FactChecking the Third Democratic Debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Seshmeister
    ROTH ARMY WEBMASTER

    • Oct 2003
    • 35192

    FactChecking the Third Democratic Debate

    The Saturday night showdown featured misleading claims on guns, the minimum wage and Wall Street.


    FactChecking the Third Democratic Debate


    Summary

    The Democratic candidates met for the third time, and stretched the facts again:

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said 3 percent of her campaign donations “come from people in the finance and investment world.” That’s correct, but the total is 6 percent when including donations to outside groups supporting her candidacy.
    Clinton also claimed she had received “more donations from students and teachers than I do from people associated with Wall Street.” Public records contradict that. Her campaign said it was based on internal data but didn’t immediately send that to us.
    Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said that Sen. Bernie Sanders voted against funding research into gun-related injuries and deaths. He did, but that was 19 years ago. Sanders now says he supports such funding.
    Clinton said that ISIS is “showing videos of Donald Trump … to recruit more radical jihadists.” There’s no evidence of that, though experts have said it’s likely.
    Clinton said that the Republican presidential candidates “don’t want to raise the minimum wage.” But Rick Santorum has supported an increase.
    O’Malley said that Clinton told the big banks that “you weren’t responsible for the crash” in 2008. But Clinton said in December 2007 that Wall Street “has played a significant role in the current problems, and in particular in the housing crisis.”
    Clinton said that “we lose 33,000 people a year already to gun violence.” To put that in context, 33 percent of those deaths were homicides; 63 percent were suicides.
    O’Malley went too far in accusing Clinton of flip-flopping on federal gun control. She did back off her earlier support for a national gun registry but has consistently supported an assault weapons ban and tightened regulations on sales at gun shows.

    Analysis

    The three Democratic candidates debated Dec. 19 at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire on a range of topics, from national security to the economy, in the ABC News Saturday night meeting.
    Clinton’s Wall Street Donations

    Clinton said 3 percent of her campaign donations “come from people in the finance and investment world.” That’s correct, but it’s double that amount when including donations to outside groups supporting her candidacy.

    Also, Clinton said she received “more donations from students and teachers than I do from people associated with Wall Street.” Public records do not show that; her campaign said that’s based on internal campaign data but didn’t immediately make it available to us.

    Clinton discussed her donations from those in the financial industry after O’Malley claimed that she doesn’t have “the backbone” to stand up to Wall Street.

    Clinton: I think it’s important to point out that about 3 percent of my donations come from people in the finance and investment world. You can go to opensecrets.org and check that. I have more donations from students and teachers than I do from people associated with Wall Street.

    We went to opensecrets.org and found that there is more to Clinton’s Wall Street donations than she let on.

    Opensecrets.org codes individual contributions based on occupations to determine the collective amount employees in those industries contribute to campaigns. Its data show her campaign collected $2,044,471 from people in the “securities and investment” industry and another $443,519 from those working for “commercial banks.”

    “[I]n OpenSecrets vernacular, Wall Street includes the securities and investment and commercial banking industries,” the website explains.

    That means the Clinton campaign so far has received $2,487,990 from Wall Street, or 3 percent of her total contributions of $77,471,604.

    However, opensecrets.org also shows that outside groups working on behalf of Clinton have raised another $20,291,679 — including $3,542,874, or 17.5 percent, from those in the securities and investment industry.

    Combined, the Clinton campaign and outside groups supporting her have raised $97.8 million, including at least $6 million from Wall Street donors. That’s more than 6 percent from those in the financial industry — double the figure Clinton cited for her campaign.

    It’s also worth noting that the $2.5 million that the Clinton campaign alone has raised from those employed in the securities and investment and commercial banking industries is equal to 75 percent of the $3.3 million that O’Malley has raised from all of his donors.

    As for her claim that she has received more from teachers and students than she has from Wall Street, the campaign said that statement was based on internal campaign data and not opensecrets.org. But the campaign could not immediately provide us with the data after the debate, which ended at nearly 11 p.m. EST.

