╌>

Third-party group No Labels is expected to move forward with a 2024 campaign, AP sources say | AP News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  78 comments

By:   THOMAS BEAUMONT and STEVE PEOPLES (AP News)

Third-party group No Labels is expected to move forward with a 2024 campaign, AP sources say | AP News
The third-party presidential movement No Labels is expected to move this week toward fielding a presidential candidate in the November election.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


WASHINGTON (AP) — The third-party presidential movement No Labels is planning to move toward fielding a presidential candidate in the November election, even as high-profile contenders for the ticket have decided not to run, two people familiar with the matter said Wednesday.

After months of leaving open whether the group would offer a ticket, No Labels delegates are expected to vote Friday in favor of launching a presidential campaign for this fall's election, according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the group's internal deliberations.

No Labels will not name its presidential and vice presidential picks on Friday, when roughly 800 delegates meet virtually in a private meeting. The group is instead expected to debut a formal selection process late next week for potential candidates who would be selected in the coming weeks, the people said.

Democratic President Joe Biden and Republican Donald Trump's romp on Super Tuesday all but ensured a November rematch of the 2020 election. Polls suggest many Americans don't have favorable views of Biden or Trump, a dynamic No Labels sees as an opening to offer a bipartisan ticket. But Biden supporters worry No Labels will pull votes away from the president in battleground states and are critical of how the group won't disclose its donors or much of its decision-making.

No Labels officials would not publicly confirm plans for Friday's meeting. In a statement, senior strategist Ryan Clancy said only, "We expect our delegates to encourage the process to continue."

The two people familiar with the group noted that No Labels' plans could change ahead of the vote. But they said there has been enthusiasm across its regional chapters for running a candidate, giving momentum to the idea of a vote on Friday.

The group has been weighing what it would present as a "unity ticket" to appeal to voters unhappy with both Biden and Trump. No Labels' strategists have said they'll give their ballot line to a bipartisan ticket with a presidential nominee from one major party and a vice presidential nominee from the other if they see a viable path to victory.

Group officials have said they are communicating with several potential candidates but have not disclosed any names.

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley has said she's not interested in running as a No Labels candidate. After Haley dropped out of the Republican race on Wednesday, No Labels in a statement congratulated her for "running a great campaign and appealing to the large swath of commonsense voters."

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat who is not seeking re-election this year, has said he will not seek the presidency. Republican former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, who had been involved with No Labels, is instead seeking a U.S. Senate seat in November.

No Labels has stockpiled cash from people it has declined to name, including former Republican donors who have become disenchanted with the party's direction in the Trump era, and worked to secure ballot access in every state.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

God speed!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    one month ago
No Labels' strategists have said they'll give their ballot line to a bipartisan ticket with a presidential nominee from one major party and a vice presidential nominee from the other if they see a viable path to victory.

 they have no viable path to victory.  The way that it stands right now this is a sham, a bamboozlement

No Labels has stockpiled cash from people it has declined to name, including former Republican donors
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

Good to see someone at least trying to give us better options, but the partisans won't care.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    one month ago

One would have to be extraordinarily naïve to think that a (still unknown) No Labels candidate in 2024 is a viable option.

I am all for No Labels working to become a viable party as an alternative to the Rs and Ds.   Ideally it would be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.   But they are years away from being viable, if ever.   Note that the Libertarian party is now 52 years old and has yet to break through to viability.

Someone who on a single election year runs to a (unspecified) third party because the R and D candidates suck will accomplish nothing other than kidding themselves.   If one is serious about a third party becoming viable in the USA then one should be fighting for the third party, making donations, volunteering, and, importantly, always voting for their candidates.   Voting for the R (or D) when they suit you but making a gesture/protest vote when they do not does not ... demonstrably ... accomplish anything.    

I have yet to see anyone on this site actively promote No Labels.   Not even those who are aggressively condemning anyone who votes R or D in this election.   No rallying seeds, no original articles promoting it.    No promotion of possible candidates.  No mention of it by those who insist that voting third party is the only 'sane', 'non-pathetic' action in 2024, etc.   Just mentioning 'third party' generically as if there is some viable entity out there.   

Those who make vague claims of voting third party without any serious support of a single third party and not a single specific on who they would vote for and why should not be taken seriously.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.1    one month ago
One would have to be extraordinarily naïve to think that a (still unknown) No Labels candidate in 2024 is a viable option.

Gee, almost as naive as thinking Trump or Biden are good candidates and actually voting for one of them.

