well I could probably fix you up...but wouldn't leave much room for the topic now would it?
but then you are rarely on topic anyway
Wake Up, America! Wake Up! PLEASE!!
- Thread starter Drillher4me
- Start date
- Status
well I could probably fix you up...but wouldn't leave much room for the topic now would it?
but then you are rarely on topic anyway
Don't you think if the whining left could do something about the "unfairness" that keeps them from winning once in awhile they would have done something by now? But then again lately they haven't been able to win anything. They do get an A for effort!
hard to when the deck is stacked......look at the last 2 appointees......both against any kind of voter changes...look at all the gerrymandering the right has done...used to be able to take it to the supreme court and get it over turned...not going to happen now
I'm feeling pretty good about that. Because if the likes of Clinton, Sanders, Booker, or Harris were able to appoint, say goodbye to our constitution.
I wonder if the left will stand behind this women - after all, any woman that claims sexual assault should be believed .. .. right?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-black-baby’s-backpack-brushed-up-against-a-woman-she-called-911-to-report-a-sexual-assault/ar-BBOkUio?li=BBnb7Kz
This kid won't be able to run for office 35 years from now.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-black-baby’s-backpack-brushed-up-against-a-woman-she-called-911-to-report-a-sexual-assault/ar-BBOkUio?li=BBnb7Kz
This kid won't be able to run for office 35 years from now.
Humm, kind of reminds me of when the ACA got passed.
yes...it did get shoved through....so much bad publicity from the right....lack of participation from the right....but look now after people saw what good it did for a lot of people..not everyone but most...and now they want it fixed!
you have that just a little twisted......what did Clinton do when pres?...one of the most popular pres around...economy good..etc...made no attempt to change anything...you people believed all that Russian press hook line and sinker...….and still believe it even after you know Russia put out most of it....talk about a warped sense of well being...you come up way short on most facts
actually you have shown to know very little about what you are talking about...just keep shoving that right wing bullshit like some one might buy...but most apparently have a few more smarts than you do!
The electoral college wasn’t created because is was hard to count votes. It was created because the southern (progressive/liberal) states relied heavily on slavery and felt that they would be misrepresented due to there low population of whites compared to the northern (conservative) states. To slaves were assigned 3/5 of a person for the census and the electoral college created to provide parity amongst the states.
While not perfect today, the reason that it’s important to maintain is that the entire election process would change if you went to strictly popular vote. Most notable, presidential candidates would only campaign in and therefore represent roughly 10 states and that campaigning would be focused primarily on door to door voter registration, picking up early registration ballots and driving people to polling centers. You’d see states like CA, NY and MA have huge voter turnout as a result of manipulation of the current non-voter block.
C'mon Sub you're doing it again. Your information comes from the HUFF and Yahoo. Not the most believable news sources to do your research! They rank right up there with CNN and MsNBC. Here are some responses to this article:damn hope they are wrong on this
Why Donald Trump Will Likely Win A Second Term As President
Benjamin Waddell,HuffPost
On Oct. 6, 2018, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court by the narrowest of margins, with 50 votes in favor and 48 votes against. He is the first justice in U.S. history to be confirmed by senators representing less than half of the country (44 percent), with a majority of the population (52 percent) opposed to his nomination.
Kavanaugh is the second Supreme Court justice picked by President Donald Trump. Trump, in turn, is the second president in five elections to enter the White House after losing the popular vote. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore by 540,520 votes but won the Electoral College after the Supreme Court halted the Florida recount. Similarly, Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by an overwhelming 2,809,197 votes. But like Bush, Trump won the Electoral College, and thus the presidency.
The U.S. political system is institutionally rigged in favor of conservative white voters who drastically diverge from the political values of most Americans. This is why Kavanaugh was able to be confirmed by the Senate, and it’s the reason filmmaker Michael Moore, who predicted Trump’s victory in 2016, recently warned that Trump could very likely be a two-term president.
Unless voters organize to amend the Electoral College ... our Constitution will continue to be one that treats citizens of color as less than whole people.
I am a scholar of migration, which wouldn’t seem to be related to the U.S. electoral system at all. However, a close look at demographic shifts in the United States over the 20th century helps us understand just how rigged America’s government is, how Trump became president and why it’s more likely than not that he’ll be re-elected in 2020.
