Jump to content
270soft Forum

A poll about you guys


TheLastLimo
 Share

A poll about you guys  

36 members have voted

  1. 1. How old are you?

    • 10-15
      4
    • 16-20
      18
    • 21-30
      11
    • 31-40
      1
    • 41-50
      2
    • 51-60
      0
    • 61-70
      0
    • I'm older than 70
      0
  2. 2. What party do you identify yourself with?

    • Republican
      10
    • Democrat
      9
    • Libertarian
      4
    • Green
      1
    • Socialist Party
      0
    • Workers World Party
      0
    • American Nazi Party
      0
    • Constitution
      1
    • I don't identify with any party
      11
  3. 3. What was the first election you could vote in?

    • 2016
      10
    • 2012
      3
    • 2008
      0
    • 2004
      1
    • 2000
      1
    • 1996
      1
    • 1992
      0
    • 1988
      1
    • 1984
      0
    • 1988
      0
    • 1984
      0
    • 1980
      0
    • 1976
      0
    • 1972
      0
    • 1968
      0
    • I didn't vote
      3
    • I'm not old enough to vote
      16


Recommended Posts

On 4/24/2017 at 9:54 AM, Bruce Fischer said:

Mine have too; I've gone from conservative to democratic socialist to center-left in the span of 4 years, so I can't imagine how much one's views can change over decades (to be fair, 4 years ago I didn't care about politics so I adopted my parents' views, and I wasn't that informed when I was a hardline Bernie Bro; as I learned more about politics I've moved closer to the center, a process that leveled off about a year ago)

Happy birthday

Just like you I'm a bernie supporter, but there are some issued I disagree with him. 

I think I just call myself a socialist because it sounds better than communist. 

I mean really I'm a very brutal person. 

I believe in left-economic policy.

I believe in gay rights! But I want death penalty for a lot of crimes. I wish my country will have the firing squad. I always imagine that someday my country will have the death penalty and terrorists will be hanged 5 times so that their heads will be separated from their bodies.  

Sorry for the english , it's my sixth language ?

Edited by HomosexualSocialist
Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2 hours ago, HomosexualSocialist said:

Just like you I'm a bernie supporter, but there are some issued I disagree with him. 

I think I just call myself a socialist because it sounds better than communist. 

I mean really I'm a very brutal person. 

I believe in left-economic policy.

I believe in gay rights! But I want death penalty for a lot of crimes. I wish my country will have the firing squad. I always imagine that someday my country will have the death penalty and terrorists will be hanged 5 times so that their heads will be separated from their bodies.  

Sorry for the english , it's my sixth language ?

*former Bernie supporter, I became disenchanted with his vague platitudes around March of last year, and threw my support (though I can't vote so it didn't mean anything) behind Hillary Clinton, even though I'm to the left of her and found her ethically questionable (though not to the extent that the media made it out to be). I think Bernie would've won - easily - and I'm absolutely astounded at how incompetent of a campaign Robby Mook ran, but had even a few things been different (*coughComeylettercough*), I think Clinton would've won.

I'm absolutely not a communist, and I don't think I'm a socialist either. I'm much closer to the center than either of those terms suggest, think JFK but in the 21st century and slightly more to the left

I'm not, I despise the death penalty and see it as a disgusting human rights violation that has its roots in ancient Babylon, which is not a society I want to live in

I believe in most left wing economic policies, with the notable exception of wanting a balanced budget and reduced debt

I also support LGBTQ+ rights, and seeing the way Duterte is going I wouldn't be surprised if you get your wish. I can't stand the man, if I do say so myself; Duterte is one of the select few world leaders who I wouldn't take over Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bruce Fischer said:

*former Bernie supporter, I became disenchanted with his vague platitudes around March of last year, and threw my support (though I can't vote so it didn't mean anything) behind Hillary Clinton, even though I'm to the left of her and found her ethically questionable (though not to the extent that the media made it out to be). I think Bernie would've won - easily - and I'm absolutely astounded at how incompetent of a campaign Robby Mook ran, but had even a few things been different (*coughComeylettercough*), I think Clinton would've won.

