It's Official--Tulsi to be Screwed Out of 3rd Debate!!

Well, folks, Tulsi needs 2 more polls at 2% or more from "qualified" polls to be included in the September debates by August 28.

There will only be one more qualifying poll (a Monmouth national poll) before the August 28 deadline that will appear on Monday. Ergo, Tulsi will not be included in the September debates, even if she hits 2% or more in the Monmouth poll. Historically, Tulsi has done worst in Monmouth polls.

Including the Monmouth poll coming on Monday, there have been only 5 qualifying polls released since the second debate. Curiously, many qualifying pollsters, such as CBS, NBC, ABC, USA Today, and many others have not done any polling since that debate. Conspiracy anyone?!?

This despite Tulsi having polled in non-qualifying polls at 5% and 3% in New Hampshire (Gravis and Boston Globe, respectively), 2% in South Carolina (Post and Courier), and 2% in Nevada (Gravis), as well as 2% in a national poll that does not qualify (Economist). These are all respected pollsters, many of which are rated more high in accuracy than many of the qualifying pollsters.

The only possible bright side is that some qualifying polls may come out after the 3rd debate that Tulsi may make the 2% level needed, and then be included in the 4th (October) debate. Say, for example, if NBC and CBS poll New Hampshire after the September debates and Tulsi continues her heavy campaigning there.

Even if so, it has been announced that the DNC will be raising the requirements for the November (5th) and subsequent debates.

Share
up
27 users have voted.

Comments

Pluto's Republic's picture

We live in a different world now

Trump policies suit our overlords, and his policies costs them nothing. The people pick up the entire tab, and the people and their offspring are in debt to the plantation that owns them.

up
24 users have voted.

The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.
– Albert Camus
Pluto's Republic's picture

Observe for yourself what is happening right before our eyes.

Domestic terrorism fueled by government entrapment schemes. Civil unrest stoked to dangerous levels by polarizing political rhetoric. A growing intolerance for dissent that challenges the government’s power grabs. Police brutality tacitly encouraged by the executive branch, conveniently overlooked by the legislatures, and granted qualified immunity by the courts. A weakening economy exacerbated by government schemes that favor none but a select few. An overt embrace of domestic surveillance tactics if Congress goes along with the Trump Administration’s request to permanently re-authorize the NSA’s de-activated call records program. Heightened foreign tensions and blowback due to the military industrial complex’s profit-driven quest to police and occupy the globe.

The seeds of chaos are being sown, and it’s the U.S. government that will reap the harvest.

This is a five-minute Pentagon training video created by the Army for U.S. Special Operations Command.

It reveals the government’s mindset, the way this dead empire views the citizenry, and describes the so-called “problems” that the "dead empire" must be prepared to address in the near future through the use of martial law.

The future is here ahead of schedule. The Internet book-burning is underway.

Shouldn't you be living someplace else?

@Pluto's Republic

up
19 users have voted.

The purpose of a writer is to keep civilization from destroying itself.
– Albert Camus
mimi's picture

@Pluto's Republic
they deserve to be destroyed as well as the mega-cities. Which will happen all by itself.

up
3 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@Pluto's Republic

And almost always, ya get tagged out.

Also brings to mind the old saying, "You can run, but you can't hide."

Of course, there's always:

up
5 users have voted.

@Wally @Wally @Wally But I’ve never seen it with video. That’s a remarkable video, very much in keeping (IMO) with the tenor of the album.

up
3 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@tle

Loved the Papa John era, too.

up
2 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

this will be too. Looks like a great future. What do you want to be the Sun Tzu option is #3 - take them out then viciously attack the remnants. Hope you guys are ready to go underground, perhaps literally.

To quote Thomas P Barnett: "The job of the Pentagon is to dream up the future of warfare and build the force to win it."

Well played MIC and Alphabet Spooks. Well played.

@Pluto's Republic

up
8 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

k9disc's picture

Very clear and cogent. It gets a little crazy towards the end, normies might bail when confronted with the cumulative impact of the earlier arguments, but it's a strong piece from top to bottom.

For years, the government has been warning against the dangers of domestic terrorism, erecting surveillance systems to monitor its own citizens, creating classification systems to label any viewpoints that challenge the status quo as extremist, and training law enforcement agencies to equate anyone possessing anti-government views as a domestic terrorist.