Supporters of the Electoral College argue that the system insulates the executive branch from the whims of an uninformed public and balances power between sparsely populated rural states and densely populated urban states. As benign as this arrangement may seem, however, it’s steeped in the legacy of slavery, discrimination and racism. In practice, it systematically undervalues minority voters in urban areas in favor of white voters from rural counties.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, representatives from Southern states feared their residents would be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis those of Northern states due to the fact that fewer voting-eligible citizens lived in the South. This led to the infamous three-fifths compromise, which allowed Southern states to count each enslaved person as three-fifths of a citizen and thereby increased Southern representation in the House.
A separate compromise ensured that each state, regardless of population, had two senators. In other words, the structures of both the House and the Senate were concessions, motivated by practicality rather than principle, made to get Southern states to sign onto the Constitution. The whole thing was at an impasse without them and the result was that Southern states left the negotiating table with 33 percent more representatives in Congress than if slaves had been ignored.
Because each state gets as many votes in the Electoral College as they have in the House and Senate combined, the two-senators-per-state rule gives less-populated states disproportionate power in presidential elections.
While the three-fifths arrangement has been eliminated, the original configuration of the Electoral College maintains that deep imbalance between rural states and urban states, which now systematically favors white voters.
Here’s why.
In the 20th century, millions of Americans left the countryside for the city. One of the biggest shifts involved the millions of black people who left the South between 1916 and 1970. According to the U.S. Census, at the turn of the 20th century, 90 percent of black Americans lived in rural Southern states, but by 1970, less than 50 percent did. Most hoped to settle where they could sit in the front of the bus, go to school, access credit to buy houses or start businesses, and vote. In short, they left for more progressive, and typically urban, areas in the North.
A close look at demographic shifts in the United States over the 20th century helps us understand just how rigged America’s government is.Similarly, following the Indian Relocation Act of 1956, many Native Americans began to leave their nations in search of work and more stable social conditions in cities. Asian-Americans, many of whom had lost their land to the government and opportunists during World War II, also relocated to urban areas.
Hispanic ranchers and farmers faced a similar fate. Struggling to access loans for their farms and ranches, they left in droves for the cities too. They had no choice.
The mass exodus of minorities out of rural areas should have penalized rural states by reducing their share of electoral votes. But because of the two-senators rule, the Electoral College now grossly overvalues voters in rural, less-populated states. And while many white voters have left rural areas as well, minorities as a group were much more impacted by rural-urban migration flows.
As Graph 1 shows, rural states in 2016 had one electoral vote for every 393,293 residents, whereas urban states had one electoral vote for every 590,081 residents. According to the 2016 American Community Survey, 81 percent of residents in rural states were white, compared with 75 percent in semi-rural states and only 57 percent in urban states.
Population per Electoral Vote in Rural, Semi-rural and Urban States
2016 American Community Survey." />
The three groups that most heavily support Democratic candidates — blacks (88 percent for Clinton in 2016), Hispanics (66 percent for Clinton) and Asians (65 percent for Clinton) — now find themselves disproportionately living in densely populated states whose electoral votes are undervalued compared to those rural, less-populated states.
As Graph 2 shows, in the 2016 election, Wyoming — where 84 percent of the population is white ― had one electoral vote for every 187,875 residents. California — where 62 percent of the population are minorities ― had one electoral vote for every 677,344 residents. So if a person moved from Wyoming to California, their vote would lose nearly 66 percent of its value in presidential elections.
Population per Electoral Vote
2016 American Community Survey." />
The Electoral College was designed to buttress the power of white rural voters, and true to that purpose, it continues to suppress the power of minority voters today. Critics may argue that Hillary Clinton lost because she failed to round up as many voters in 2016 as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012. But Clinton didn’t so much lose the national election as she failed to win enough support in several states stacked with white voters.
Clinton handily won California (62 percent minority) and New York (43.5 percent minority), barely lost Florida (42.2 percent minority), and racked up more votes in Texas (56.5 percent minority) than Obama had. Together, these four states account for 33 percent of the nation’s population and an increasingly larger percentage of the nation’s minorities. However, Clinton lost traction in Michigan (75 percent white), Pennsylvania (78 percent white), Ohio (80 percent white) and Wisconsin (82 percent white), and as a result, she lost the election.