I find it hard to take folks like that seriously.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    one month ago
Gee, almost as naive as thinking Trump or Biden are good candidates and actually voting for one of them.

Yes, except most people seem to recognize that neither Trump or Biden are good candidates.   The vote for these individuals is usually for reasons other than that they are good candidates.

Interesting that you implicitly acknowledged that there is no viable third party in 2024 and that anyone who thinks so is being naïve.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.3    one month ago
Yes, except most people seem to recognize that neither Trump or Biden are good candidates

You keep saying stuff like this but when it comes right down to it, you will still be admittingly voting for someone you profess is a bad candidate. That seems ignorant to me but I know reason isn't usually part of partisan thinking.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    one month ago
That seems ignorant to me but I know reason isn't usually part of partisan thinking.

Partisan thinking = choosing to vote primarily for the good of the party

In your mind, how do you compute that voting to stop Trump from becoming PotUS is partisan thinking?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    one month ago

Hey, you don't have to try to justify your Biden vote to me any longer, I got it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    one month ago

Apparently you do not have it.   I was supporting Haley as my choice.   Is that partisan thinking too?   

Buy a vowel.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.7    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    one month ago

This is nonsense.   It is March of an election year.   The primary season is, in effect, over.   Announcing a candidate now, this late, is ridiculous.   They needed a charismatic candidate two years ago building up credibility, name recognition, etc.

Maybe they are running Oprah Winfrey with one of the most popular governors as VP.      jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago

A supreme irony would be 83 year old Michael Bloomberg, the former Mayor of New York City, running under the No Labels banner...

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
3.1.1  MonsterMash  replied to  JBB @3.1    one month ago

Bloomberg is 82. His best if used by date has expired.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
3.1.2  Robert in Ohio  replied to  MonsterMash @3.1.1    one month ago
Bloomberg is 82. His best if used by date has expired.

And the same is true of Biden and Trump - both past their sell by date

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago

nothing would surprise me. I expect outrageous now. given the past and proven mental capacity and attention spans of basically half the electorate, these clowns would need to cough up a celebrity and some outsider politico with independent and bipartisan appeal.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago

its too late to win, but its not too late to make trouble

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3    one month ago

How is providing a better candidate than Trump and Biden causing trouble?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.1    one month ago

It depends on which party it would spoil the most.   The absolute best that can happen in 2024 is a spoiler.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.2    one month ago

That doesn't sound like trouble to me, it sounds like choice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.3    one month ago

As I noted earlier, I am all for you using your choice to vote for a third party spoiler of Trump.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.4    one month ago
As I noted earlier, I am all for you using your choice to vote for a third party spoiler of Trump.

And as I observed earlier, partisans will vote for Biden or Trump no matter the cost to the nation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.6  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.5    one month ago

Pretty sure that most independent voters will be dealing with the D vs. R decision head on.   Do you actually believe that all of a sudden the largest voting bloc (42%) will mostly vote third party?   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.7  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.6    one month ago

SMH.

I never made any such claim.

please stick to what I actually write here.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.8  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.7    one month ago
I never made any such claim.

Then by partisans, you are referring strictly to the hard core voters who will vote for their party no matter who is the nominee versus those who will vote D or R for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with party affiliation?

If so, my response would be 'no shit'.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.8    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.3.10  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.6    one month ago
Pretty sure that most independent voters will be dealing with the D vs. R decision head on. 

That may be.  It seems many if not most will be voting for the lesser of two evils.  The question becomes did Joe last night help him in any way with independents?  After last nights speech maybe I will reconsider voting for the lesser of two evils and take another look at Trump.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.11  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.10    one month ago
It seems many if not most will be voting for the lesser of two evils. 

Given the circumstances, that would be the logical course of action.

After last nights speech maybe I will reconsider voting for the lesser of two evils and take another look at Trump.

Bullshit-Stamp.jpg?width=1400&quality=55    You are implying that you were leaning towards Biden .  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.12  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.11    one month ago

He didn't imply that at all.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.13  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.10    one month ago

Stick to your principles!

Don't be a sheep!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.14  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.12    one month ago

What does the phrase 'reconsider voting for the lesser of two evils' mean to you when tied (in the same sentence) to the phrase 'take another look at Trump'?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.15  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.14    one month ago

it means he was not considering voting for the lesser of two evils but now may consider it 

I encouraged him to stick to his principles and not be a sheep.