What the government failed to explain was that the domestic terrorists would be of the government’s own making, and that “we the people” would become enemy #1.

As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we’re already enemies of the state.

You want to change things? Start by rejecting the political labels and the polarizing rhetoric and the “us vs. them” tactics that reduce the mass power of the populace to puny, powerless factions.

Find common ground with your fellow citizens and push back against the government’s brutality, inhumanity, greed, corruption and power grabs.

Be dangerous in the best way possible: by thinking for yourself, by refusing to be silenced, by choosing sensible solutions over political expediency and bureaucracy.

Makes me think of this place...
Here's to running into some of you in the detention camps. Wink

@Pluto's Republic

up
12 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

snoopydawg's picture

the PTB don't want Tulsi on stage talking about how our military is out of control and wars for choice are just sanctions on the American people. Plus Tulsi might have called out Warren the next time she was on stage. Can't have her tell us that Warren has stolen Bernie's campaign ideas.

IMG_3694.JPG

The primary is being rigged right in front of us and they are going to get away with it unless maybe Bernie and Tulsi speak out about it. Will they? If not then why not?

up
26 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

@snoopydawg They are all blue Democrats so...

Will they?
NOPE

If not then why not?
-They all signed a pledge to support "whoever" the backroom selected candidate will be, same as with Her in '16.
-They are all feeding the same bigly companies and database as they were in 2016, nothing of substance has changed.
-Bernie will not break his pledge, I don't know about the other nineteen useless talking heads, but Bernie already sold his soul to the DNC. meh

PEACE
this is wrong on so many levels, disgusting:
moneyislove.jpg
aloha

PEACE

up
7 users have voted.
ludwig ii's picture

@snoopydawg the more they like her, and thus become immune to the MSM smears. This is the opposite of DNC approved candidates who are only appealing in the abstract and whose numbers sink further each time they open their mouths to let out a new stream of bullshit.

If I were Tulsi, I would buy ads during the debate and just read the email from the CAA/UTA execs where they said how disappointing it was she supported bernie and she would never see another cent from them. Then point out all the MSM talking heads who are represented by them.

up
15 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@ludwig ii

I would love to see her do that and also show that the people who are constantly smearing Bernie and his supporters are represented by them. Neena Neena wrote a gawd awful tweet yesterday about Tulsi and her getting support from Russia so I asked how unifying is it to smear not only a congress woman, but a person in the military? Yes I have a problem with her being in the military still know what she knows, but the point is how dirty Neena Neena is playing this time around and then bitching about how mean Bernie's supporters are. It's that damn hypocrisy again.

up
8 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

It was once considered the NYT of the Northeast. (Every newspaper was the New York Times of somewhere or other, much as every college is the Harvard of somewhere or other.)

Too regional maybe? I'm not sufficiently invested to research it. It all just seems as though the Democratic Party found yet another way to rig its primaries so that certain ideas don't find their way into the national conversation. And so that politicians don't use primaries to get those ideas out there. Free college? Student debt forgiveness? Single payer? Green New Deal?

Seriously, before Bernie ran in 2016, a candidate going on about those things would have been put into a strait jacket and taken from the debate stage straight to a mental institution. But, in 2014-16, Bernie made New Deal style programs seem eminently reasonable. So, what he is saying this time doesn't seem crazy,but merely an extension.

That bell apparently CAN be unrung. By the time Obama said he was going to tackle "entitlements," and proposed an anemic recovery program, voters seemed to have forgotten New Deal and Great Society initiatives. (Gee, if there were only some way knowledge could be passed from one generation to successive generations! /s) But it does take time and effort to make people forget things like that and the neoliberals thought they'd finally done the job.

After Bernie, sheep dog or not, alt neoliberalcons will not be able to coast for a good while. That doesn't mean we'll get another New Deal or Great Society, even if Bernie becomes President. Congress will fight all that every step of the way and the CEO can't initiate legislation. But, he or she can send budgets to Congress and expose incumbents for who they really are. And, IMO, that ain't nutthin'. Even if Bernie does not become President, Americans have new standards and expectations. At least, I hope so.

IMO, Tulsi never had a chance at the hom, but, like Gravel, her presence on the debate stage has been invaluable. So, I donated to that end and I have no regrets. She got her own ideas out there to the extend establishment moderators allowed and she took down aking down some of the talking turds on the stage. Meanwhile, many people got their first introduction to her. So, maybe she will indeed be the first woman to break the glass ceiling in the Oval Office relatively soon. I sure hope so.

