|
|
MacNN Exit Poll: 2016 Presidential Election
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
Exit poll, for those who like statistics. Who did you vote for?
Results are hidden, so we won't know it was you who voted for Hillary, BadKosh.
(
Last edited by andi*pandi; Nov 8, 2016 at 02:42 PM.
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Am I supposed to pick who I voted for or who I think will win? The latter tends to be more accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
Exit poll. Who you voted for. I know the NN demographics do not match the nations, so may not be an accurate predictor of national trends, but it could be interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Private poll? No thanks, comrade
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
Here I thought folks would be more likely to use the poll if it were private. You think we really have time to hack the website for this poll?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'll out myself with a shocker of a vote for Dorky McVape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
Here I thought folks would be more likely to use the poll if it were private. You think we really have time to hack the website for this poll?
Except you can get trolled and when non posters participate you'll have no clue what's going on
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Basically, you want voter ID.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
Exit poll, for those who like statistics. Who did you vote for?
Results are hidden, so we won't know it was you who voted for Hillary, BadKosh.
Of course on this poll he can only vote for her once.
|
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
So the MAJORITY WAS WRONG!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
So the MAJORITY WAS WRONG!
Do we know yet whether Trump has received a majority of the popular vote?
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Which mean nothing. What about the electoral college?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Do we know yet whether Trump has received a majority of the popular vote?
Originally Posted by BadKosh
Which mean nothing. What about the electoral college?
Hillary:59,383,245 votes Trump:59,209,854 votes
That's the nature of the EC. She won California by>200K, and NY by>100K
|
45/47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chongo
Hillary:59,383,245 votes Trump:59,209,854 votes
That's the nature of the EC. She won California by>200K, and NY by>100K
You're missing a zero there - she won CA by 2.5 million votes and NY by 1.5 million. Meanwhile, she lost Texas by a comparatively small 800K, also better than Dems usually do.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Is there a good reason to keep it around? Yes the timing reeks of sour grapes, but is there a good reason to have it still?
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think there's an argument to be made there's value in the balance against urban interests the EC provides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
There have been calls to kill the EC since Gore. It does seem to be a trend. Or maybe all states should follow Maine and split their electors proportionately, not all or nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by andi*pandi
There have been calls to kill the EC since Gore. It does seem to be a trend. Or maybe all states should follow Maine and split their electors proportionately, not all or nothing.
Give the democrats credit, they managed to get burned by it twice in less than 20 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status:
Offline
|
|
From NY Times 1960:
"Mr. Kennedy’s popular vote margin shrank to about 100,000 votes, and he won 303 electoral votes. Mr. Nixon and other Republicans pondered demanding recounts, especially in Texas and Illinois. The vice president dropped the idea; however, he told a friend that December, “We won, but they stole it from us.”'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chongo
Hillary:59,383,245 votes Trump:59,209,854 votes
That's the nature of the EC. She won California by>200K, and NY by>100K
I understand how the Electoral College works, and how it came to be historically. Nowadays it is no longer necessary, and I think it is better to elect the President directly. I am not saying that because of how this election turned out, but as a matter of principle.
You guys are actually closer to, effectively, a direct vote for the President than you think: a number of states have passed the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which requires that the state's electoral college representatives cast their votes according to who got the popular majority — provided that sufficiently many states join in (so that they have more than 270 EC votes). Right now, states which have ratified this law have collected 165 EC votes, and it is being considered in several other states which would make up a further 11 % of the EC vote. If this election triggers other states to adopt it, then it's not that far off from going over 50 % (i. e. 270 votes). And if that comes to pass, it'll make the Electoral College moot.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
I think there's an argument to be made there's value in the balance against urban interests the EC provides.
The converse point of view is that rural interests are overrepresented in politics. Rural states with a lower population already are overrepresented in plenty of other ways (e. g. because California gets as many US senators as Wyoming).
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
We have a sample size of 13 here, next time we should sell this to some pollster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
The converse point of view is that rural interests are overrepresented in politics. Rural states with a lower population already are overrepresented in plenty of other ways (e. g. because California gets as many US senators as Wyoming).
Just what I'd expect from the cosmopolitan elite.
Is not the only way rural interests get served in a democracy is by overrepresentation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
Is there a good reason to keep it around? Yes the timing reeks of sour grapes, but is there a good reason to have it still?
Because we're united states, not just one big mass of land called America.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Because we're united states, not just one big mass of land called America.
By that argument, you should have one EC vote per state.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
By that argument, you should have one EC vote per state.
How does that make sense? We have the EC for the same reason we structure the House of Reps and Senate the way we do. Why should Alaska have as much power as California in the Senate? Is that unfair too?
