Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

A 2020 Prediction. What are your predictions?

Recommended Posts

Here's my current prediction for 2020:

Democratic Primary:
 
Already dropped out:
Richard Ojeda (waits on endorsement)
 
Drops out before or after Iowa: [O'Rourke wins IA by 1%, w/ Biden #2]
Tulsi Gabbard (endorses Sanders)
Elizabeth Warren (endorses Moulton)
Jay Inslee (waits on endorsement)
Eric Swalwell (endorses Harris) 
John Hickenlooper (endorses Biden)
John Delaney (endorses Biden)
 
Drops out after New Hampshire: [Sanders wins NH, O'Rourke 2nd, Biden 3rd]
Kirsten Gillibrand (endorses O'Rourke)
Seth Moulton (endorses O'Rourke)
Pete Buttigieg (endorses O'Rourke)
 
Drops out after South Carolina or Nevada [Biden wins SC; O'Rourke NV]
Cory Booker (endorses Biden)
Amy Klobuchar (endorses Biden)
Julian Castro (endorses O'Rourke)
 
Drops out after: Super Tuesday:  [O'Rourke and Biden split most of the states. Harris wins CA, Sanders wins two states]
Kamala Harris (endorses O'Rourke)
Michael Bloomberg (endorses Biden)
 
Drops out in a post-Super Tuesday primary state: {O'Rourke pretty much begins to run the tables]
Bernie Sanders (endorses O'Rourke)
Joe Biden (endorses O'Rourke)
w/ Sanders dropping out, Schultz ends his threat of a 3rd party bid and endorses O'Rourke
Bill Weld endorses O'Rourke, encourages Republicans to do so. 
 
[Only O'Rourke, Biden, Sanders, Harris won primaries]
 
Conventions:
 
Beto O'Rourke is nominated. 
 
The short list for VP is:
Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, Bernie Sanders, and John Hickenlooper. Klobuchar is selected because they think that she has the best shot at generate turnout (at least with women, and with holding MN and flipping MI). 
 
Some Republicans are given key slots at Convention: Colin Powell, Bill Weld, and Ronald Reagan's family, the latter who address how the Democrats are more in line with Reagan's "Make America Great" and "shining city on the hill"  than the Republicans are. Bernie Sanders is given a major spot again. Hillary Clinton gives only a short speech, as does Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter gives a speech. Barack Obama and Joe Biden give major speeches. Michael Bloomberg gives a speech, encouraging business owners to support Democrats. 
 
Biden is to be made Secretary of State, according to a report soon after the Convention. This is used to encourage support among Independents who would have voted for Biden over Trump. To encourage Progressives and Liberals, many of the other cabinet selections will be given to women or progressives. O'Rourke promises a competent, experienced, diverse cabinet with unparalleled integrity. Bernie Sanders is expected to have a role in the Whit House, but it is unspecified, because the O'Rourke campaign doesn't want "socialism" to become a general election talking point any more than it already is.   
 
General Election:
 
O'Rourke has a likability factor that Trump will never have. Republicans try to spin O'Rourke as a socialist, inexperienced, and not tough enough to be president. Attempts to create sex scandals occur. Klobuchar's mistreatment of her staff resurfaces. The same tactics--inexperienced, staff mistreatment, and sex scandals have no impact when thrown on Trump, since he isn't running as an integrity candidate. Overall, none of these scandals hit the Democratic ticket as hard as scandals hit Clinton in 2016. 
 
The predicted recession for late 2020-early 2021 seems more likely, which causes Trump's support among independents to falter. The investigations still bog Trump down as the number of investigations have significant increased; although, none compel an impeachment trial. 
 
O'Rourke plays up his Southern and Southwestern origins, which helps him in AZ, TX, and FL. The Democratic ticket has much more of a Midwestern appeal than Clinton/Kaine, which allows for Democrats to take back WI, MI, and PA. 
 
Ultimately, O'Rourke/Klobuchar win in a landslide against Trump/Pence: https://www.270towin.com/maps/2Xjeo
 
Trump has to be escorted out because he refuses to leave the White House on time. 
 
What are your predictions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We actually have similar predictions. In very early January, my prediction was "Beto wins without a contested convention and takes on Klobuchar as his veep."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In your scenario it makes little sense for Harris to drop out if she just won CA, so many delegates, and unlikely more than 2 people (if that hit the threshold).  If she wins CA she's probably in the top 3 after Super Tuesday. 

 

I don't think we'll see that many people drop out that quick.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

In your scenario it makes little sense for Harris to drop out if she just won CA, so many delegates, and unlikely more than 2 people (if that hit the threshold).  If she wins CA she's probably in the top 3 after Super Tuesday. 