What this all adds up to is a rather unpopular but quite sound prediction: Donald Trump is likely to win a second term.
And unless voters organize to amend the Electoral College and the Senate — or abolish electoral votes altogether — our Constitution will continue to be one that treats citizens of color as less than whole people.
Fortunately, the type of social pressure necessary to restructure the rules of the game may not be that far off. Diversity is on the rise in rural America, and while these populations are young, within the next decade minorities will emerge as a powerful voting block in many rural counties across the country. At that point, the future of the nation will rest in the hands of ethnic and racial minorities for the first time in U.S. history.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-donald-trump-likely-win-204941807.html
The author of this story is correct in his overall analysis. However, the basis of the electoral college system is NOT rooted in racism. The EC is rooted in the ideology that the the founders did not want cities with large populations to be able to have a decided voting advantage over rural areas with less population -- irrespective of race. Secondly, the author failed to mention that each state's electoral college votes is based on the population of the ENTIRE state (to include both urban and rural areas) compared to the overall voters in the entire country. That is why states like California, New York, Texas have more electoral votes than states like Iowa or South Carolina. The EC is as fair of a system short of deciding elections by the overall popular vote. Thirdly, yes the system of each state having two Senators (regardless of population) grants smaller states equal power in the Senate and is disadvantageous to bigger states. However, the writer doesn't mention the fact that the number of House Representatives per state is decided by the state's population. Fourthly, the writer doesn't mention that the founders gave the HOR different and unique powers that the Senate does not have and visa versa. I think the founders did an excellent job in designing this Democracy and their futuristic vision of what this country would become centuries later was unbelievably accurate and brilliant. The current system makes Presidential candidates have to campaign and win votes in all 50 states and not just in the 10-15 most populated states.
Dear Author-- PLEASE study REAL history. The Electoral College is NOT rooted in racism-- actually the opposite. In 1787 the 13 states considered themselves 13 separate entities. They were extremely jealous of their rights. The Electoral College was devised as a way to protect the small states from being overwhelmed by the large states. BTW-- the SMALL states at that time were New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey-- ALL Northern states. The 3/5 compromise was the result of the decision to link BOTH House representation AND direct taxes to population. The slave states wanted to count slaves for population but not taxes while the free states wanted the opposite- for the obvious reasons. The "compromise" was to count them as 3/5 for BOTH purposes. Do your research
Texas (Republican) has 45x the population of Vermont (Democrat), yet Texas only has 12-13x the electoral votes of Vermont. The reality is there are plenty of left leaning small northern states that also support the electoral college system and bicameral legislature because it gives them voice in our government. The small northern states historically supported these systems just as much as the southern states did during our nations' founding.
When huffpoo states that Hillary won the popular vote by 2.8 million it would be interesting to note that one state, California, gave her almost 9 million votes. If California voters were more like the national average of 50 to 48 percent Trump would have won the popular vote as well. In addition, the President that ended slavery, Lincoln, lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.
This "Data" clearly shows that without the Electoral College, California and New York would be the two States that would decide most every Presidential Election.
Benjamin Waddell for someone with a Phd you don't seem to know a lot about the Electoral College. If the presidential elections were simply a popular vote then all the candidates would have to do would be to campaign in the top 12 states by population to win. Once in office all the president would have to do would be to give all the federal handouts to the top 12 states by population to ensure reelection. That's why there's an Electoral College instead of a popular vote for president.
You do know that Hillary's entire margin of victory in the popular vote came from California. Which is pretty much why the electoral college existed. So populous states couldn't ride roughshod over rural states. And it has worked fairly well for over 200 years. Also to amend the constitution to change the electoral college would require 3/4ths of the states to sign off on it. I don't think that would happen even in the next 10 years. If may be a very popular idea in the more populous states, but it will probably never catch on with the less populous states which means you will probably never get 3/4ths to ratify.