    We will provide the campaign’s response when we get it.

    However, opensecrets.org provides a “donor lookup” tool to search donors by occupation, recipient and campaign cycle. We found that the Clinton campaign received less than $450,000 combined from students ($350,000) and teachers ($94,200).

    The $450,000 — which includes Clinton’s donors who listed student, teacher, educator, tutor, professor and instructor as an “occupation” — is far less than the $2.5 million her campaign received from those in the financial industry.
    O’Malley on Sanders’ Vote Against Gun Research

    O’Malley said that Sanders voted against funding research into gun-related injuries and deaths. He did, 19 years ago. Now, Sanders says that research should be funded.

    O’Malley: Senator Sanders voted against the Brady Bill. Senator Sanders voted to give immunity to gun dealers. And Senator Sanders voted against even research dollars to look into this public health issue.

    Sanders did vote on multiple occasions from 1991 to 1993 against the Brady Bill, which instituted a waiting period before gun buyers could possess their firearms while a national system to conduct background checks was created.

    Sanders also voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which provided some protections for licensed manufacturers, dealers, sellers of firearms or ammunition, and trade associations from civil lawsuits resulting from the misuse of firearms or ammunition.

    And, in 1996, Sanders voted against an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have increased funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control to study firearm-related injuries.

    However, Reuters reported that Sanders is now calling for funding of such research.

    “We must authorize resources for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study and research the causes and effects of gun violence in the United States of America,” Sanders said in an email, according to the Reuters report from Dec. 3.

    “He can’t remember one vote 19 years ago out of more than 10,000 he’s cast,” Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs told CNN.

    “But if the question today is whether he thinks we should find out as much as possible about what causes gun violence, the answer is, ‘Yes.’ ”
    Trump as ISIS Recruiter?

    Clinton said that ISIS is “showing videos of Donald Trump … to recruit more radical jihadists.” There is no evidence that the Islamic State group has used videos of Trump as a recruiting tool, although experts say it likely will happen if it hasn’t already.

    Clinton made her remark when asked about Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims who are not citizens of the U.S. from entering the country.

    Clinton: He is becoming ISIS’ best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists. So I want to explain why this is not in America’s interest to react with this kind of fear and respond to this sort of bigotry.

    The Clinton campaign cited an NBC News article to support her claim. That article quoted two experts:

    David Phillips, director of the Program on Peace-Building and Rights at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights, said Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric “will surely be used by ISIS social media to demonize the United States and attract recruits to fight in Iraq and Syria.”

    Rita Katz, director of the SITE Intelligence Group, which NBC said “monitors the social media activities of Islamic terrorist groups,” told NBC: “When he says, ‘No Muslims should be allowed in America,’ they tell people, ‘We told you America hates Muslims and here is proof.’ ”

    The article, however, contained no evidence that it has happened or is happening now, and makes no mention of any video.
    Clinton on Minimum Wage

    Clinton overlooked at least one GOP presidential candidate when she said that the Republicans in the campaign “don’t want to raise the minimum wage.” Rick Santorum supports a small increase over three years.

    Clinton: “I think it’s great standing up here with the senator and the governor talking about these issues, because you’re not going to hear anything like this from any of the Republicans who are running for president. (Applause.) They don’t want to raise the minimum wage, they don’t want to do anything to increase incomes.”

    Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, has said he would back an increase in the federal minimum wage, currently at $7.25 an hour, of 50 cents per year for three years. That would bring it to $8.75, far below the $15 minimum wage that Sanders and O’Malley have backed, or the $12 Clinton has supported.

    But it’s an increase nonetheless and makes Santorum a rarity among the Republican candidates. He scolded his party at the September undercard debate for the lack of support for raising the minimum wage, saying: “The answer is Republicans don’t believe in a floor wage in America. Fine, you go ahead and make that case to the American public, I’m not going to. … How are you going to win, ladies and gentlemen? How are we going to win if 90 percent of Americans don’t think we care at all about them and their chance to rise?”

