Trump lies, saying he never meant Mexico would pay for the wall, even though he said that constantly

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Trump is a liar. 'Yes we know' is not good enough because plenty of people, here too, defend him and excuse him, but he is a liar and a horrible person and a horrible president.

This is not slander, this is not libel. This is truth. If you claim what is true is false, then you are a liar, and that isn't slander either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqlUOnkqH94

image

But Tariffs!

And also USMCA.

Becuase the way to get Mexico is to make Americans pay for it

This argument carries a lot less weight with the trumpets than you'd assume.

I mean, you'd think that the wall - being a core campaign promise and one of the few defined policy proposals the president had to offer - would be a fulcrum of sorts for his voters, a keystone that the entire movement rallies around. Such a keystone policy promise would, you'd think, therefore need to be realised in some concrete fashion in order for those voters to be satisfied.

But it's not like that with Trump. The reaction I get from conservatives when I point out - not for the first time - that Trump was lying when he said Mexico would pay for the wall is universally a "yeah, so what?" They either dodge the point - by saying that it'll be paid for by new trade deals, for example, which is a tortured argument - or they simply say that they never expected Mexico to pay for the wall. They knew he was lying all along, basically. It just didn't bother them.

I get this when I point out that the proposed "wall" that the government is shut down over is very different to the wall Trump promised during the campaign - two hundred miles of steel bollard fencing, as opposed to two thousand miles of contiguous concrete barrier. They either dodge the point - by saying "well, yeah, the steel bollards are better than a concrete wall, duh" - or act as if they never really expected Trump to build a contiguous concrete barrier of the kind he was describing.

Trump is kind of immune to accusations of hypocrisy and dishonesty, largely because he's so openly hypocritical and dishonest. His supporters don't care. There's simply no credibility to attack. It frustrates me.

bastardofmelbourne:
I get this when I point out that the proposed "wall" that the government is shut down over is very different to the wall Trump promised during the campaign - two hundred miles of steel bollard fencing, as opposed to two thousand miles of contiguous concrete barrier. They either dodge the point - by saying "well, yeah, the steel bollards are better than a concrete wall, duh" - or act as if they never really expected Trump to build a contiguous concrete barrier of the kind he was describing..

Steel posts that can apparently be cut through by completely ordinary DIY equipment judging by the tests of the prototype. So let's hope them Mexicans don't have saws

bastardofmelbourne:
This argument carries a lot less weight with the trumpets than you'd assume.

I mean, you'd think that the wall - being a core campaign promise and one of the few defined policy proposals the president had to offer - would be a fulcrum of sorts for his voters, a keystone that the entire movement rallies around. Such a keystone policy promise would, you'd think, therefore need to be realised in some concrete fashion in order for those voters to be satisfied.

But it's not like that with Trump. The reaction I get from conservatives when I point out - not for the first time - that Trump was lying when he said Mexico would pay for the wall is universally a "yeah, so what?" They either dodge the point - by saying that it'll be paid for by new trade deals, for example, which is a tortured argument - or they simply say that they never expected Mexico to pay for the wall. They knew he was lying all along, basically. It just didn't bother them.

I get this when I point out that the proposed "wall" that the government is shut down over is very different to the wall Trump promised during the campaign - two hundred miles of steel bollard fencing, as opposed to two thousand miles of contiguous concrete barrier. They either dodge the point - by saying "well, yeah, the steel bollards are better than a concrete wall, duh" - or act as if they never really expected Trump to build a contiguous concrete barrier of the kind he was describing.

Trump is kind of immune to accusations of hypocrisy and dishonesty, largely because he's so openly hypocritical and dishonest. His supporters don't care. There's simply no credibility to attack. It frustrates me.

Its not about convincing his supporters to stop supporting him. It is about convincing everyone else that Trump and his supporters are indefensible.

So serious question, how did Bush get ousted over one lie and Trump hasn't had a backlash with all his lies

trunkage:
So serious question, how did Bush get ousted over one lie and Trump hasn't had a backlash with all his lies

That is easy.

More pronounced partisanship today coupled with the sunk-cost fallacy.

Trump supporters can't admit that Trump is bad because that means they would have been wrong all the time. Wrong about something that carries huge emotional investment because the discurs was so heated and intense. Add to that how the bipartisanship contributes to social circles sharing a view and thus changing your stance might mean losing friends (stupid tribalist reinforcement).

People will never abandon Trump because it is too hard a thing to do. Reasons or lies don't matter.

trunkage:
So serious question, how did Bush get ousted over one lie and Trump hasn't had a backlash with all his lies

Didn't Bush serve two full terms?