 

I don't think we'll see that many people drop out that quick.  

The field generally clears out quickly. See 2016. 

CA does have a lot of delegates, but I have her basically doing well only there and it isn't winner takes all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

2016 isn’t a good barometer.  Dems has few candidates, and even fewer with cash. And Republican primaries have largely winner take all’s.  The Dems don’t. 

This year you’ll see very little separation is the delegate count early.  I bet you have a six way race heading into the Midwest portion. 

Mans to the Cali/Harris part of the convo. Cal with a 15% threshold likely won’t have more than 2 people break that mark. That means in your scenario if she wins she’s walking out of there with 300 delegates minimum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'm a Biden supporter, I'm starting to worry that he won't run.  I also don't think Elizabeth Warren wastes her endorsement on a Representative with only four years experience...for that matter, I also don't think she's out before Iowa.  

Already Running: 
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Julian Castro
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
John Hickenlooper
Jay Inslee
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren

Declares
Sherrod Brown
Beto O'Rourke
Possibly 1 or more representatives, who won't move the needle

Notable players who don't run
Joe Biden
Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bennet
Terry McAuliffe

Drops out before Iowa
Delaney (and any other non-needle-moving Reps)
Castro
Gabbard

Iowa
Sanders wins.  Warren 2nd.  Hickenlooper in 3rd.  
Gillibrand and Inslee endorse Warren.

NH
Sanders wins.  Harris 2nd.  Hickenlooper 3rd.  
Booker and Buttigieg endorse Hickenlooper.  Klobuchar and O'Rourke endorse Harris.  Brown endorses Sanders.  

NV
Hickenlooper, Sanders, Warren.

SC
Sanders, Harris, Warren.  Sanders has a solid lead, heading into Super Tuesday.  

SUPER TUESDAY
Having failed to win a single state so far, Kamala Harris breaks into first place with not just California, but also Texas thanks to O'Rourke's support (along with Minnesota thanks to Klobuchar and also Virginia).  Sanders is still strong in 2nd place as he picks up North Carolina, Oklahoma, and of course Vermont.  Hickenlooper endorses Harris.  Warren endorses Sanders.  It's head to head, with Kamala Harris vs. Bernie Sanders.

Ultimately,  Sanders concedes, with Kamala Harris becoming the official nominee.  She selects former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper as her VP.  

Democrats win New Mexico,  Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minneosta, VT, the spare electoral vote in Nebraska.

Republicans win Texas, Florida, North Carolina, PA, OH, Wisconsin, Iowa, VA, a spare electoral vote in Maine.

275-263, Trump/Pence win a second term.  God help us.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
22 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Although I'm a Biden supporter, I'm starting to worry that he won't run.  I also don't think Elizabeth Warren wastes her endorsement on a Representative with only four years experience...for that matter, I also don't think she's out before Iowa.  

Already Running: 
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Julian Castro
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
John Hickenlooper
Jay Inslee
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren

Declares
Sherrod Brown
Beto O'Rourke
Possibly 1 or more representatives, who won't move the needle

Notable players who don't run
Joe Biden
Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bennet
Terry McAuliffe

Drops out before Iowa
Delaney (and any other non-needle-moving Reps)
Castro
Gabbard

Iowa
Sanders wins.  Warren 2nd.  Hickenlooper in 3rd.  
Gillibrand and Inslee endorse Warren.

NH
Sanders wins.  Harris 2nd.  Hickenlooper 3rd.  
Booker and Buttigieg endorse Hickenlooper.  Klobuchar and O'Rourke endorse Harris.  Brown endorses Sanders.  

NV
Hickenlooper, Sanders, Warren.

SC
Sanders, Harris, Warren.  Sanders has a solid lead, heading into Super Tuesday.  

SUPER TUESDAY
Having failed to win a single state so far, Kamala Harris breaks into first place with not just California, but also Texas thanks to O'Rourke's support (along with Minnesota thanks to Klobuchar and also Virginia).  Sanders is still strong in 2nd place as he picks up North Carolina, Oklahoma, and of course Vermont.  Hickenlooper endorses Harris.  Warren endorses Sanders.  It's head to head, with Kamala Harris vs. Bernie Sanders.

Ultimately,  Sanders concedes, with Kamala Harris becoming the official nominee.  She selects former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper as her VP.  

Democrats win New Mexico,  Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minneosta, VT, the spare electoral vote in Nebraska.

Republicans win Texas, Florida, North Carolina, PA, OH, Wisconsin, Iowa, VA, a spare electoral vote in Maine.