Its all right there!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.3.16  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.11    one month ago
You are implying that you were leaning towards Biden .

Not at all. 

Maybe I was thinking Biden did so bad and came across as a divisive bitter old man that was trying too hard to look alive that I should look at Trump as the lesser of two evils.

Or maybe he did so good that I think I should look at Trump so I can solidify Biden as my choice as the lesser of two evils.

Point being my comment in now way said who I was leaning toward.  Rather than asking me you just go with what you think (or want to believe) I implied so you could come out with your bullshit stamp.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.3.17  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.12    one month ago
He didn't imply that at all.

No, I didn't but I am sure some will try to tell me that is what I implied like they know more about what I was thinking than I do.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.3.18  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.15    one month ago

EXACTLY!

There is plenty of time to decide.  I am looking forward to see who third parties choices are because I would not feel right skipping it altogether.

Time will tell

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.3.19  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.13    one month ago

Maybe I should just do what my wife tells me to do.  She is good at that.jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.20  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.19    one month ago

LOL!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.21  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.15    one month ago

Well then we have the exquisite logic of intending to not vote for Biden or Trump because neither deserve to be PotUS, after hearing a SoU speech, deciding that Trump now should be considered because Biden is now so bad that Trump is actually better for the nation.

Anyone who would consider voting for Trump simply due to a speech will have a long hard road trying to claim that they were NOT going to vote for him anyway.

BULLSHIT.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.22  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.21    one month ago

You can call bullshit until the cows come home but what he ACTUALLY wrote is plain and very easy to understand.

Its right there!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.3.23  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.21    one month ago
Anyone who would consider voting for Trump will have a long hard road trying to claim that they were NOT going to vote for him anyway.

That is some convoluted twisted logic that would bring anyone to that conclusion.  In reality I am sure it would be very easy to claim if it were true.   It is trying to convince you of the claim that would be a long hard road that I doubt many would attempt to go down.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.3.24  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.22    one month ago

I could have tried it in latin but my latin is pretty rusty

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.25  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.24    one month ago

Does it seem weird that people voting for Trump or Biden seem to get upset with those who won't?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.26  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.23    one month ago

I don't see any logic to support such a conclusion.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.3.27  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.25    one month ago

Boggles the mind.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.28  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.3.27    one month ago

Truly.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3.29  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.25    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.30  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3.29    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3.31  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.30    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.3.32  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.25    one month ago

Weird but not really surprising

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.4  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @3    one month ago
This is nonsense.   It is March of an election year.   The primary season is, in effect, over.   Announcing a candidate now, this late, is ridiculous.   They needed a charismatic candidate two years ago building up credibility, name recognition, etc.

Yes. This news should have been 2 years old and announced with a named candidate. I was supportive of their efforts but this is bush league shit.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  JBB    one month ago

Liz Cheney I presume...

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
4.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @4    one month ago

An impossible dream.  As TiG says, it's too late anyway.  I believe in third parties and also in coalition governments like Canada has had many times, although I don't know if coalition governments are possible in the USA. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @4    one month ago

She would not waste her time.

The No Labels candidate would have to be someone who wants to a true Independent (independent of the D and R parties).

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5  Sean Treacy    one month ago

I hope it’s sinema. I’d vote for her.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    one month ago

lots of people better than Tweedledee and Tweedledumb.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1    one month ago
ots of people better than Tweedledee and Tweedledumb.

Pretty much.  Although it can't be a person who looks at a bill saying "we will deport illegal aliens who commit crimes" and votes against it. So the majority of Democrats are out. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    one month ago

Sad but true.

I will never trust a Democrat on border security after the crap they have pulled.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.2    one month ago
I will never trust a Democrat on border security after the crap they have pulled.

Then you will strictly vote GOP or for a third party candidate who is likely to agree with the GOP.

Good!   That means that by voting third party you will essentially help a spoiler candidate for Trump.

I am all for that!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.3    one month ago
Then you will strictly vote GOP or for a third party candidate who is likely to agree with the GOP.

And now you are inventing positions for me.

Good!   That means that by voting third party you will essentially help a spoiler candidate for Trump. I am all for that!

As you will be voting FOR Biden even though you know he isn't a good President.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.4    one month ago

Yeah every time your logic is shown to be flawed you make a feeble claim like that.

You are not going to vote for Biden or Trump.   That means you are either going to abstain or are voting third party.

If you are voting third party and you will never vote for a D (as you noted) then logically any third party candidate you would vote for would be more aligned with the GOP.