PsychedelicDiamond:

trunkage:
So serious question, how did Bush get ousted over one lie and Trump hasn't had a backlash with all his lies

Didn't Bush serve two full terms?

The other one. His daddy

''Read my lips! No new taxes!''

PsychedelicDiamond:

trunkage:
So serious question, how did Bush get ousted over one lie and Trump hasn't had a backlash with all his lies

Didn't Bush serve two full terms?

It is very depressing to think that Bush junior was more successful that Bush senior as the former was an idiot. Well, I say idiot, but Trump trumps him most days. So maybe... unfortunate

Btu HillaRyy ande demcarts andd rapeSti mxeicaNs dUrg deelres thO! mAkk AMERICA beSts gratesT agien!

Palindromemordnilap:

bastardofmelbourne:
I get this when I point out that the proposed "wall" that the government is shut down over is very different to the wall Trump promised during the campaign - two hundred miles of steel bollard fencing, as opposed to two thousand miles of contiguous concrete barrier. They either dodge the point - by saying "well, yeah, the steel bollards are better than a concrete wall, duh" - or act as if they never really expected Trump to build a contiguous concrete barrier of the kind he was describing..

Steel posts that can apparently be cut through by completely ordinary DIY equipment judging by the tests of the prototype. So let's hope them Mexicans don't have saws

Or shovels. Or ladders.

I get that a wall slows them down, but slowing someone down doesn't help much if the wall is meant to be the only barrier without patrols/cameras. Otherwise it's just a matter of breaching, tunneling under or climbing over the damn thing.

Palindromemordnilap:
Steel posts that can apparently be cut through by completely ordinary DIY equipment judging by the tests of the prototype. So let's hope them Mexicans don't have saws

I read that they were Marine Corps experts doing the testing.

Not that I think that random people couldn't use saws, it's just that it seems odd that the USMC has expert wall sawers to do the testing.

Trump supporters don't care. They're just happy that their president is just as racist as they are. It's really all that matters to them. They feel like they're finally free to express their racism and bigotry.

So what if he lied? The wall was always a dumb fucking idea. The point should be that the wall is dumb and trump is immoral, not that he is a liar. Attack him for that.

The trump train has no brakes. It will run over anyone and anything for any reason and the cultists riding it don't care.

A full on Maga guy only care if Trump directly and obviously hurts him in a way he can't explain away, and the second he complains, the other trump cultists will throw him under the wheels and say he was never one of them and is a crisis actor / liberal plant, etc.

I honestly don't know what we're supposed to do about that. :s It's like arguing with a flat-earther. When logic goes out the window, how do you convince someone of anything?

Hades:

PsychedelicDiamond:

trunkage:
So serious question, how did Bush get ousted over one lie and Trump hasn't had a backlash with all his lies

Didn't Bush serve two full terms?

The other one. His daddy

''Read my lips! No new taxes!''

Oh, I see. Because I remember Boy George Bush well enough to be sure that he lied a lot more than once. The first one was before my time.

Saelune:

bastardofmelbourne:
This argument carries a lot less weight with the trumpets than you'd assume.

I mean, you'd think that the wall - being a core campaign promise and one of the few defined policy proposals the president had to offer - would be a fulcrum of sorts for his voters, a keystone that the entire movement rallies around. Such a keystone policy promise would, you'd think, therefore need to be realised in some concrete fashion in order for those voters to be satisfied.

But it's not like that with Trump. The reaction I get from conservatives when I point out - not for the first time - that Trump was lying when he said Mexico would pay for the wall is universally a "yeah, so what?" They either dodge the point - by saying that it'll be paid for by new trade deals, for example, which is a tortured argument - or they simply say that they never expected Mexico to pay for the wall. They knew he was lying all along, basically. It just didn't bother them.

I get this when I point out that the proposed "wall" that the government is shut down over is very different to the wall Trump promised during the campaign - two hundred miles of steel bollard fencing, as opposed to two thousand miles of contiguous concrete barrier. They either dodge the point - by saying "well, yeah, the steel bollards are better than a concrete wall, duh" - or act as if they never really expected Trump to build a contiguous concrete barrier of the kind he was describing.

Trump is kind of immune to accusations of hypocrisy and dishonesty, largely because he's so openly hypocritical and dishonest. His supporters don't care. There's simply no credibility to attack. It frustrates me.

Its not about convincing his supporters to stop supporting him. It is about convincing everyone else that Trump and his supporters are indefensible.

We call that "preaching to the choir", Saelune. And as the choir already agrees with the preaching it's less a matter of 'convincing them' than it is self-congratulatory. Not to belabor the point about Trump once again being caught in a bold faced lie, but let's not delude ourselves that the purpose is about proving anything to others rather than taking the vindication of what we've been saying and rubbing it in everyone's faces.

