense that comes out of my shithole of a mouth, or from my Putin-stroking fingers.

You’re welcome.

billhike posted:
purplehaze posted:

And please, could someone translate this for me?

We’ll have an economy based on wind. I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody. I know it’s very expensive. They’re made in China and Germany mostly — very few made here, almost none. But they’re manufactured tremendous — if you’re into this — tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint — fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything — right? So they make these things and then they put them up.

PH

 

Translation:

I’m a complete fuckhead, and proud of being the stupidest piece of shit in any room I walk into. The only persons capable of being anywhere close to me on the moron scale are the brainless assholes going to my rallies. They are followed closely by ignorant twats who copy and paste Fox bullshit to support the nonsense that comes out of my shithole of a mouth, or from my Putin-stroking fingers.

You’re welcome.

 

thistlintom posted:

Electricity from wind turbines is only generated when the wind is blowing and turning the blades.  If the wind is not blowing wind the blades are not turning, then no electricity is generated.  Because of this, electricity is intermittent and electricity supply is not as dependable as electricity power generated by coal, gas, or nuclear plants.  This unreliability along with the cost of making and installing wind turbines along with a total life of 20years or less makes wind energy more expensive than traditional sources.  Also, wind turbines may be placed in remote areas which requires significant investments in transmission lines.  Not to mention they are real eyesores and kill a significant amount of birds.

"You know, I know windmills very much. I've studied it better than anybody I know,"

Well there is thistlintom .

This quotation from Pres. Trump is one reason I like Mayor Pete.  Mayor B. speaks 7 languages, which is 7 more than the current President.

purplehaze posted:

And please, could someone translate this for me?

We’ll have an economy based on wind. I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much. I’ve studied it better than anybody. I know it’s very expensive. They’re made in China and Germany mostly — very few made here, almost none. But they’re manufactured tremendous — if you’re into this — tremendous fumes. Gases are spewing into the atmosphere. You know we have a world, right? So the world is tiny compared to the universe. So tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. You talk about the carbon footprint — fumes are spewing into the air. Right? Spewing. Whether it’s in China, Germany, it’s going into the air. It’s our air, their air, everything — right? So they make these things and then they put them up.

PH

“I confirm yet again I am truly dumber than I look.......”

bman posted:

The fivethirtyeight website which I think is most reliable for polling as it's a weighted aggregate of polls based on the strength of each shows only modest growth in approval with Trump still deep underwater overall. 

What you think, frankly, is irrelevant.  I was citing a recent poll from the New Yorker, hardly the equivalent of Fox News or a non-credible source, that showed Trump's approval rating was up by 10 or so points, with the support coming mostly from independents. 

While it may or may not result in a Trump re-election, it's clear that the impeachment proceedings have generated a positive bump in approval for the sitting president.  Interesting development and the opposite of what one might expect.  

Last edited by csm
bman posted:

My understanding is that they store their energy so if the wind is not blowing there is still no disruption in power. Nor do I find them to be eyesores.  They dot the landscape across acres of farmland near my hometown and I and others find them very calming. They do though kill some birds. 

You may want to check on that.  My understanding from some folks that are in the energy industry, both green and traditional, is that the energy generated by wind turbines, solar, and other sources can't in fact be stored, the result of which is that Ontario often needs to pay Michigan or New York to take the power off our hands if the grid is already at capacity.  That's right, the green energy produced by those things (and they are eyesores in my opinion) costs the province of Ontario a ton of money in leasing fees to the farmers on whose land they sit, and additional money, not in selling the power, but in paying others to take it off our hands.  

The Old Man posted:

How to Store Renewable Energy

It can be done, but the initial costs are very high.

The costs are extremely high and cannot store much electricity, so if you have no wind for a few days, you are screwed.  Currently uneconomical.  CSM is right about the problems with intermittent energy production by wind farms.  The only reliable source If electricity without CO2 emissions that we have right now is nuclear and to some extent hydropower.

ProSys posted:
winetarelli posted:

Holy Moses, Rudy!

Referring to this?

http://nymag.com/intelligencer...tter_impression=true

Yep.

>>

As we sped uptown, he spoke in monologue about the scandal he co-created, weaving one made-up talking point into another and another. He said former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, whom he calls Santa Maria Yovanovitch, is “controlled” by George Soros. “He put all four ambassadors there. And he’s employing the FBI agents.” I told him he sounded crazy, but he insisted he wasn’t.

“Don’t tell me I’m anti-Semitic if I oppose him,” he said. “Soros is hardly a Jew. I’m more of a Jew than Soros is. I probably know more about — he doesn’t go to church, he doesn’t go to religion — synagogue. He doesn’t belong to a synagogue, he doesn’t support Israel, he’s an enemy of Israel. He’s elected eight anarchist DA’s in the United States. He’s a horrible human being.”