That, Texan, is what we call a spoiler vote for the GOP.

Go for it.   A vote against Trump, in any form, is a good use of one's vote.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.5    one month ago
Yeah every time your logic is shown to be flawed you make a feeble claim like that

No more flawed than someone professing to want someone better than Biden but still voting for him.

You are not going to vote for Biden or Trump.   That means you are either going to abstain or are voting third party.

It is pointless to keep reiterating my stance, I have never once denied it and I think everyone can read.

You go vote for failure Traitor Joe and act as if you are proud and patriotic to do so.

I'll vote for whoever I wish to vote for 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.6    one month ago
I have never once denied it

You just claimed I was inventing a position for you.  Now you complain that I am correctly repeating your position.   Make up your mind.

No more flawed than someone professing to want someone better than Biden but still voting for him.

You are still unable to understand this?   

My position is that Trump should never, under any circumstances, be allowed the powers of the presidency.    I have given my reasons in argument form for years now.   I can copy and paste to remind you if need be.

I find Biden to be too old (Trump too, by the way).  I also disagree with a number of his policies (e.g. border, loan forgiveness, ...).   

So if the GOP had a decent candidate, I would likely vote for that individual.   Haley was my choice but now she is gone.   

Thus either Biden or Trump will be the next PotUS.   Between those two the choice is obvious, Trump must be defeated and that means voting for Biden.

Now, Texan, surely you can comprehend that I am quite displeased with the choices but am able to determine that one of them is far worse than the other.   Hint:  Trump is an order of magnitude worse for this nation than Biden.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.5    one month ago
That, Texan, is what we call a spoiler vote for the GOP. Go for it.   A vote against Trump, in any form, is a good use of one's vote.

I don't care if it is a spoiler vote, the fact is I think both candidates suck and won't endorse either dumbass by voting for one of them.

Only deeply partisan voters would consider my vote a spoiler 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.8    one month ago
I don't care if it is a spoiler vote ...

Great!    Carry on.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.10  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.7    one month ago

Biden is a better President by orders (plural) of magnitude!

Do you support aid for Ukraine? Do you believe in progress?

If so then you do not universally oppose all  Biden policies...

If you watched the SOTU tonight Joe addressed your issues.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.9    one month ago

I intend to+

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @5.1.10    one month ago
If so then you do not universally oppose all  Biden policies...

JBB, you seem to do this a lot.    You object when I am critical of Biden on a factual basis yet this site is replete with individuals who are absurdly unfair to Biden.

And then you exaggerate ... for example ... I have never even implied that I universally oppose all Biden policies.   That is ridiculous.

In short, why are you addressing me in such a way instead of Texan?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.13  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.12    one month ago

Four More Years!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @5.1.13    one month ago

Yeah, four more years of tortuous hell.

Yippee-kay-a.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.3    one month ago
Then you will strictly vote GOP or for a third party candidate who is likely to agree with the GOP.

Perhaps when a Democrat gives me a REASON to trust him or her on border security, I'll look at them but since I am not one of those idiots who only vote on one issue, I can vote for a Democrat who deserves a vote.

That, by the way, is NOT me strictly voting for the GOP OR a third party candidate who is likely to agree with the GOP and even the IDEA of such a notion is farcical.

And I am all for you voting for fuck-up Joe if that is your decision, no matter how screwed up I think it is.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1.16  Ronin2  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.14    one month ago

As much as me prior to 2016 loves your position. Me from today just shakes his head.

It will be either Trump or Brandon. Which one is worse? If you don't want 4 more years of Brandon and the Democrats wrecking this country the only viable alternative is Trump. A vote for anyone else is putting Brandon back into the White House.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.16    one month ago

I understand the position of voting for the lesser of two evils, I just can't do it myself.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6  Texan1211    one month ago

Why do so many Democrats seem to feel threatened by voters having more, and often better, choices?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1  George  replied to  Texan1211 @6    one month ago

Strange isn’t it?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  George @6.1    one month ago

Only those so wedded to a party that they are willing to throw reason out the window would think that way.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
7  George    one month ago

Hungary has already picked who they think the winner will be, maybe no labels can get a meeting with him.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
8  Robert in Ohio    one month ago

256

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
8.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Robert in Ohio @8    one month ago

Yep, it is just a matter as to which side of the butt has more pimples at any given time.

Pimples-on-buttocks.jpg

 
 

Who is online





48 visitors