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status:
Offline
|
|
I live in the Bay Area and my vote would not have mattered. No, I wasn't going to vote for Trump. I was more concerned with my state, county, and city stuff so I did not vote for a President.
|
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Is not the only way rural interests get served in a democracy is by overrepresentation?
No, of course not. Why should one random group get more power than another? The contributions by people who work at Google or who do research on new medication or who work in the NYC fire department are no less or more important than farmers in Wyoming or so. I see no reason to give preference to one group over another. Just imagine if it were reversed, you wouldn't want that either. They have their representatives in the House, and in that way they can have their opinions heard. If your point is about poverty, then I don't think this is unique to rural parts of the country either.
Besides rural areas are already given an advantage via the primaries and the composition of the Senate. Any further change of the rules would make it more likely that Presidents are elected without a popular majority. That's not stable but a recipe for disaster.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
This isn't an answer to my question.
I'm confused about the question of how I would like it if things were reversed. What does that mean in this context? Aren't they already reversed?
What's the "further change in the rules"? The EC rules we have now aren't a change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
I'm confused about the question of how I would like it if things were reversed. What does that mean in this context? Aren't they already reversed?
No, rural states are already over represented in the current system. Reversal refers to a world where urban regions have more votes and influence than people living in rural areas, as measured by the relative population.
Originally Posted by subego
What's the "further change in the rules"? The EC rules we have now aren't a change.
Sorry, I thought you were referring to one of Chongo's proposals which would give rural areas and smaller states more weight in the Electoral College.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
No, rural states are already over represented in the current system. Reversal refers to a world where urban regions have more votes and influence than people living in rural areas, as measured by the relative population.
My interests are best served by representation proportional to an accurate valuation of the regions in question.
It's possible this valuation tracks precisely with how high the meat is stacked, but that would be awfully convenient in a way reality tends not to be.
My instincts tell me rural states provide more value to the country than would be indicated by their population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
How does that make sense? We have the EC for the same reason we structure the House of Reps and Senate the way we do. Why should Alaska have as much power as California in the Senate? Is that unfair too?
Yes - but this is where the balance thing comes in. You can have one chamber that makes sure to represent low-population corners of the country. The EC is more like having a mostly popular vote but with someone putting their thumb on the scale.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
Yes - but this is where the balance thing comes in. You can have one chamber that makes sure to represent low-population corners of the country. The EC is more like having a mostly popular vote but with someone putting their thumb on the scale.
I'm confused... that's the intent, right? Balance rural and urban interests by putting a rural thumb on the scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
My instincts tell me rural states provide more value to the country than would be indicated by their population.
I don't buy that. In this time and age aren't the people who create, maintain and enhance absolutely crucial infrastructure such as the internet or provide emergency services any less important? Farmers rely on apps and GPS just like the rest does on food. The importance we afford to each of these groups is already part of the political process, and should be negotiated dynamically.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
I'm confused... that's the intent, right? Balance rural and urban interests by putting a rural thumb on the scale.
No, according to US census data in 1800 about 94 % of the population was living in rural areas (compared to 19 % now), there was no divide between urban and rural. The vast majority was living rural parts of the US.
The two main reasons was to (1) create a feasible electoral procedure for a country as big as the US. Traveling back then was a major factor and the reason why you have a 2.5 month gap between the election and the inauguration. Carrying ballot boxes or merely relying on messengers would have been quite impractical and prone to voter fraud. And (2) the Founding Fathers were skeptical that Joe Blow would be qualified to make a pick. So the idea was that the members of the Electoral College would be respected members of the community qualified to judge. Keep in mind that parties were not part of the original design, so the idea was to pick the best individual without sheepishly picking the party's anointed candidate.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
Yes - but this is where the balance thing comes in. You can have one chamber that makes sure to represent low-population corners of the country. The EC is more like having a mostly popular vote but with someone putting their thumb on the scale.
Yeah, let all the huge population centers control all the states, no matter how illogical that sounds. It's already heavily pitched towards the more populous states, candidates already ignore any state with fewer than 6 electoral votes. That's not a republic, that's mob rule, and we aren't a democracy.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
I don't buy that.
Of course you don't, it doesn't fit the Left's narrative or goals, to force their values and views on every square inch of the country.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
One should also remember that this was related to the Three-Fifths compromise, and was in fact hashed out by the same people. If it had been a straight popular vote, the slave states would have received comparatively less influence, as slaves could not vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electo...(United_States)
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
It's so far removed from the 3/5ths Compromise that it's not even worth noting, the electoral college was in place long before that. It was implemented to keep cities from controlling the whole country, and it's still doing its job. Nothing's going to change, because an amendment to it will never pass.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Yeah, let all the huge population centers control all the states, no matter how illogical that sounds. It's already heavily pitched towards the more populous states, candidates already ignore any state with fewer than 6 electoral votes. That's not a republic, that's mob rule, and we aren't a democracy.