I'm absolutely not a communist, and I don't think I'm a socialist either. I'm much closer to the center than either of those terms suggest, think JFK but in the 21st century and slightly more to the left

I'm not, I despise the death penalty and see it as a disgusting human rights violation that has its roots in ancient Babylon, which is not a society I want to live in

I believe in most left wing economic policies, with the notable exception of wanting a balanced budget and reduced debt

I also support LGBTQ+ rights, and seeing the way Duterte is going I wouldn't be surprised if you get your wish. I can't stand the man, if I do say so myself; Duterte is one of the select few world leaders who I wouldn't take over Trump.

Robby Mook is my cousin (never met him--same grandfather, different grandmother), so maybe this is why I'm going to defend him here. There are some things that he did really well, such as data analysis and other data gathering initiatives. He also, if the wikileaks emails are to be trusted, aimed at pushing Clinton in a progressive direction and discouraging her or Bill Clinton from getting too chummy with Wall Street. I get the idea that he had far less control over Clinton's campaign than other candidates have in the past. For one, it seemed like the campaign team had so many officers and such that I can't see how this didn't confuse matters, slow down decisions and executions. Clinton was very staged. For instance, Trump would Tweet on impulse; Clinton's tweets would have to go through numerous people before they were okayed. My guess is despite Robby Mook's errors, they were in part exacerbated by Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's control-freak tendencies. If you look at Robby Mook's success in the past it was quite remarkable. However, it is possible that operating at the full national level was more than he could handle. Only he would probably know that truly, however. He did win the popular vote. He and every major projection thought he would win the Electoral College. Even Peyton Manning lost a Super Bowl despite a projected victory (against Seattle). I do remember one blunder though, and I'm not sure if this was Mook, one of the other officers, or one of the Clintons, but the campaign team was about to have their Iowa foottroopers bused to Michigan as election day was nearing. The Clinton team called the Iowa campaign team and told them to hold their troopers there in an attempt to trick the Trump team into thinking Clinton wasn't worried about Michigan and thought they could win Iowa, and so spread Trump's forces. The strategy was obviously bad because Clinton's ground forces were like 4x bigger than Trump's already. She should have just stacked her forces in the states that mattered--FL, PA, NC, MI, WI, OH, NH, VA, NV, CO. I think in 4 to 8 years we will probably no more of how the campaign failed. It might have been mostly Mook's fault, and it might not have been mostly his fault. However, as campaign manager he will get the bulk of the criticism, regardless if it is deserving or not. I primarily blame the Clintons for the defeat, and not the campaign strategy as a whole. There's a reason that the first article that announced Mook becoming the campaign manager was titled, "Robby Mook Just Took the Hardest Job in Politics." And it wasn't so much the job title itself, it was who he was promoting. He's young and intelligent, so he probably won't repeat the same mistakes and will learn from this. I think it would be unintelligent to shut him out of any future political campaigning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

He did win the popular vote. He and every major projection thought he would win the Electoral College.

That is because the major pundits where not very smart when it came to this election.  They ignored the Brexit precedent and relied on polling that was obviously flawed.  The students teacher from WKU that was in my stat class last semester was almost exact with his prediction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bruce Fischer said:

I'm absolutely not a communist, and I don't think I'm a socialist either. I'm much closer to the center than either of those terms suggest, think JFK but in the 21st century and slightly more to the left

I'm not, I despise the death penalty and see it as a disgusting human rights violation that has its roots in ancient Babylon, which is not a society I want to live in.