Last edited:
But you know what Sub since you say I don't have any intelligence I'll go along with your assessment this one time and answer the question Why Trump will win a second term in a very elementary way. It has nothing to do with all that sophisticated electoral college/popular vote thing. Other than not being all that articulate and as most say "not Presidential" the dude is getting ******* done, doing or at least trying very hard to getdamn hope they are wrong on this
Why Donald Trump Will Likely Win A Second Term As President
On Oct. 6, 2018, Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court by the narrowest of margins, with 50 votes in favor and 48 votes against. He is the first justice in U.S. history to be confirmed by senators representing less than half of the country (44 percent), with a majority of the population (52 percent) opposed to his nomination.
Kavanaugh is the second Supreme Court justice picked by President Donald Trump. Trump, in turn, is the second president in five elections to enter the White House after losing the popular vote. In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore by 540,520 votes but won the Electoral College after the Supreme Court halted the Florida recount. Similarly, Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by an overwhelming 2,809,197 votes. But like Bush, Trump won the Electoral College, and thus the presidency.
The U.S. political system is institutionally rigged in favor of conservative white voters who drastically diverge from the political values of most Americans. This is why Kavanaugh was able to be confirmed by the Senate, and it’s the reason filmmaker Michael Moore, who predicted Trump’s victory in 2016, recently warned that Trump could very likely be a two-term president.
Unless voters organize to amend the Electoral College ... our Constitution will continue to be one that treats citizens of color as less than whole people.
I am a scholar of migration, which wouldn’t seem to be related to the U.S. electoral system at all. However, a close look at demographic shifts in the United States over the 20th century helps us understand just how rigged America’s government is, how Trump became president and why it’s more likely than not that he’ll be re-elected in 2020.
Supporters of the Electoral College argue that the system insulates the executive branch from the whims of an uninformed public and balances power between sparsely populated rural states and densely populated urban states. As benign as this arrangement may seem, however, it’s steeped in the legacy of slavery, discrimination and racism. In practice, it systematically undervalues minority voters in urban areas in favor of white voters from rural counties.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, representatives from Southern states feared their residents would be at a disadvantage vis-à-vis those of Northern states due to the fact that fewer voting-eligible citizens lived in the South. This led to the infamous three-fifths compromise, which allowed Southern states to count each enslaved person as three-fifths of a citizen and thereby increased Southern representation in the House.
A separate compromise ensured that each state, regardless of population, had two senators. In other words, the structures of both the House and the Senate were concessions, motivated by practicality rather than principle, made to get Southern states to sign onto the Constitution. The whole thing was at an impasse without them and the result was that Southern states left the negotiating table with 33 percent more representatives in Congress than if slaves had been ignored.
Because each state gets as many votes in the Electoral College as they have in the House and Senate combined, the two-senators-per-state rule gives less-populated states disproportionate power in presidential elections.
While the three-fifths arrangement has been eliminated, the original configuration of the Electoral College maintains that deep imbalance between rural states and urban states, which now systematically favors white voters.
Here’s why.
In the 20th century, millions of Americans left the countryside for the city. One of the biggest shifts involved the millions of black people who left the South between 1916 and 1970. According to the U.S. Census, at the turn of the 20th century, 90 percent of black Americans lived in rural Southern states, but by 1970, less than 50 percent did. Most hoped to settle where they could sit in the front of the bus, go to school, access credit to buy houses or start businesses, and vote. In short, they left for more progressive, and typically urban, areas in the North.
A close look at demographic shifts in the United States over the 20th century helps us understand just how rigged America’s government is.Similarly, following the Indian Relocation Act of 1956, many Native Americans began to leave their nations in search of work and more stable social conditions in cities. Asian-Americans, many of whom had lost their land to the government and opportunists during World War II, also relocated to urban areas.
Hispanic ranchers and farmers faced a similar fate. Struggling to access loans for their farms and ranches, they left in droves for the cities too. They had no choice.
The mass exodus of minorities out of rural areas should have penalized rural states by reducing their share of electoral votes. But because of the two-senators rule, the Electoral College now grossly overvalues voters in rural, less-populated states. And while many white voters have left rural areas as well, minorities as a group were much more impacted by rural-urban migration flows.
As Graph 1 shows, rural states in 2016 had one electoral vote for every 393,293 residents, whereas urban states had one electoral vote for every 590,081 residents. According to the 2016 American Community Survey, 81 percent of residents in rural states were white, compared with 75 percent in semi-rural states and only 57 percent in urban states.