Meanwhile, though, Democrats seem to want her out of their House, literally and figuratively. So maybe slip a few bucks into her campaign to help her keep her seat. Aloha.

up
18 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace
the gutting of Kamala Harris, that would be a worthy enough achievement.

up
9 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@UntimelyRippd

environmentalists and Bernie. Klassy Kamala.

up
5 users have voted.
Wally's picture

@HenryAWallace

Eddit/add: It seems that Maya is Kamala's sister. She works for MSNBC and used to work at Neera Tanden's Center for American Progress.

up
2 users have voted.
boriscleto's picture

The 10th Circuit just ruled that electors can cast their votes anyway they want.

up
11 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

@boriscleto

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

The only federal election that our vaunted Framers left in the hands of the people--well, in the hands of relatively wealthy white males--was election to the House. Hence, the name, "the people's House." (Of course, states took care of state elections.) When the ink dried on the Constitution, only about six percent of Americans were eligible to vote. So, it's adorable that so many Americans believe that that document created a democracy. Suffrage has since expanded greatly, but we still operate under a document that created a republic/plutocracy.

Thing is, these days, I'm almost certain that a faithless elector would be risking his or her life. A whole states" worth? There would be rioting, possible across the nation.

up
2 users have voted.
boriscleto's picture

@HenryAWallace

Legal position[edit]

Twenty-one states do not have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate.[9] Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws against faithless electors. Washington became the first state to fine faithless electors after the 2016 election, and these fines were upheld by the Washington Supreme Court. In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, other states such as Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota specify a faithless elector's vote be voided.[10] Colorado first enforced this law during the 2016 election, which led to litigation where the 10th Circuit ruled that Colorado's faithless elector law is unconstitutional.[11] Minnesota also invoked this law for the first time in 2016 when an elector pledged to Hillary Clinton attempted to vote for Bernie Sanders instead.[12] Until 2008, Minnesota's electors cast secret ballots. Although the final count would reveal the occurrence of faithless votes (except in the unlikely case of two or more changes canceling out), it was impossible to determine which elector(s) were faithless. After an unknown elector was faithless in 2004, Minnesota amended its law to require public balloting of the electors' votes and invalidate any vote cast for someone other than the candidate to whom the elector was pledged.[13]

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case Baca v. Colorado Department of State, decided August 20, 2019, is the first federal Court of Appeals case deciding the question. It held that electors have a constitutional right to vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and are not bound by any prior pledges they may have made. It said electors are federal officials, the act of voting for President in the electoral college is a federal act not subject to state law, and state laws requiring electors to vote only for the candidates they pledged are unconstitutional and unenforceable. The case is likely to be appealed.

The decision directly conflicts with an earlier decision by the Washington State Supreme Court decision, In Re Guerra, holding the exact opposite, that presidential electors are state officials under the control of state law, and can be criminally punished by a state if they do not vote as they pledged.

U.S. Supreme Court[edit]
The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1952 in Ray v. Blair[14] in a 5–2 vote. The court ruled states have the right to require electors to pledge to vote for the candidate whom their party supports, and the right to remove potential electors who refuse to pledge prior to the election. The court also wrote:[14]

However, even if such promises of candidates for the electoral college are legally unenforceable because violative of an assumed constitutional freedom of the elector under the Constitution, Art. II, § 1, to vote as he may choose [emphasis added] in the electoral college, it would not follow that the requirement of a pledge in the primary is unconstitutional.

— U.S. Supreme Court, Ray v. Blair, 1952
The ruling only held that requiring a pledge, not a vote, was constitutional and Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Douglas, wrote in his dissent, "no one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text – that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."[14] One recent legal scholar believes "a state law that would thwart a federal elector’s discretion at an extraordinary time when it reasonably must be exercised would clearly violate Article II and the Twelfth Amendment".[15]

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of state laws punishing or replacing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, or refusing to count said votes.[16]

Any bets on how the current court would come down on it?

up
3 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

@boriscleto

another and state law, still another. My prior post was to the effect that it has never been thought that the Constitution required electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote of their respective state. I should have stated that more clearly. The issue in the Tenth Circuit case is whether or not state law can require that.