Have no fear. Although most Americans today seem to have little or no knowledge of the differences between specific left-wing stances on the political spectrum (or that certain stances, like Fascism and Islamic Fundamentalism, are not even left-wing at all, but are far-right), Bernie Sanders, by definition, and as seen in most other First World nations, is a Social Democrat, not actually a hard Socialist or Communist. However, there is paleoanthropological evidence that the death penalty dates back to pre-agrarian, pre-sedentary, pre-urban tribes, even quite possibly well into prehistoric times, and far predates Babylon - it's just that Hammurabi's is the first written secular law code to call for it - then again, it's the first VERIFIED WRITTEN secular law code we've found - but that doesn't it was the absolute beginning of the practice, as a number of prehistoric human remains have been found whose demise was strongly believed to have been tribally-ordered executions of various grisly sorts. That being said, it is still a very questionable practice in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Have no fear. Although most Americans today seem to have little or no knowledge of the differences between specific left-wing stances on the political spectrum (or that certain stances, like Fascism and Islamic Fundamentalism, are not even left-wing at all, but are far-right), Bernie Sanders, by definition, and as seen in most other First World nations, is a Social Democrat, not actually a hard Socialist or Communist. However, there is paleoanthropological evidence that the death penalty dates back to pre-agrarian, pre-sedentary, pre-urban tribes, even quite possibly well into prehistoric times, and far predates Babylon - it's just that Hammurabi's is the first written secular law code to call for it - then again, it's the first VERIFIED WRITTEN secular law code we've found - but that doesn't it was the absolute beginning of the practice, as a number of prehistoric human remains have been found whose demise was strongly believed to have been tribally-ordered executions of various grisly sorts. That being said, it is still a very questionable practice in most cases.

But, members and parties of the "far-right", as they are referred to, are usually not on the right side of the scale when it comes to economics. This is a classic example of how the left-right spectrum is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jvikings1 said:

But, members and parties of the "far-right", as they are referred to, are usually not on the right side of the scale when it comes to economics. This is a classic example of how the left-right spectrum is flawed.

It's been flawed since it first came into existence. I, myself, would prefer a more evocative, comprehensive, and dynamic way of dividing parties and candidates and their ideologies - unfortunately, for fear of sounding like Alexander Hamilton, it would likely be too confusing to the common voter and even easier to distort, warp, and twist such terminology for ulterior and deceptive political ends...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

That is because the major pundits where not very smart when it came to this election.  They ignored the Brexit precedent and relied on polling that was obviously flawed.  The students teacher from WKU that was in my stat class last semester was almost exact with his prediction.

Using Brexit as precedent would not be good statistics, like at all.

Also, the polls weren't off, at least not nationally; some states were inaccurate (especially in the Rust Belt), but there's also the margin of error (I think most polls have +-3%; IIRC she was up by 3ish% on election day and beat Trump by 2.1%) plus polling couldn't account for last-minute campaign events like the Comey letter. I agree that the pundits on both sides were stupid this election and drew conclusions from the polls that turned out to be wrong, but when aren't they stupid? :P

30 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Robby Mook is my cousin (never met him--same grandfather, different grandmother), so maybe this is why I'm going to defend him here. There are some things that he did really well, such as data analysis and other data gathering initiatives. He also, if the wikileaks emails are to be trusted, aimed at pushing Clinton in a progressive direction and discouraging her or Bill Clinton from getting too chummy with Wall Street. I get the idea that he had far less control over Clinton's campaign than other candidates have in the past. For one, it seemed like the campaign team had so many officers and such that I can't see how this didn't confuse matters, slow down decisions and executions. Clinton was very staged. For instance, Trump would Tweet on impulse; Clinton's tweets would have to go through numerous people before they were okayed. My guess is despite Robby Mook's errors, they were in part exacerbated by Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's control-freak tendencies. If you look at Robby Mook's success in the past it was quite remarkable. However, it is possible that operating at the full national level was more than he could handle. Only he would probably know that truly, however. He did win the popular vote. He and every major projection thought he would win the Electoral College. Even Peyton Manning lost a Super Bowl despite a projected victory (against Seattle). I do remember one blunder though, and I'm not sure if this was Mook, one of the other officers, or one of the Clintons, but the campaign team was about to have their Iowa foottroopers bused to Michigan as election day was nearing. The Clinton team called the Iowa campaign team and told them to hold their troopers there in an attempt to trick the Trump team into thinking Clinton wasn't worried about Michigan and thought they could win Iowa, and so spread Trump's forces. The strategy was obviously bad because Clinton's ground forces were like 4x bigger than Trump's already. She should have just stacked her forces in the states that mattered--FL, PA, NC, MI, WI, OH, NH, VA, NV, CO. I think in 4 to 8 years we will probably no more of how the campaign failed. It might have been mostly Mook's fault, and it might not have been mostly his fault. However, as campaign manager he will get the bulk of the criticism, regardless if it is deserving or not. I primarily blame the Clintons for the defeat, and not the campaign strategy as a whole. There's a reason that the first article that announced Mook becoming the campaign manager was titled, "Robby Mook Just Took the Hardest Job in Politics." And it wasn't so much the job title itself, it was who he was promoting. He's young and intelligent, so he probably won't repeat the same mistakes and will learn from this. I think it would be unintelligent to shut him out of any future political campaigning. 