Population per Electoral Vote in Rural, Semi-rural and Urban States
2016 American Community Survey." />
The three groups that most heavily support Democratic candidates — blacks (88 percent for Clinton in 2016), Hispanics (66 percent for Clinton) and Asians (65 percent for Clinton) — now find themselves disproportionately living in densely populated states whose electoral votes are undervalued compared to those rural, less-populated states.
As Graph 2 shows, in the 2016 election, Wyoming — where 84 percent of the population is white ― had one electoral vote for every 187,875 residents. California — where 62 percent of the population are minorities ― had one electoral vote for every 677,344 residents. So if a person moved from Wyoming to California, their vote would lose nearly 66 percent of its value in presidential elections.
Population per Electoral Vote
2016 American Community Survey." />
The Electoral College was designed to buttress the power of white rural voters, and true to that purpose, it continues to suppress the power of minority voters today. Critics may argue that Hillary Clinton lost because she failed to round up as many voters in 2016 as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012. But Clinton didn’t so much lose the national election as she failed to win enough support in several states stacked with white voters.
Clinton handily won California (62 percent minority) and New York (43.5 percent minority), barely lost Florida (42.2 percent minority), and racked up more votes in Texas (56.5 percent minority) than Obama had. Together, these four states account for 33 percent of the nation’s population and an increasingly larger percentage of the nation’s minorities. However, Clinton lost traction in Michigan (75 percent white), Pennsylvania (78 percent white), Ohio (80 percent white) and Wisconsin (82 percent white), and as a result, she lost the election.
What this all adds up to is a rather unpopular but quite sound prediction: Donald Trump is likely to win a second term.
And unless voters organize to amend the Electoral College and the Senate — or abolish electoral votes altogether — our Constitution will continue to be one that treats citizens of color as less than whole people.
Fortunately, the type of social pressure necessary to restructure the rules of the game may not be that far off. Diversity is on the rise in rural America, and while these populations are young, within the next decade minorities will emerge as a powerful voting block in many rural counties across the country. At that point, the future of the nation will rest in the hands of ethnic and racial minorities for the first time in U.S. history.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-donald-trump-likely-win-204941807.html
done what he promised, (now before you blow a gasket all politicians promise this and that and it rarely happens), protecting our constitution from the likes of Hilliary, enforcing US law and yes I'm talking about immigration. Although as much grief he gets I don't think he's anywhere near ole
Barack; According to governmental data, the Obama administration has deported more people than any other president's administration in history.
In fact, they have deported more than the sum of all the presidents of the 20th century, and most importantly I can't think of one democrat who can beat him. Maybe (since i am not "intelligent.") I'm not seeing anything of substance in the "Democratic rising stars" Cory (groper) Booker and Kamala (kinda hot) Harris. If this is who your party plans to represent the dems for 2020 then I feel for ya.
Excellent post. I've tried more than once to educate on here about the reason for the electoral college, but it mostly falls on deaf ears and empty heads.
I suppose that is to be expected. A recent study showed that 2/3 of Americans lack the basic knowledge necessary to pass the citizenship test required to become a naturalized citizen.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article219431900.html
https://woodrow.org/news/national-survey-finds-just-1-in-3-americans-would-pass-citizenship-test/
There's a pretty telling statistic buried in that study regarding age groups. Of people 65 years old and up, 74% passed the test. Of people 45 years old and younger, only 19% passed the test. The older group is decades further removed from their high school civics class where they should have learned this stuff. Why was the education system so much more effective at teaching basic civics 50 years ago than today? What changed about 40ish years ago? One huge change was Jimmy Carter paid off his NEA teacher union buddies by creating the Federal Department of Education. The Federal government has no constitutional authority to involve itself in education. Under the 10th amendment education regulation is clearly relegated to the state governments. Since then, Federal spending on education has skyrocketed and reading/math/science test scores have been flat.
Of course when you create a populous so ignorant of the basic laws and history of our nation, it easy to run roughshod over them trampling their rights.