275-263, Trump/Pence win a second term.  God help us.
 

Harris/Hickenlooper ticket checks off a lot of boxes....not all of them, but a lot of them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Although I'm a Biden supporter, I'm starting to worry that he won't run.  I also don't think Elizabeth Warren wastes her endorsement on a Representative with only four years experience...for that matter, I also don't think she's out before Iowa.  

Already Running: 
Cory Booker
Pete Buttigieg
Julian Castro
John Delaney
Tulsi Gabbard
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
John Hickenlooper
Jay Inslee
Amy Klobuchar
Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren

Declares
Sherrod Brown
Beto O'Rourke
Possibly 1 or more representatives, who won't move the needle

Notable players who don't run
Joe Biden
Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bennet
Terry McAuliffe

Drops out before Iowa
Delaney (and any other non-needle-moving Reps)
Castro
Gabbard

Iowa
Sanders wins.  Warren 2nd.  Hickenlooper in 3rd.  
Gillibrand and Inslee endorse Warren.

NH
Sanders wins.  Harris 2nd.  Hickenlooper 3rd.  
Booker and Buttigieg endorse Hickenlooper.  Klobuchar and O'Rourke endorse Harris.  Brown endorses Sanders.  

NV
Hickenlooper, Sanders, Warren.

SC
Sanders, Harris, Warren.  Sanders has a solid lead, heading into Super Tuesday.  

SUPER TUESDAY
Having failed to win a single state so far, Kamala Harris breaks into first place with not just California, but also Texas thanks to O'Rourke's support (along with Minnesota thanks to Klobuchar and also Virginia).  Sanders is still strong in 2nd place as he picks up North Carolina, Oklahoma, and of course Vermont.  Hickenlooper endorses Harris.  Warren endorses Sanders.  It's head to head, with Kamala Harris vs. Bernie Sanders.

Ultimately,  Sanders concedes, with Kamala Harris becoming the official nominee.  She selects former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper as her VP.  

Democrats win New Mexico,  Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minneosta, VT, the spare electoral vote in Nebraska.

Republicans win Texas, Florida, North Carolina, PA, OH, Wisconsin, Iowa, VA, a spare electoral vote in Maine.

275-263, Trump/Pence win a second term.  God help us.
 

If Harris wins the nomination, Trump is almost *guaranteed* to win.

In my opinion, most candidates will be catastrophic candidates for presidency. Bernie Sanders, despite being a socialist, is in my opinion, the best bet as he's the most likely to win against trump in the Rustbelt..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gladius Aeneus said:

If Harris wins the nomination, Trump is almost *guaranteed* to win.

In my opinion, most candidates will be catastrophic candidates for presidency. Bernie Sanders, despite being a socialist, is in my opinion, the best bet as he's the most likely to win against trump in the Rustbelt..

Possible, of course.  But I'm inclined to think that "SOCIALISM IS INVADING AMERICA" will play better in the Rust Belt than in anywhere else.  There are obviously more folks passionate about Sanders than any other candidate -- but I think there is at least an equal number of folks who would be happy to get rid of Trump...but are also terrified of the "S" word.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gladius Aeneus said:

If Harris wins the nomination, Trump is almost *guaranteed* to win.

In my opinion, most candidates will be catastrophic candidates for presidency. Bernie Sanders, despite being a socialist, is in my opinion, the best bet as he's the most likely to win against trump in the Rustbelt..

 

10 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Possible, of course.  But I'm inclined to think that "SOCIALISM IS INVADING AMERICA" will play better in the Rust Belt than in anywhere else.  There are obviously more folks passionate about Sanders than any other candidate -- but I think there is at least an equal number of folks who would be happy to get rid of Trump...but are also terrified of the "S" word.

 

The best candidate to win back the Rust Belt is 100% Joe Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Possible, of course.  But I'm inclined to think that "SOCIALISM IS INVADING AMERICA" will play better in the Rust Belt than in anywhere else.  There are obviously more folks passionate about Sanders than any other candidate -- but I think there is at least an equal number of folks who would be happy to get rid of Trump...but are also terrified of the "S" word.

 

Well, I think that there are also many progressives in the Rustbelt area, which were also a crucial factor in 2016 and led Hillary to lose the Rustbelt. Even if some are afraid of socialism, I think that he would still get overwhelming support from the progressives.

I think that compared to the rest of the United States, the Rustbelt is actually the place where Bernie Sanders could succeed the most, since there is a very large population of progressive voters in the Rustbelt (and Sanders has the best appeal to progressives BY FAR).

3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

 

The best candidate to win back the Rust Belt is 100% Joe Biden.