Mook certainly isn't the only one at fault, and Clinton was not at all the ideal candidate, but when the Republicans nominated Trump, they basically handed the election to Clinton on a gold platter. If the campaign had actually had a message other than "Hillary's not Donald Trump," then I think they would've won.

22 minutes ago, Patine said:

Have no fear. Although most Americans today seem to have little or no knowledge of the differences between specific left-wing stances on the political spectrum (or that certain stances, like Fascism and Islamic Fundamentalism, are not even left-wing at all, but are far-right), Bernie Sanders, by definition, and as seen in most other First World nations, is a Social Democrat, not actually a hard Socialist or Communist. However, there is paleoanthropological evidence that the death penalty dates back to pre-agrarian, pre-sedentary, pre-urban tribes, even quite possibly well into prehistoric times, and far predates Babylon - it's just that Hammurabi's is the first written secular law code to call for it - then again, it's the first VERIFIED WRITTEN secular law code we've found - but that doesn't it was the absolute beginning of the practice, as a number of prehistoric human remains have been found whose demise was strongly believed to have been tribally-ordered executions of various grisly sorts. That being said, it is still a very questionable practice in most cases.

Well to be honest, most Americans today seem to have little or no civics knowledge in general. It's sad because it's so easy to be properly informed and yet most people won't do the work because they hate politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Patine said:

However, there is paleoanthropological evidence that the death penalty dates back to pre-agrarian, pre-sedentary, pre-urban tribes, even quite possibly well into prehistoric times, and far predates Babylon - it's just that Hammurabi's is the first written secular law code to call for it - then again, it's the first VERIFIED WRITTEN secular law code we've found - but that doesn't it was the absolute beginning of the practice, as a number of prehistoric human remains have been found whose demise was strongly believed to have been tribally-ordered executions of various grisly sorts. That being said, it is still a very questionable practice in most cases.

It's a very questionable practice in all cases.  The state has no business killing people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bruce Fischer said:

Using Brexit as precedent would not be good statistics, like at all.

Also, the polls weren't off, at least not nationally; some states were inaccurate (especially in the Rust Belt), but there's also the margin of error (I think most polls have +-3%; IIRC she was up by 3ish% on election day and beat Trump by 2.1%) plus polling couldn't account for last-minute campaign events like the Comey letter. I agree that the pundits on both sides were stupid this election and drew conclusions from the polls that turned out to be wrong, but when aren't they stupid? :P

Actually, using Brexit as a precedent would have fit.  In both cases, the polls where off.  In both cases, there were shadow voters (partially contributing to the wrong polls).  And, in both cases, the populist side won despite the odds being against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

That is because the major pundits where not very smart when it came to this election.  They ignored the Brexit precedent and relied on polling that was obviously flawed.  The students teacher from WKU that was in my stat class last semester was almost exact with his prediction.

The polls sometimes miss, as Harry Truman could attest.  Heck, the polls in the 1980 election were off by more than 2016, predicting a very close outcome between Carter and Reagan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Actually, using Brexit as a precedent would have fit.  In both cases, the polls where off.  In both cases, there were shadow voters (partially contributing to the wrong polls).  And, in both cases, the populist side won despite the odds being against them.

But at least most First World countries (thus far, in most cases) have the occasional election swayed by shadow voters rather than ghost voters, like in certain other parts of the world... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, pilight said:

It's a very questionable practice in all cases.  The state has no business killing people.