    Ohio Gov. John Kasich said in early September that he supported a “reasonable” increase in the minimum wage but later said increases should be done by the states.

    Among candidates that are higher in the polls, Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Sen. Marco Rubio all said in the November Fox Business Network debate that they were against raising the minimum wage. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has said raising it would “kill job growth,” and businesswoman Carly Fiorina said that the minimum wage “should be a state decision.”
    O’Malley on Clinton and the Big Banks

    O’Malley said that Clinton told the big banks that they were not responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. But Clinton didn’t completely absolve Wall Street of any responsibility.

    O’Malley: And the worst type of concentration, Secretary Clinton, is the concentration of the big banks, the big six banks that you went to and spoke to and told them, oh, you weren’t responsible for the crash, not by a long shot.

    Clinton did give a speech in December 2007 in which she said that Wall Street was not completely at fault for the financial crisis. But she also said that it played “a significant role in the current problems” and in the housing crisis in particular.

    Clinton, Dec. 5, 2007: Now these economic problems are certainly not all Wall Street’s fault – not by a long shot. But the reality of our interconnected economy is that what happens on Wall Street impacts main streets across America. It happens sometimes within minutes, sometimes over the course of months or even years.

    If we’re honest, we need to acknowledge that Wall Street has played a significant role in the current problems, and in particular in the housing crisis. A “see no evil” policy that financed irresponsible mortgage lending. A bond rating system riddled with conflicts of interest. A habit of issuing complex and opaque securities that even Wall Street itself doesn’t seem to understand.

    Clinton added that “Wall Street needs to be part of a comprehensive solution that brings to the table all those responsible and calls on them to do their part. Wall Street helped create the foreclosure crisis, and Wall Street needs to help us solve it.”

    And as far as assigning blame, Clinton said that there were several contributors, including Wall Street, which she blamed for encouraging “reckless mortgage lending.”

    Clinton, Dec. 5, 2007: But finally, responsibility also belongs to Wall Street, which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending. Mortgage lenders didn’t have balance sheets big enough to write millions of loans on their own. So Wall Street originated and packaged the loans that common sense warned might very well have ended in collapse and foreclosure. Some people might say Wall Street only helped to distribute risk. I believe Wall Street shifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not.

    Wall Street may not have created the foreclosure crisis, but Wall Street certainly had a hand in making it worse.

    Gun Violence Stats

    In responding to a question on the San Bernardino attacks and gun control, Clinton that “we lose 33,000 people a year already to gun violence.” To add context to that figure, most of those deaths are due to suicide, not homicide or attacks like the one in California.

    “Guns, in and of themselves, in my opinion, will not make Americans safer,” Clinton said, adding, when she cited her statistic, that “arming more people … is not the appropriate response to terrorism.”

    As we’ve written before, gun deaths include a lot of suicides. In 2013, there were 33,636 gun deaths, and 63 percent were suicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Homicides made up 11,208, or 33 percent, of those gun deaths. The rest of the year’s firearm deaths included unintentional discharges, legal intervention/war and undetermined.
    Did Clinton Flip-Flop on Gun Control?

    O’Malley accused Clinton of flip-flopping on federal gun control, and he voiced support for a ban on assault weapons and for closing the gun show loophole. But there is less to Clinton’s policy shift than O’Malley suggested. In 2008, Clinton backed off an earlier proposal for a national gun registry, but she has consistently advocated reenactment of an assault weapons ban and tightened regulations on gun show sales.

    O’Malley: Secretary Clinton changes her position on this every election year, it seems, having one position in 2000 and then campaigning against President Obama and saying we don’t need federal standards.

    O’Malley went on to say, “We need comprehensive gun safety legislation and a ban on assault weapons.”

    He also warned, “ISIL training videos are telling lone wolves the easiest way to buy a combat assault weapon in America is at a gun show.”

    Those kinds of changes have not happened, O’Malley said, “because of the flip-flopping, political approach of Washington that both of my two colleagues on this stage have represented there for the last 40 years.”

    “Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let’s calm down a little bit, Martin,” Sanders said.