Actually, in my opinion Joe Biden will do relatively good in the Sun belt (since it is more conservative) than in the Rustbelt (where, as I said, there is a big progressive voting base). Biden might also face integrity problems, and many scandals during the primaries, which will definitely reduce his chances to win the primaries. And even if he does win - he will be seen as another corporate Democrat (similar to Hillary Clinton) which might hit him hard in the Rustbelt.

 

As a European, I might not be in touch with the average american (and I definitely don't see "Socialism" as a swearword, as you can most likely tell XD), but I think that most people still won't be appalled by Sanders' socialism since he's a very likable person, has strong charisma, and strong integrity, which many other politicians don't.

Sanders says and does what he believes in, even if it's extremely unpopular, and I believe many people respect this sort of honesty (especially since most politicians aren't honest about their ideology, sometimes even lie, and sometimes don't have any ideology at all.. (cough Biden cough XD)).

He doesn't try to be someone he isn't, and isn't afraid to be himself, unlike many other candidates.

I don't know about the average American, but I surely do respect that.

In my opinion, a politician doesn't need to have a charming smile and doesn't need to kiss babies on the streets in order to appease people (those who do, I call - "Smile-and-Wave politicians", since they do nothing but keep up a facade). A politician needs to act according to his beliefs and work for the benefit of the public, instead of working for a few wealthy tycoons who pay him to do their biddings... That's the politician I would like to see leading every democracy in this world, and I think most people would, as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gladius Aeneus said:

Well, I think that there are also many progressives in the Rustbelt area, which were also a crucial factor in 2016 and led Hillary to lose the Rustbelt. Even if some are afraid of socialism, I think that he would still get overwhelming support from the progressives.

I think that compared to the rest of the United States, the Rustbelt is actually the place where Bernie Sanders could succeed the most, since there is a very large population of progressive voters in the Rustbelt (and Sanders has the best appeal to progressives BY FAR).

Actually, in my opinion Joe Biden will do relatively good in the Sun belt (since it is more conservative) than in the Rustbelt (where, as I said, there is a big progressive voting base). Biden might also face integrity problems, and many scandals during the primaries, which will definitely reduce his chances to win the primaries. And even if he does win - he will be seen as another corporate Democrat (similar to Hillary Clinton) which might hit him hard in the Rustbelt.

 

As a European, I might not be in touch with the average american (and I definitely don't see "Socialism" as a swearword, as you can most likely tell XD), but I think that most people still won't be appalled by Sanders' socialism since he's a very likable person, has strong charisma, and strong integrity, which many other politicians don't.

Sanders says and does what he believes in, even if it's extremely unpopular, and I believe many people respect this sort of honesty (especially since most politicians aren't honest about their ideology, sometimes even lie, and sometimes don't have any ideology at all.. (cough Biden cough XD)).

He doesn't try to be someone he isn't, and isn't afraid to be himself, unlike many other candidates.

I don't know about the average American, but I surely do respect that.

In my opinion, a politician doesn't need to have a charming smile and doesn't need to kiss babies on the streets in order to appease people (those who do, I call - "Smile-and-Wave politicians", since they do nothing but keep up a facade). A politician needs to act according to his beliefs and work for the benefit of the public, instead of working for a few wealthy tycoons who pay him to do their biddings... That's the politician I would like to see leading every democracy in this world, and I think most people would, as well...

Bernie Sanders is definitely "Social Democratic," NOT pure "Socialist," regardless of what American media calls himself, or even his own self-labeling at times. He's no more drastic and radical in his platform than the former Federal New Democratic leader Jack Layton and current leader Jagmeet Singh (I was very dubious of Thomas Mulcair's intentions and integrity from the start, but he probably was more or less an ideological Social Democrat, too) here in Canada. Sanders is NOT a new Eugene Debs or Daniel De Leon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

 

The best candidate to win back the Rust Belt is 100% Joe Biden.

I agree entirely -- I just worry he won't run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Bernie Sanders is definitely "Social Democratic," NOT pure "Socialist," regardless of what American media calls himself, or even his own self-labeling at times. He's no more drastic and radical in his platform than the former Federal New Democratic leader Jack Layton and current leader Jagmeet Singh (I was very dubious of Thomas Mulcair's intentions and integrity from the start, but he probably was more or less an ideological Social Democrat, too) here in Canada. Sanders is NOT a new Eugene Debs or Daniel De Leon.