Asita:

Saelune:

bastardofmelbourne:
This argument carries a lot less weight with the trumpets than you'd assume.

I mean, you'd think that the wall - being a core campaign promise and one of the few defined policy proposals the president had to offer - would be a fulcrum of sorts for his voters, a keystone that the entire movement rallies around. Such a keystone policy promise would, you'd think, therefore need to be realised in some concrete fashion in order for those voters to be satisfied.

But it's not like that with Trump. The reaction I get from conservatives when I point out - not for the first time - that Trump was lying when he said Mexico would pay for the wall is universally a "yeah, so what?" They either dodge the point - by saying that it'll be paid for by new trade deals, for example, which is a tortured argument - or they simply say that they never expected Mexico to pay for the wall. They knew he was lying all along, basically. It just didn't bother them.

I get this when I point out that the proposed "wall" that the government is shut down over is very different to the wall Trump promised during the campaign - two hundred miles of steel bollard fencing, as opposed to two thousand miles of contiguous concrete barrier. They either dodge the point - by saying "well, yeah, the steel bollards are better than a concrete wall, duh" - or act as if they never really expected Trump to build a contiguous concrete barrier of the kind he was describing.

Trump is kind of immune to accusations of hypocrisy and dishonesty, largely because he's so openly hypocritical and dishonest. His supporters don't care. There's simply no credibility to attack. It frustrates me.

Its not about convincing his supporters to stop supporting him. It is about convincing everyone else that Trump and his supporters are indefensible.

We call that "preaching to the choir", Saelune. And as the choir already agrees with the preaching it's less a matter of 'convincing them' than it is self-congratulatory. Not to belabor the point about Trump once again being caught in a bold faced lie, but let's not delude ourselves that the purpose is about proving anything to others rather than taking the vindication of what we've been saying and rubbing it in everyone's faces.

There are still a ton of hecklers in my so called choir then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI79RveR7Dw

In 2:48 the roller coaster begins. In brief, a trade agreement with Mexico (and Canada) won't pay for the wall. Every single American tax-payer will pay for the wall; the trade agreement will just fill the pockets of private corporations that will take advantage of it (and they are in no obligation to give a raise to their employees because of it).

No matter how you see it, the average American will pay for the wall and won't see a penny from Mexico (nor Canada) for it.

Remember: Lies aren't just words. Just saying...

Thaluikhain:

Palindromemordnilap:
Steel posts that can apparently be cut through by completely ordinary DIY equipment judging by the tests of the prototype. So let's hope them Mexicans don't have saws

I read that they were Marine Corps experts doing the testing.

Not that I think that random people couldn't use saws, it's just that it seems odd that the USMC has expert wall sawers to do the testing.

If its been done by equipment that I could get from my local hardware shop, does it matter that it was the US Marines? If they'd been sawn through by some fancy steel sawing machine that only the US military had the access to and funding for then yeah, okay, nothing's been proved, but this was apparently completely bog standard gear

Saelune:

Asita:

Saelune:
Its not about convincing his supporters to stop supporting him. It is about convincing everyone else that Trump and his supporters are indefensible.

We call that "preaching to the choir", Saelune. And as the choir already agrees with the preaching it's less a matter of 'convincing them' than it is self-congratulatory. Not to belabor the point about Trump once again being caught in a bold faced lie, but let's not delude ourselves that the purpose is about proving anything to others rather than taking the vindication of what we've been saying and rubbing it in everyone's faces.

There are still a ton of hecklers in my so called choir then.

I have to say, the choir is not really in sync

Thaluikhain:

Palindromemordnilap:
Steel posts that can apparently be cut through by completely ordinary DIY equipment judging by the tests of the prototype. So let's hope them Mexicans don't have saws

I read that they were Marine Corps experts doing the testing.

Not that I think that random people couldn't use saws, it's just that it seems odd that the USMC has expert wall sawers to do the testing.

Specifically, it was probably Marine Corps Engineers; people who's entire job consists of knowing how to build and maintain friendly fortifications, and undermine those of the enemy.

aegix drakan:

A full on Maga guy only care if Trump directly and obviously hurts him in a way he can't explain away, and the second he complains, the other trump cultists will throw him under the wheels and say he was never one of them and is a crisis actor / liberal plant, etc.

They might throw Trump under the wheels.