    “Yes,” Clinton said. “Let’s tell the truth, Martin.”

    While running for senator of New York in 2000, Clinton advocated photo licensing for gun buyers and that all sales be recorded in a federal registry. And while running for president in 2008, she said during a debate that she had backed off that plan.

    Clinton at Las Vegas debate, Jan. 15, 2008: Well, I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people. The law in New York was as you state, and the law in New York has worked to a great extent.

    I don’t want the federal government preempting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems. So here’s what I would do. We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions like the man in Virginia Tech who caused so much death and havoc. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented.

    However, Clinton went on to say that she would “work to reinstate the assault weapons ban.”

    “But you’ve backed off a national licensing registration plan?” asked moderator Tim Russert.

    “Yes,” Clinton said.

    During another debate in April 2008, Clinton was again asked whether she still favored licensing and registration of handguns.

    Clinton, April 16, 2008: What I favor is what works in New York. You know, we have a set of rules in New York City and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they’re going to try to impose, I think doesn’t make sense.

    But Clinton again reiterated that she would “work to reinstate the assault weapons ban.”

    Clinton also has consistently supported proposals to close the so-called gun show loophole, and as a senator cosponsored such a bill.

    In this presidential campaign, Clinton has been outspoken in support of several gun control measures, including tightening the Internet and gun show loopholes and banning assault weapons.

    So O’Malley went too far when he claimed that in 2008 Clinton opposed “federal standards.” Clinton may have altered her position on licensing and registration of guns, but she has consistently supported the very same gun control measures — closing the gun show loophole and banning assault weapons — that O’Malley highlighted in his debate answer.

    — by Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley and D’Angelo Gore, with Joe Nahra and Raymond McCormack
  • DONNIEP
    DIAMOND STATUS
    • Mar 2004
    • 13373

    #2
    Blah blah blah, gun control, yadda yadda yadda, Trump! What a load of shit.

    First off, the only reason the democrats are talking about Trump is because it gets them attention. It's kinda like Slappy popping off about VH, otherwise not many people are listening. Personally, I don't agree with Trump's "plan" to ban Muslims from entering the country. It's logistically impossible and is counterproductive and Trump knows it and everybody knows it. Now, do I think his comments are being used as a recruiting tool for ISIS? Sure they are. Along with every other comment every Western "politician" makes. Look, we've had the single most Muslim sympathetic president in the history of history. That fucker has gone so far as to constantly quote the Koran all over the world and has repeatedly praised Islam and the broader Muslim world. I'm not saying he's a Muslim, it's just the truth. And just how well has that worked out for us? Did the Moozlim jihadis go away? Did they stop cuttin' heads? Nope. They cut off American heads instead while we sat here and did nothing. So no matter what rhetoric any candidate or politician uses, it ain't gonna change jack shit - these fuckers are at war with the West and the whole damn world better get their heads wrapped around it and start killing the living shit out of these people until they decide jihad ain't all it's cracked up to be. And yes that has to include countries in Dirtville providing troops and aid and what the fuck ever so they got some skin in the game. That's the only way it's gonna work. Or we just pull completely out and let the whole region go to shit, or more shitty than it's been for a gazillion years. Quite honestly I don't feel much sympathy for most of the region because it's a land full of savages who get off on oppressing women and little girls and well they like doing shit like killing people just cause they're gay and cutting off people's heads in public for their blood thirsty populations to stand and watch and cheer. So fuck them.

    And all the democrats' hollering about gun control isn't going to accomplish anything. Just like I keep saying, they never put forth any common sense easy-to-institute ideas - it's always just grab the guns. The extreme right is just as guilty. And they don't try to reach any common ground because then they couldn't use it as a plank in their campaigns. Simple as that. A national gun registry would stop exactly ZERO gun deaths and it would prevent exactly ZERO mass shootings. All it is is a way to then ban certain guns and then go knocking on doors and saying "gimme". What a gun registry would do is prevent you or me from so much as handing a weapon to another person because that would be consider a "transfer" and therefore a felony. Meaning if you are at the range and your buddy wants to see how your pistol shoots you can't hand it to him cause that's a transfer. In other words, all it does is infringe on the rights of legally armed citizens. That's the same thing a so-called "universal background check" would do too - it would too broadly define a "transfer" to include things that are not transfers. A transfer is selling or giving away a fucking gun, period. Both of which are illegal in this state unless the purchaser has a valid pistol purchase permit, and those are only given out after you've passed a background check.