This obviously false - New Hampshire has 4 electoral votes and has received lots of attention from both candidates, while 4 of the 5 most populous states are taken completely for granted by one or the other party. The focus is on states that are close to 50-50, not on populous states.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It's so far removed from the 3/5ths Compromise that it's not even worth noting, the electoral college was in place long before that. It was implemented to keep cities from controlling the whole country, and it's still doing its job.
See the link I posted earlier, the background section. They were both passed as part of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It even includes a quote from Madison about slavery being a concern. It goes on to include the concerns that Oreo raised, with references to The Federalist Papers.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Nothing's going to change, because an amendment to it will never pass.
No, but the Interstate Compact might.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
My interests are best served by representation proportional to an accurate valuation of the regions in question.
It's possible this valuation tracks precisely with how high the meat is stacked, but that would be awfully convenient in a way reality tends not to be.
My instincts tell me rural states provide more value to the country than would be indicated by their population.
Isn't the EV supposed to represent the people, not their 'value'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
This obviously false - New Hampshire has 4 electoral votes and has received lots of attention from both candidates, while 4 of the 5 most populous states are taken completely for granted by one or the other party. The focus is on states that are close to 50-50, not on populous states.
Not, it isn't, but nice try. The only reason NH was in play is because of the EC and it being a swing state, so you made my point for me.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by P
See the link I posted earlier, the background section. They were both passed as part of the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It even includes a quote from Madison about slavery being a concern. It goes on to include the concerns that Oreo raised, with references to The Federalist Papers.
That still doesn't explain the need for the EC, and why it matters for a diverse country comprised of sovereign states. A footnote doesn't represent the whole argument, or it's reason for existing, it's just another minor point. IF we were as homogenous and small as, say, Sweden, you'd have a point, but we aren't.
No, but the Interstate Compact might.
No Red state will sign that compact, only the Blue ones, because it will strip what little power they have, making it moot. It's the same reason why an amendment will never pass.
|
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
I don't buy that. In this time and age aren't the people who create, maintain and enhance absolutely crucial infrastructure such as the internet or provide emergency services any less important? Farmers rely on apps and GPS just like the rest does on food. The importance we afford to each of these groups is already part of the political process, and should be negotiated dynamically.
If it's going to be rated by what the regions produce, that just speaks to my point.
As farming gets mechanized, it requires less population to support it. Does that make the food less valuable?
If a city doubles in population, is the internet twice as valuable to its inhabitants?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
No, according to US census data in 1800 about 94 % of the population was living in rural areas (compared to 19 % now), there was no divide between urban and rural. The vast majority was living rural parts of the US.
The two main reasons was to (1) create a feasible electoral procedure for a country as big as the US. Traveling back then was a major factor and the reason why you have a 2.5 month gap between the election and the inauguration. Carrying ballot boxes or merely relying on messengers would have been quite impractical and prone to voter fraud. And (2) the Founding Fathers were skeptical that Joe Blow would be qualified to make a pick. So the idea was that the members of the Electoral College would be respected members of the community qualified to judge. Keep in mind that parties were not part of the original design, so the idea was to pick the best individual without sheepishly picking the party's anointed candidate.
These are all good points, but it seems to me there's an intentional large state/small state thumb on the scales going on, or the representation wouldn't be population dependent plus two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Half the country wants one thing, half wants another. Ever since the anomaly that was FDR, the presidency has been divided precisely equally between the two parties. Despite neither side being happy with equality, it is a fair outcome.
If one of those sides is repeatedly on the losing end of the electoral college, that argues in FAVOR of the electoral college. Otherwise the popular vote would be unfairly giving the victory to a slim, <1% margin of popular voters. The electoral college has managed to give the 49.9% closer to their fair, representative time in office. Two additional wins would unfairly skew the contest towards a VERY narrow majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
Half the country wants one thing, half wants another. Ever since the anomaly that was FDR, the presidency has been divided precisely equally between the two parties. Despite neither side being happy with equality, it is a fair outcome.
If one of those sides is repeatedly on the losing end of the electoral college, that argues in FAVOR of the electoral college. Otherwise the popular vote would be unfairly giving the victory to a slim, <1% margin of popular voters. The electoral college has managed to give the 49.9% closer to their fair, representative time in office. Two additional wins would unfairly skew the contest towards a VERY narrow majority.
Walter Mondale disagrees. Never mind, I misunderstood.
My instincts still tell tell me you are correct, and that this EC vote in this instance "correct", even though I don't really like the result.
It's not like Hillary couldn't win laboring under an EC disadvantage, she just played the wrong strategy to do so. She was briefed on the rules going in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Isn't the EV supposed to represent the people, not their 'value'?
No?
If it was directly representing the people, the plus two for each state wouldn't be in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|