But you know what? Wheels are old, older than walls. And the thing about wheels is that they work, like walls work. And the wall will work, probably. I'd say definitely. He'll do it. He's not doing it now, but he will do it the future, 100%, when he wants. It'll be a big win for Trump, a big win for everyone, the biggest win for any president in history. More people support the wall than any other policy any president has ever proposed, and that's what all the other ex-presidents say. They tell Trump they wish they'd built the wall. Mexico will pay for it, I'd say definitely. Trump's already made Mexico pay, probably. LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!

Agema:

aegix drakan:

A full on Maga guy only care if Trump directly and obviously hurts him in a way he can't explain away, and the second he complains, the other trump cultists will throw him under the wheels and say he was never one of them and is a crisis actor / liberal plant, etc.

They might throw Trump under the wheels.

But you know what? Wheels are old, older than walls. And the thing about wheels is that they work, like walls work. And the wall will work, probably. I'd say definitely. He'll do it. He's not doing it now, but he will do it the future, 100%, when he wants. It'll be a big win for Trump, a big win for everyone, the biggest win for any president in history. More people support the wall than any other policy any president has ever proposed, and that's what all the other ex-presidents say. They tell Trump they wish they'd built the wall. Mexico will pay for it, I'd say definitely. Trump's already made Mexico pay, probably. LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!

Talk about preaching to the chorus... I think everyone here knows that Trump supporters are the event horizon of Poe's Law: no matter how absurd you portray them, they are even more absurd in reality.

Asita:
We call that "preaching to the choir", Saelune. And as the choir already agrees with the preaching it's less a matter of 'convincing them' than it is self-congratulatory. Not to belabor the point about Trump once again being caught in a bold faced lie, but let's not delude ourselves that the purpose is about proving anything to others rather than taking the vindication of what we've been saying and rubbing it in everyone's faces.

That would be true if this country was completely Democratic or Republican. And it would also make sense if everyone voted in the 2016 election. But given that 45% (the Irony is not lost on me) of Adults didn't vote, it pays to routinely remind the choir and even those who can hear it out on the street that we can't allow this type of crap to ever happen again.

I think I shall start a catch phrase. "It took 45 to stick us with 45". "45 percent ruined the 45th presidency".

... It will be a work in progress.

Palindromemordnilap:
If its been done by equipment that I could get from my local hardware shop, does it matter that it was the US Marines? If they'd been sawn through by some fancy steel sawing machine that only the US military had the access to and funding for then yeah, okay, nothing's been proved, but this was apparently completely bog standard gear

A steel fence isn't going to stop anyone with a petrol saw, and those are only about ?500. Sure, they're noisy, but it's a very long border. A cutting torch on the other hand doesn't even make that much noise... Mobile too.

ObsidianJones:

Asita:
We call that "preaching to the choir", Saelune. And as the choir already agrees with the preaching it's less a matter of 'convincing them' than it is self-congratulatory. Not to belabor the point about Trump once again being caught in a bold faced lie, but let's not delude ourselves that the purpose is about proving anything to others rather than taking the vindication of what we've been saying and rubbing it in everyone's faces.

That would be true if this country was completely Democratic or Republican. And it would also make sense if everyone voted in the 2016 election. But given that 45% (the Irony is not lost on me) of Adults didn't vote, it pays to routinely remind the choir and even those who can hear it out on the street that we can't allow this type of crap to ever happen again.

I think I shall start a catch phrase. "It took 45 to stick us with 45". "45 percent ruined the 45th presidency".

... It will be a work in progress.

Its a constant 'I told you so' really. And I keep having to tell so, and keep having more so's to tell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC5kdfv-M78

ObsidianJones:

Asita:
We call that "preaching to the choir", Saelune. And as the choir already agrees with the preaching it's less a matter of 'convincing them' than it is self-congratulatory. Not to belabor the point about Trump once again being caught in a bold faced lie, but let's not delude ourselves that the purpose is about proving anything to others rather than taking the vindication of what we've been saying and rubbing it in everyone's faces.

That would be true if this country was completely Democratic or Republican. And it would also make sense if everyone voted in the 2016 election.

...My statement is in no way dependent on either of those premises. What it is predicated on is that Trump is a polarizing figure; you either love him or hate him, without much of a middle road. Much like with abortion, Trump seems to be a topic that everyone has a strong opinion on, to the point that his base's fervor and willingness to handwave his faults is often likened to that of a cult (flat earthers being a recent comparison). It's also predicated on the fact that Trump's puerile conduct, impulsiveness, almost compulsive lying, and braggartism are easily recognizable to anyone who isn't figuratively drinking the Kool-Aid and won't hear a word against the man (or worse still, love him for it by way of 'good television' logic).