Got a good laugh out of one point of the study. A small percentage of the test takers thought the cold war had to do with global warming. These people actually get to vote! That explains a lot.
you are stuffed with more ******* than the Christmas goose
where in the hell are you getting your info......Latina4bbc?
you are just as mind fucked as she is!
the reason for the elctorial college was originally to hard to count vote...…..not so now...our vote should count......they have no problem counting them now...hell even Russia can count them
you like the current system because it has put 2 of your candidates in despite the wishes of the country!
and that's all it is
the rest of your statements are just plain mind fucking!
it is true most don't know the candidates and follow what the hear from friends and news.....latina4bbc would be a good example of Russia's mind fucking and the propaganda put out by the right
if we followed the same laws as the French and the swedes where you can not make false statements....that would be the end of the republican party...it's been their way for 30 years now
Last edited:
that is not my assessment….that is from a newspaper source...…..although it points out the rigged system where a lot of votes just don't count!
tell me just what has he done?
wages still down to where people still have to work more than one job.....jobs still going overseas at a higher rate than before....you tell me how he is doing anything for the country outside of being a national embarrassment!
one lie after another!
just like He was the one that got that minister freed from Turkey...….turkey is having problems of all kinds...with the killing and the economy since Russia won't give them any money...so they are sucking up to the US...and trump takes credit for that?.
Harley going overseas...ford not going to make cars here.....on and on....wake up and smell the roses!
BusinessTrump's Tariffs Were Supposed to Help Steel Stocks. So Why Are They Down in 2018?
Tyler Crowe, The Motley Fool,Motley Fool
When the Trump administration announced that it was going to slap tariffs on steel and aluminum, shares of steel stocks jumped considerably. It was pretty simple to draw the line from 25% and 10% import duties on steel and aluminum, respectively, to the stock prices of the two metals' producers.
Yet the price boost from tariffs has not led to the outcome most would expect. Since the announcement of the tariffs, shares of aluminum producers Alcoa (NYSE: AA) and Century Aluminum (NASDAQ: CENX), and steel producers United States Steel (NYSE: X) and AK Steel Holding (NYSE: AKS) are all down more than 16%. Let's take a look at why the Trump tariff hasn't been the salve for each of these steel and aluminum stocks.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-apos-tariffs-were-supposed-124800593.html
just shows...how big biz has so much out of country...….no helping them...Alcoa has very little here...mostly in Canada...others about the same.....left the country...can't make America great again when most of it is elsewhere...until that changes...no hope!
start working on stopping the flow of biz elsewhere and might make it!
currently the top 5 tech companies...…..are based in China!
Tyler Crowe, The Motley Fool,Motley FoolWhen the Trump administration announced that it was going to slap tariffs on steel and aluminum, shares of steel stocks jumped considerably. It was pretty simple to draw the line from 25% and 10% import duties on steel and aluminum, respectively, to the stock prices of the two metals' producers.
Yet the price boost from tariffs has not led to the outcome most would expect. Since the announcement of the tariffs, shares of aluminum producers Alcoa (NYSE: AA) and Century Aluminum (NASDAQ: CENX), and steel producers United States Steel (NYSE: X) and AK Steel Holding (NYSE: AKS) are all down more than 16%. Let's take a look at why the Trump tariff hasn't been the salve for each of these steel and aluminum stocks.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-apos-tariffs-were-supposed-124800593.html
just shows...how big biz has so much out of country...….no helping them...Alcoa has very little here...mostly in Canada...others about the same.....left the country...can't make America great again when most of it is elsewhere...until that changes...no hope!
start working on stopping the flow of biz elsewhere and might make it!
currently the top 5 tech companies...…..are based in China!
Last edited:
Here from one of the most disgusting cities, besides San Francisco, in the bay area. Hmm. That's why I have said in the past to just raise the GD minimum wage to $40 and hour. Oh there I go again being unintelligent. That would probably mean everything else would go up too. You can't teach this stuff
Sub you just did it again. YAHOO is one of the least credible news outlets. I thought we just talked about that. Also you keep referring to me as "she." From the very beginning when I registered for this site in 2014 I always made it clear I was the husband when communicating. Our avatar used to say couple but now for some reason it says male. My wife never logged on to this site. I always handled our hook ups.
Sub you just did it again. YAHOO is one of the least credible news outlets. I thought we just talked about that. Also you keep referring to me as "she." From the very beginning when I registered for this site in 2014 I always made it clear I was the husband when communicating. Our avatar used to say couple but now for some reason it says male. My wife never logged on to this site. I always handled our hook ups.
- Status