"You killed someone? That's wrong, killing people is wrong! So we'll kill you now, that's not wrong, because, uhhh, reasons!"

14 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Actually, using Brexit as a precedent would have fit.  In both cases, the polls where off.  In both cases, there were shadow voters (partially contributing to the wrong polls).  And, in both cases, the populist side won despite the odds being against them.

Brexit was also the only major, recent instance where the polls were significantly off prior to the election, and could've been a fluke for all we knew. Also, the US Presidential polls were not off, at least not nationally, the conclusions pundits were drawing from them were. The election itself was well within the margin of error, a statistical facet that pundits pretty much completely ignored.

I admit, I laughed at 538 when they gave Trump a 35% chance of winning a week before the election (and a 11% chance of him losing the popular vote while doing so), but they turned out to be the most accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How pundits on MSNBC acted like the election was going to go :P:

snip.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LokiLoki22 said:

Bernie swept me up and Trump made me distance myself with the modern Right as much as I can

Are you distancing from Trump or from the "modern Right?"  They're not necessarily the same thing.  Trump is more Populism vs. Libertarian/Constitutional Conservative.  I lean more towards the second but I wouldn't let Trump "drive" me away from the right.

6 hours ago, LokiLoki22 said:

Republicans have truly made me hate them by cutting school funding when I was a kid

School funding is good, but honestly (and this is coming from a teacher), too many think they can solve educational problems just by spending more money.  They waste most of it on administrative bloat and "diversity coordinators," so more money isn't always better.  Though I am not familiar with the circumstances in your case.

6 hours ago, LokiLoki22 said:

attacking minority citizens like Muslims,

When has any prominent Republican "attacked" Muslims?  I can't speak for some local guys who may be idiots, but that's an unfair characterization of Republicans overall.  What I find laughable is Hillary Clinton talking about women's rights and then accepting campaign donations from countries that practice Sharia Law.

7 hours ago, LokiLoki22 said:

I used to be closer to the Democratic Party than I am (they are sliding left faster than I am),

That I totally relate to.  Believe it or not, I was a die-hard liberal until about 8 years ago (I actually voted for Obama in 2008, regretted it soon after).  But even back then I would have never gone along with the social justice nonsense; I've always had a conservative streak for certain things even back when I was voting for Clinton and Gore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2017 at 6:54 PM, Bruce Fischer said:

Mine have too; I've gone from conservative to democratic socialist to center-left in the span of 4 years

Interesting... I've had almost the reverse of you over the past 7-8 years, minus the socialist part.  Actually as a kid I had a minor Prohibitionist streak and was more religious.  What changed your mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, servo75 said:

When has any prominent Republican "attacked" Muslims?  I can't speak for some local guys who may be idiots, but that's an unfair characterization of Republicans overall.  What I find laughable is Hillary Clinton talking about women's rights and then accepting campaign donations from countries that practice Sharia Law.

"Not all Moslems are terrorists, but all terrorists are Moslems," Donald Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bruce Fischer said:

"You killed someone? That's wrong, killing people is wrong! So we'll kill you now, that's not wrong, because, uhhh, reasons!"

Brexit was also the only major, recent instance where the polls were significantly off prior to the election, and could've been a fluke for all we knew. Also, the US Presidential polls were not off, at least not nationally, the conclusions pundits were drawing from them were. The election itself was well within the margin of error, a statistical facet that pundits pretty much completely ignored.

I admit, I laughed at 538 when they gave Trump a 35% chance of winning a week before the election (and a 11% chance of him losing the popular vote while doing so), but they turned out to be the most accurate.

State polls where, and they are the only ones that matter.  National polls mean nothing.  The Presidential election is a series of state elections rather than a national election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Patine said:

But at least most First World countries (thus far, in most cases) have the occasional election swayed by shadow voters rather than ghost voters, like in certain other parts of the world... :P

Chicago has some of those ghost voters which have struck in elections such as the 1960 election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, servo75 said:

Interesting... I've had almost the reverse of you over the past 7-8 years, minus the socialist part.  Actually as a kid I had a minor Prohibitionist streak and was more religious.  What changed your mind?