You're right, he's more of a social democrat. I myself many times call myself a Socialist, but I am indeed not Debs or De Leon. I am more of a social democrat, since I believe in the democracy, and I don't believe in nationalising *every* industry. I believe that we do need to nationolise services (such as the medical system, education system, ect.), basic infrastructure systems (railways, roads, public transportation companies, ect.), national resources (oil, gas, mines, ect.) and most important of all, the banking system, in order to prevent the banking system from taking advantage of their role as a major economical force to profit over hard working people and corrupt the system.

When banks are in the hands of private people, they play with the hard working people's money. Many times they invest it in the stock market. if they gain money - they make profit out of this money, and don't share the wealth with the person the money was belong to in the first place! If they don't make money - the banks either collapse, and the working person loses everything, or alternatively, need a bail out from the government, which will bail out the bank using many hard working people's tax money, instead of spending the money on health care or education. Either way, it's a lose-lose situation for the average person and a win-win situation for the banks. Basically - They have nothing to lose from taking immense risks.

 

Such irresponsibility from governments must be stopped, and instead, all banks should be in the hands of the country, which needs to manage it not in order to make dangerous profit over the hard working person, but rather, save his money in responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There’s no difference between “socialism” and “democratic socialism” it’s just branding. 

Secondly, America isn’t a democracy anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

There’s no difference between “socialism” and “democratic socialism” it’s just branding. 

Ideally yes (though Democratic Socialism used to refer to Socialism achieved through liberal democracy rather than revolution, but let's not get caught up on that), but the way it's used by many today, it seems "democratic socialism", has just been mistaken for Social-Democracy, rather than a radical system calling for the overthrow of capitalism.

7 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Secondly, America isn’t a democracy anyway. 

Yes, that's something that needs fixing, along with many other things about this "great" land of ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Fixing?

A republic was the purpose for founding the country. 

Its the whole point of the USA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Fixing?

A republic was the purpose for founding the country. 

Its the whole point of the USA.  

White supremacy was also a key point of America's founding, your point? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Baloney, white supremacy was not a driver for the revolution. It was something the revolution failed to divest itself from. Major difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

Fixing?

A republic was the purpose for founding the country. 

Its the whole point of the USA.  

All historical republics that predated the United States, and thus were possible reference on that form of government for the U.S. Founding Fathers, be they the Roman Republic, the Carthaginian Republic, the northern Italian Republics, the Hanseatic Republics, the Dutch Republic, or the aspirational ideals and writings of many during the Commonwealth and Protectorates of England under Cromwell (but not so much the Lord Protector himself) - and these were elitist, exclusionary, and plutocratic governments where the wealthy middle class just replaces the aristocracy as the new entrenched ruling class, but a few bones of greater freedom and conduct and participation in government are thrown to the hoi poloi in exchange for their support - or at least passive cooperation, but the lower classes are still shown the same contempt as a feudal or monarchial noble class would show them. Those were integral elements of what a republic was, historically, the only reference points to that form of government previously the Founding Fathers had, and, indeed, very much what the majority of Founding Fathers, wished to build. I point this out to you and other Americans (like @jvikings1 and others) who so proudly announce the United States is "a republic and not a democracy" to put the term into proper context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HonestAbe said:

Baloney, white supremacy was not a driver for the revolution. It was something the revolution failed to divest itself from. Major difference. 

Yeah just because a major part of our constitution was designed to give slave states more power (3/5 compromise ring a bell?), doesn't mean the founding fathers, many of whom owned slaves, were white supremacists, c'mon. America was founded for landowning elite, by landowning elite, it took until 1856, just for universal white male suffrage, and even then there were poll taxes in 5 states until the civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You are making a connection improperly.  The country was founded not install land owing elite or white suprememcy thoae things certainly already existed. There was no need to fight a revolution to install nor maintain those things.  The revolution was fought to create a republic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

You are making a connection improperly.  The country was founded not install land owing elite or white suprememcy thoae things certainly already existed. There was no need to fight a revolution to install nor maintain those things.  The revolution was fought to create a republic. 

Read what a "Republic" meant, by definition, in that day and age, in my post, above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HonestAbe said:

You are making a connection improperly.  The country was founded not install land owing elite or white suprememcy thoae things certainly already existed. There was no need to fight a revolution to install nor maintain those things.  The revolution was fought to create a republic. 

Yes, the American war for independence was a revolution to establish a republic, that only empowered RICH WHITE MEN. Why is it so hard for you to understand that the founders were white supremacists, who also established a regime that was somewhat more democratic than the British Empire? It's no surprise that a revolution led by bourgeois elite, would have the bourgeoisie's interests in mind, I don't know how you're finding this hard to grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I never debated that they were. It was an abhorrent moment in our worlds history. I’m arguing your premise that it was the motivator for breaking away from Britain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...