The opinion is 114 pages. My disclaimer: I skipped about the first 65 pages, which cover jurisdiction/justiciability and only skimmed the rest. Based on that limited look:

It's a very carefully reasoned and well-sourced opinion, citing and analyzing Constitutional language, history, and SCOTUS precedents. I think that the Court is correct that the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution do not apply to Presidential electors, so, there is no "states' rights" argument. The Court is clearly also correct about the unusual amount of detail in the Twelfth Amendment indicating pre-emption of state law. It's historical arguments, including about the meaning of "elector" in 1789, were also good.

Counter to that is that the SCOTUS has held that states can require a pledge by electors in a primary. What is the point of a state's power to require a pledge of electors in a primary, if, when it matters, the electors can violate the pledge and the state cannot remove them? The Court did address that by saying that a state has power to select the electors. However, once the electors are selected, the state's power ends and the Twelfth Amendment is all that matters. I didn't think the argument was as strong as the Court's arguments on other points, but the argument is very plausible, especially when all the other arguments are so strong.

The Tenth Circuit may not have reached the result we would like. But, if it was faithful to the Constitution and SCOTUS precedents, it's difficult to say the Court acted improperly. How will the SCOTUS decide? We'll see soon enough. It's too bad, IMO, that this case involved an elector who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton and voted for Kasich instead. Had I been that elector, I would have had a difficult time voting for Hillary and would have voted for Stein. Then again, knowing that, I would not have run for the position of elector.

up
2 users have voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

That’s the point.

up
6 users have voted.

“The trouble [with injustice] is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There is no innocence. Either way, you’re accountable.”
-- Arundhati Roy

Wally's picture

@Raggedy Ann

We all make of it what we will and all respond as we will.

up
5 users have voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@Wally
we are each responding in our own way - there is no other way as we are individuals.

I realize you don’t know me. I’m an optimist. I gave my pessimism, too, but mostly I’m snarky.

We have been screwed for decades, now. We discuss it here all the time. I agree, it’s all how you look at it and what you want to get out of it.

Lookout helps us prepare in many ways. Most essays contain real information about everything. It’s a dependable site.

Anyway, I also know we are moving from the third dimension to the fifth. We are in the fourth. The struggle is with those that want us to remain in the third (think Herr Drumpf) and those that want us to get to the fifth (us, millennials, Gen X & Zers, u get the idea), which we will by the 2030’s), but the struggle will ensue and play out through the twenties. I will be pushing 80 by then. I’m so excited to see how this plays out.
Pleasantry

up
11 users have voted.

“The trouble [with injustice] is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There is no innocence. Either way, you’re accountable.”
-- Arundhati Roy

Wally's picture

#5.1.1

Of course, there are also the classic video rejoinders of the cartoon alien doing the song, and even Jesus singing it but I'll let them be.

up
3 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

we have similar viewing/reading habits. I can feel changes amidst the whirling confusion.

Can you give me a good description of it or a solid link. I respect your opinion as a realist, @Raggedy Ann , and could use a solid precis that has been vetted a bit.

I'm finding myself further and further away from Scientismic and secular humanist dogma. I'm thinking we were forced to lose something after the Renaissance was eclipsed by the Enlightenment. We've lost any sense of magic and wonder and are doing and pursuing alchemy while publicly denying that any aether exists. We're (are or were) desperately searching for the Materia Prima, but publicly denying that it exists.

Anyway, hopefully I displayed my freak creds enough to get you to stick your neck out with a good description/link of our ascent into the 5th dimension.

up
8 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Eagles92's picture

@k9disc @k9disc @k9disc And I'm also intrigued, if you're willing to educate, RA.

[ETA: This isn't even remotely vetted, but I just found this: https://aligningwithearth.com/welcome-fifth-dimension/]. Really interesting stuff.

up
4 users have voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@Eagles92

up
4 users have voted.

“The trouble [with injustice] is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There is no innocence. Either way, you’re accountable.”
-- Arundhati Roy

Raggedy Ann's picture

@k9disc

up
2 users have voted.

“The trouble [with injustice] is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There is no innocence. Either way, you’re accountable.”
-- Arundhati Roy

@Raggedy Ann @Raggedy Ann from the 3d into the 5th dimension? And how do you peg it to the 2030s?

Did you mean that the Moon will be in the Seventh House? And Jupiter will align with Mars? And Peace will guide our planet, and Love will steer the Stars?