    As big a gun nut as I am, and as much as I like buying and shooting guns, even I'm all for closing the so-called "gun show loophole". All the states have to do is require NICS checks for every sale - commercial sales and private sales. Period. North Carolina did it and I don't see anybody crying OR having their rights infringed. Do some people still make private sales without following the law? Of course. They're called criminals and should be prosecuted into the damn ground.

    And guess exactly how many murders and mass shootings will be prevented by initiating another "assault weapons" ban? Zero. None. Nada. Zip. Even IF the federal gubment had some magical way to seize every single weapon in this country that has two or more militaristic components, it wouldn't stop anybody from turning maniac and shooting up a bunch of shit real good. Limit all the magazines to 10 rounds - it won't stop shit. And honestly, most of the people in this country who legally own ARs and AKs and whatever you want to toss on a ban list aren't going to turn the damn things in. It simply ain't gonna happen.

    I don't know what the answer is to prevent mass shootings. All I do know is that there are several really simple changes the states can make with almost no bitching from the extreme right that would start to move things in the right direction. But instead what we get is the federal gubment overreaching and knee jerking and calling for shit that will never pass anyway and making sure we don't do anything at all. All while idiots who have absolutely no exposure to firearms run out and buy up some big pistols and big black scary rifles so they can get them before the gubment takes them away. Genius fucking plan really if you want to ensure more weapons wind up in people's hands that shouldn't have them in the first place.
    American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.

    Comment

    • vandeleur
      ROTH ARMY SUPREME
      • Sep 2009
      • 9865

      #3
      Fact ...
      If tatooine had gun control Han could not have shot greedo, Han would have been taken to jabba and Luke would not have had a pilot who would help him escape so would not have escaped the empire.

      So I now agree with donniep that we should be allowed blasters
      fuck your fucking framing

      Comment

      • cadaverdog
        ROTH ARMY SUPREME
        • Aug 2007
        • 8955

        #4
        Originally posted by vandeleur
        Fact ...
        If tatooine had gun control Han could not have shot greedo, Han would have been taken to jabba and Luke would not have had a pilot who would help him escape so would not have escaped the empire.

        So I now agree with donniep that we should be allowed blasters
        Beam me up Scotty. There's no intelligent life here.
        Beware of Dog

        Comment

        • vandeleur
          ROTH ARMY SUPREME
          • Sep 2009
          • 9865

          #5
          When you read do you mouth the words
          fuck your fucking framing

          Comment

          • DONNIEP
            DIAMOND STATUS
            • Mar 2004
            • 13373

            #6
            Originally posted by vandeleur
            Fact ...
            If tatooine had gun control Han could not have shot greedo, Han would have been taken to jabba and Luke would not have had a pilot who would help him escape so would not have escaped the empire.

            So I now agree with donniep that we should be allowed blasters
            See, our founding fathers, aside from their love of the institution of slavery (Suck on that yankee dogs!!), got a lot of things right and understood that the people should be armed to prevent them from being beat down by a tyrannical gubment.

            Anyway, back to your point - yes we should be allowed to own blasters. Just as soon as somebody invents one I'm gonna buy the biggest, blackest, scariest one they make. And I'm gonna carry one just like Han had too, in a thigh holster all out in the open so everybody knows I'm a bad ass smuggler and hell yes I will fire first!! I ain't no sissy - when some bounty hunter catches up to me I'm gonna grease his ass before he can so much as start speaking that alien Moozlim language they all use. And I'm gonna buy all my blasters off the black market too. Fuck a background check all to hell!! Then i'm going to have them modified like Han's so they're even more powerful. Because that's what bad asses do!