In the grand tradition of Soros conspiracy theorists, Giuliani believes the media is doing the billionaire’s bidding by printing lies about him, yet he often bungles his own attempts to discredit the media’s reporting. While attempting to argue that, despite what has been written, “I have no business interests in Ukraine,” he told me about his business interests in Ukraine.

<<

The whole thing is remarkable and maddening.

 

 

 

 

csm posted:
bman posted:

The fivethirtyeight website which I think is most reliable for polling as it's a weighted aggregate of polls based on the strength of each shows only modest growth in approval with Trump still deep underwater overall. 

What you think, frankly, is irrelevant.  I was citing a recent poll from the New Yorker, hardly the equivalent of Fox News or a non-credible source, that showed Trump's approval rating was up by 10 or so points, with the support coming mostly from independents. 

While it may or may not result in a Trump re-election, it's clear that the impeachment proceedings have generated a positive bump in approval for the sitting president.  Interesting development and the opposite of what one might expect.  

At the risk of offending you further by offering my thoughts, I think you may be confusing a Gallup poll published in New York magazine (but not their poll) with something in the New Yorker.

Here is the latter, which actually quotes another very reliable and highly respected aggregate poller, realclearpolitics as showing that impeachment has hardly moved the polls at all, though that was a couple of weeks ago:

https://www.newyorker.com/news...n-for-democrats.html

New York magazine however shares a newer Gallup poll showing Trump's approval rating is up 6 points (not 10 though) since the start of the impeachment inquiry.  That story is here:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer...ng-more-popular.html

Though neither shows a jump of 10 points as you claim above.  So perhaps there is a newer New Yorker piece that google couldn't find.. Or another magazine with New York in the title perhaps?  Or perhaps you meant the rather consistent 10 point gap between Trump's unfavourability and favourability ratings  (52.8/42.7) as shown here: 

https://projects.fivethirtyeig...ings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Whatever the answer, feel free to share the link to the 10 point rise you mention above.

Also, contrary to what you suggest, based on the only recent example at least, it should not be surprising that Trump's approval rating has risen since the impeachment as the same thing happened to Bill Clinton, based on Gallup's polling then:

"the onset of the publicity surrounding the Lewinsky revelations was correlated with a significant jump in Clinton's job approval rating, and the two quarters during which the House and Senate debated impeachment and conviction -- 4th quarter 1998 and 1st quarter 1999 -- saw the public give Bill Clinton the highest job approval ratings of any of the 25 quarters of the Clinton administration to date."

 

After coming back from vacation, there seems to be an inordinate amount of dog poop in lawns and parkways in my neighborhood. I’m considering getting a BB rifle to carry while walking our pooch. Every time I see a dog crapping, if the owner doesn’t pick it up the human gets two in the ass. 

Last edited by billhike
billhike posted:

After coming back from vacation, there seems to be an inordinate amount of dog poop in lawns and parkways in my neighborhood. I’m considering getting a BB rifle to carry while walking our pooch. Every time I see a dog crapping, if the owner doesn’t pick it up the human gets two in the ass. 

The dog or the owner?  Or both?

bman posted:
billhike posted:

After coming back from vacation, there seems to be an inordinate amount of dog poop in lawns and parkways in my neighborhood. I’m considering getting a BB rifle to carry while walking our pooch. Every time I see a dog crapping, if the owner doesn’t pick it up the human gets two in the ass. 

The dog or the owner?  Or both?

It’s not the dogs fault, it’s just doing what it’s supposed to be doing.  Now the owner deserves to be shot multiple times

I'm in Palm Desert right now. Looking at the windmills. They are lit up in the distance and look lovely. The wind always blows through this valley. The generate a lot of clean energy and are another source of clean energy as is solar. Never were they intended to be a sole source nor should they be. Nothing wrong with multiple sources of power. It's preferred and smart to diversify

thistlintom posted:
bman posted:
billhike posted:

After coming back from vacation, there seems to be an inordinate amount of dog poop in lawns and parkways in my neighborhood. I’m considering getting a BB rifle to carry while walking our pooch. Every time I see a dog crapping, if the owner doesn’t pick it up the human gets two in the ass. 

The dog or the owner?  Or both?

It’s not the dogs fault, it’s just doing what it’s supposed to be doing.  Now the owner deserves to be shot multiple times

I did say the human gets the butt pellets. 
I have an intense dislike for irresponsible pet owners, and also those that don’t reciprocate the fondness that their animals usually show to the human. 

With marijuana legalized for recreational use in a few more states how much longer will it be until someone starts a "what weed are you smoking " thread?

Last edited by bomba503
bomba503 posted:

With marijuana legalized for recreational use in a few more states how much longer will it be until someone starts a "what weed are you smoking " thread?

We might learn some unexpected things about a few forumites. 

Dan Snyder walks up to introduce his new head coach and wishes everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 😂.  

Sounds like he might be a fan of the orange dump in the White House! 

wineart 2 posted:

Dan Snyder walks up to introduce his new head coach and wishes everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 😂.  

Sounds like he might be a fan of the orange dump in the White House! 

Sounds more like Biden

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×