Sorry, couldn't resist. One of my favorite pop songs from 1969, the year of the Moon Landing, and so now half a century ago. And about the only thing I think of when I hear the term "fifth dimension". For you post-Baby Boom youngsters out there who may not be aware, the Fifth Dimension was a high quality pop group, a number of big hits in the late 60s.

Astrologically speaking, I'm aware we are supposed to be entering fully, soon, year and date uncertain, into the Age of Aquarius, the Age of Enlightenment/Knowledge, as we fully depart the Age of Pisces, Age of Belief. (I would imagine the astronomers have another take on all this.) Not sure if this type of shift into a New Age is what you were referring to.

Silliness aside, I'd be interested in your fleshing out this theory of the imminent coming of a fifth dimensional existence.

up
2 users have voted.
Raggedy Ann's picture

@wokkamile
that’s exactly what happened on 12-12-12!!! How did you know?? I thought you were a non believer. Silly me!!!

up
1 user has voted.

“The trouble [with injustice] is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking out. There is no innocence. Either way, you’re accountable.”
-- Arundhati Roy

Including the Monmouth poll coming on Monday, there have been only 5 qualifying polls released since the second debate. Curiously, many qualifying pollsters, such as CBS, NBC, ABC, USA Today, and many others have not done any polling since that debate.

a new low. no excuse is possible.
will continue to hope for 4th debate- nothing more to do.

this really pisses me off.

up
8 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@irishking

the ways in which social reality is being changed around us.

Since when does anybody have to "qualify" for a debate by polling a certain amount in "authorized" polls? What's an authorized poll? Who authorizes it? CNN? The DNC?

When did our politics become a shittier version of the NFL playoffs?

up
8 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

an earlier post-

For context, and for those playing at home, the DNC-approved polls have to be associated with or conducted by the following: the Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, The Des Moines Register, Fox News, Monmouth University, NBC News, The New York Times, NPR, Quinnipiac, the University of New Hampshire, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Post and Winthrop University.

Per the DNC: "Any candidate's four qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations, or if by the same organization, must be in different geographical areas.

Why only these and no others? You got me there.
And then they don't poll in August! This is really bad.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/29/727852195/democratic-presidential-field-w...

up
2 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@irishking

"But this has always been here. Don't you remember?"

Makes me want to quote other things Orwell wrote...

up
3 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

One might think that given the margins Hillary lost by, democratic party central would be very careful about alienating any part of the base or independents who are joining the party to vote for a candidate they like.

And looks like a billionaire will make the debate stage from what I can gather--but not Tulsi. Want to bet that in the next debate it will be all about impeachment, diverting discussion away from real issues? That is Steyer's big and only issue from what I see and CNN moderators will go hog crazy on that subject.

The democrats make themselves powerless. This is theme that Matt Stoller hits on regularily. And if Tulsi is kicked off the stage it will only re-enforce that people are powerless in the so-called party of the people.

up
10 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

is the 2020 version of the Democratic party election rigging. The use of polls more than six months before the first primary to determine who gets to be on the debate stage is ridiculous. Tulsi's campaign has put out a press release accusing the DNC of lack of transparency making changes in the qualifying rules as they go along.

Michael Tracey has done an excellent job of analyzing the fallacies behind the use of these polls, some of which use less than 400 persons to determine how a candidate polls.

My personal take on all of this has been all along that the use of polls to determine who gets on the debate stage is totally wrong, especially this early in the camapign. The purpose of the debates should be an opportunity for voters to see and get to know the various candidates on the issues.

Here is another take from a supporter of Tulsi's who used to be a Republican. The guy uses humor to make his points. In it, he goes over the press release from Tulsi's campaign. A lot of what he is saying is exactly what I have been thinking about the creeping election rigging by the DNC.

up
11 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." John F Kennedy

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

@gulfgal98

Ask:

I'd love it if more people noticed the ways in which social reality is being changed around us.

Since when does anybody have to "qualify" for a debate by polling a certain amount in "authorized" polls? What's an authorized poll? Who authorizes it? CNN? The DNC?

And you shall receive:

My personal take on all of this has been all along that the use of polls to determine who gets on the debate stage is totally wrong, especially this early in the camapign. The purpose of the debates should be an opportunity for voters to see and get to know the various candidates on the issues.

up
7 users have voted.

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

@gulfgal98

that's exactly what it is.

right in front of god and everybody else.

shameless.

up
7 users have voted.