            I wonder how much ammo is for a Han blaster? Oh hell, don't even tell me you plug the goddamn thing in to charge it up or some shit. Cause that is gay as hell. I want to be able to slap a magazine in the damn thing. Or at least some sort of plasma magazine you have to load. Cause if this is some kind of hybrid electric fucker then I can't hoard ammo and I like hoarding ammo! There ain't nothing better than knowing you got more ammo than a South American guerilla army!

            Dammit, now I done got all worked up. I'm gonna have to go to The Walmart for some cheap beer and ammo and then watch the only other three Star Wars movies that exist. Because the prequels suck cock harder than Freddie Mercury on New Year's Eve. Sorry Freddie, it's true.
            American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.

            Comment

            • Nitro Express
              DIAMOND STATUS
              • Aug 2004
              • 32797

              #7
              I'm for gun control as long as I'm the dictator.
              No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

              Comment

              • DONNIEP
                DIAMOND STATUS
                • Mar 2004
                • 13373

                #8
                Originally posted by Nitro Express
                I'm for gun control as long as I'm the dictator.
                Yes, that's how it works best. Once you have only the poe lease forces and the military owning firearms then it's pretty easy to get your population in line. Of course, in order for that to happen here you'd need a huge federal agency that's armed to the teeth to take out the state and local police forces. Of course they'd need lots of guns and armored vehicles. And enough ammo on hand to wage a war for seven straight years at the same level as what we were expending during our fight in Iraq. Wait a minute - that's exactly the amount of ammo DHS has on hand! Ooh, and most of it is hollow points too. Which doesn't make much sense for training rounds since they're more expensive, even when you buy 100 gazillion rounds at once.

                Not that I think any president could convince the military to turn on the people here. Lincoln did a pretty good job of it, but we're much better armed now. And I'd be willing to bet that around 99% of all active duty military in this country are super patriots who ain't gonna turn on the citizens they fight for and die to defend. Not gonna happen this time around. No, kinda like using a nuke, there was only one time when that would work for America. Lincoln's army did an excellent job of terrorizing, raping, killing, and then destroying the infrastructure down here. That shit would never happen today. At least I like to think the military would overthrow any president who tried it today.
                American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.

                Comment

                • Nitro Express
                  DIAMOND STATUS
                  • Aug 2004
                  • 32797

                  #9
                  I would rule with the carrot and the stick. Doesn't take much to keep the average schlepp happy. I would have bread and circuses and keep the people occupied with entertainment while I take everything else for myself. For the ones who oppose me the hammer would fall hard.
                  No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                  Comment

                  • Nitro Express
                    DIAMOND STATUS
                    • Aug 2004
                    • 32797

                    #10
                    Not that I think any president could convince the military to turn on the people here. Lincoln did a pretty good job of it, but we're much better armed now. And I'd be willing to bet that around 99% of all active duty military in this country are super patriots who ain't gonna turn on the citizens they fight for and die to defend. Not gonna happen this time around. No, kinda like using a nuke, there was only one time when that would work for America. Lincoln's army did an excellent job of terrorizing, raping, killing, and then destroying the infrastructure down here. That shit would never happen today. At least I like to think the military would overthrow any president who tried it today.
                    Arms in the hands of citizens is kind of like a missile in a silo. It's deters people from taking you over. That's why people with dictatorial aspirations want the guns gone. They are in the way of becoming a dictatorship. No I don't think the whole US military could be turned on the people but maybe a part of it could. Mercenaries from foreign countries have no problem killing Americans.
                    No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!

                    Comment

                    • FORD
                      ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

                      • Jan 2004
                      • 58783

                      #11
                      Eat Us And Smile

                      Cenk For America 2024!!

                      Justice Democrats


                      "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

                      Comment

                      • Anonymous
                        Banned
                        • May 2004
                        • 12748

                        #12
                        Are you masturbating furiously right now?

                        Comment

                        Working...