So in 2012 I first got "into" politics, but I put that in quotes because it was mostly because that's what other people were interested in since there was an election. I didn't love Romney but since I took all of my parent's (who were and still are conservatives) views and made them my own (I was 12 and wasn't really my own person yet) I hated Obama and wanted Romney to win. (I have a feeling that growing up in the church made me more conservative as well, though I'm still religious; it's a myth that you can't be progressive and religious) Then I stopped caring for 3 years, during which I became my own person both politically and in the other areas of my life. I started watching election stuff again right after Trump announced, and his rhetoric repulsed me but I laughed it off at the time because he was never going to win a primary, much less the nomination. A "President Trump" was unfathomable. But then I watched the Republican debate that August, and I discovered that I didn't actually like any Republican candidate. Then I watched the next Democratic debate and I didn't like Clinton but Bernie really resonated with me. I started to form my own opinions (that were based around Bernie's but not a carbon copy) on issues. Around March of 2016 two things happened: I started to fall out of love with Bernie (probably because I was shifting away from him ideologically as I was forming more solid opinions on issues) and to appreciate Hillary Clinton's technocratic demeanor and down-to-earth vision for America even if I wasn't enthusiastic about her as a person or candidate, and I realized that I love politics when I debated Social Security reform and realized that I had a lot of fun doing so. Then last fall I started community college (dually enrolled homeschooler, that's how I'm a 17-year-old college student), majored in political science and took a national government class with an absolutely excellent professor who really encouraged us to think for ourselves and develop our own opinions, and then often facilitated debates between us. That sealed the deal and now I want to dedicate myself to this field. I'm still evolving; I've shifted around on a few issues since there's no longer the polarization of election season. I've also learned a lot about state and local governments since I'm taking a class on it (with the same awesome professor from my national gov class), and right now I'm exploring US political history. (I just bought a biography of Nelson Rockefeller on Sunday and the older guy who checked me out gave me a funny look and asked why I, a teenager, cared about Gerald Ford's Vice President :P)

I live in the only majority-Republican district in Maryland so being not-a-Republican has been an interesting experience; my youth pastor straight-up told me that I must automatically want unlimited abortions, and my own parents flipped out when they found out I used the term "liberal" to describe myself once. My best friend, who voted for Trump, is pretty much the only IRL person I can talk to about politics and actually say what I believe, even though we don't agree on anything. Which is why I like this forum, because I can express my political beliefs, have them challenged, and refine those beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Patine said:

"Not all Moslems are terrorists, but all terrorists are Moslems," Donald Trump.

Certainly not all terrorists, but certainly the most visible and violent.  I've never heard of Christian terrorists blowing themselves up and trying to destroy Western values, or Radical Jews flying airplanes into buildings.  Radical Islam gave rise to the Terror State in the Middle East, so Trump is essentially right in the big picture.  That's not "attacking" Muslims, just stating facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

State polls where, and they are the only ones that matter.  National polls mean nothing.  The Presidential election is a series of state elections rather than a national election.

Yes I know how elections work. I wouldn't say national polls mean "nothing," they just don't mean everything. Again, polls tend to be between 7-10 days behind current public opinion so last-minute events such as the Comey letter may have affected the election while not showing up in polls (or a bunch of people could've just lied to pollsters). Polls are never perfect but to act like they were totally off and that no one predicted President Trump and that polls now cannot be trusted is not the lesson I would take away from the 2016 election.

5 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Certainly not all terrorists, but certainly the most visible and violent.  I've never heard of Christian terrorists blowing themselves up and trying to destroy Western values, or Radical Jews flying airplanes into buildings.  Radical Islam gave rise to the Terror State in the Middle East, so Trump is essentially right in the big picture.  That's not "attacking" Muslims, just stating facts.

*cough cough*

Image result

Image result for oklahoma city bomber

Image result for dylann roof

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LokiLoki22 said:

where'd you find this tool?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

Link to comment
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...