The unspoken question underlying my post was "who do you think doesn't already know he's an lying idiot?", with my post being predicated on the answer "nobody outside of his base, and the base simply doesn't care". Hence preaching to the choir.

CaitSeith:

Talk about preaching to the chorus... I think everyone here knows that Trump supporters are the event horizon of Poe's Law: no matter how absurd you portray them, they are even more absurd in reality.

I'm not making fun of Trump supporters, I'm making fun of Trump. Your average Trump supporter is probably a lot more cogent than Trump, who sounds like a person with some sort of cognitive impairment - perhaps the sort of slightly disordered, ill-thought babble you might expect from someone on psychoactive drugs. It would be consistent with the rumours of amphetamine consumption, for instance.

I'm not sure a lot of Trump supporters are particularly politically engaged. They're not watching the TV news much, reading the papers much, and on the occasions they do they're mostly accessing very Trump-friendly media. Consequently, I suspect they're far less aware of Trump's flaws.

Oh, apparently Trump is considered cutting disaster relief funds to pay for the wall.

ObsidianJones:
I think I shall start a catch phrase. "It took 45 to stick us with 45". "45 percent ruined the 45th presidency".

... It will be a work in progress.

Oh, keep going with that, it has potential.

Hades:

PsychedelicDiamond:

trunkage:
So serious question, how did Bush get ousted over one lie and Trump hasn't had a backlash with all his lies

Didn't Bush serve two full terms?

The other one. His daddy

''Read my lips! No new taxes!''

I think you can actually blame Bill Clinton for that. After all, he was the first president to be caught red-handed lying to Congress and get away with it.

Palindromemordnilap:
Steel posts that can apparently be cut through by completely ordinary DIY equipment judging by the tests of the prototype. So let's hope them Mexicans don't have saws

The focus on a barrier is part and parcel of the typical conservative attitude towards immigration enforcement - that is, to promote "hard," tough-sounding measures regardless of their actual effectiveness, while starving money from "soft" measures in spite of their proven effectiveness.

For example, the reason why Trump picked this fight now is because 2018 saw a slight uptick in border crossings over 2017, which upset Trump when he was informed. But the reason that uptick exists is due to a surge in asylum seekers - people turning themselves in at a port of entry to request asylum, or crossing the border and then turning themselves in. (These are the people that constitute the much-maligned caravans that Trump recently claimed were full of Muslim terrorists coming to invade America.)

Asylum seekers aren't actually the kind of people that a barrier is meant to stop. The barriers are meant to discourage border crossings in certain areas so as to funnel them into more heavily-patrolled areas, so that the people crossing can be more easily caught. But asylum seekers want to be caught. Being caught is how they make their claim for asylum under US law. After turning themselves in on US soil, asylum seekers are detained for crossing the border illegally. But because their asylum claims have to be processed before they can be deported - and because it takes well over a year, at least, to process a claim - they start filling up the detention centres past their capacity, which in turn forces DHS to let them out on bail.

A wall would do nothing to stop asylum seekers, because all an asylum seeker wants to do is literally put their feet on US soil and then find a border patrol agent. Trump thinks "but my wall will keep them out," but the thing is that it won't really do that and isn't designed to do that - no wall can ever do more than slow a person down. People determined to cross are going to cross; the wall just makes it easier to catch them crossing. And getting caught doesn't matter to an asylum seeker.

Now, if you wanted to reduce the number of asylum seekers trying to get into the US, a barrier is not the thing you would build. What you would do is expand the immigration court system to clear the existing backlog and allow DHS to process asylum claims faster. Currently, it takes two to three years for an asylum claim to be heard in court. There isn't enough space in the detention centres to hold that many people for that long. So what happens is they get let out on bail - they give them a GPS tracker and tell them to stay near the border and wait for their court date. Then the (undocumented) asylum seeker just starts living in the US. Ninety percent of the time, they hang around for their court date; the rest find some way to evade the system and vanish into the population. (This is the "catch and release" system that Trump frequently criticises, apparently unaware that it is an effect of his own immigration policy.)

Currently, the US has only about 400 judges working in the immigration courts. It is woefully - and in some ways deliberately - inadequate. Not only are asylum seekers kept waiting for years, but they are often denied a proper trial when their case is eventually heard. This is Republican immigration policy working as intended; they do not want the process of applying for asylum to be easy, because they feel that this encourages people to apply for asylum. They want the hearings to be rushed, because that gives them cover to start cut corners on due process. What Republicans refuse to acknowledge or admit is the fact that this creates a population of liminal people - people whose legal status is ambiguous, living under threat of "accidental" deportation despite their pending claim. This population conveniently also forms a labor force that can be exploited by employers who want cheap seasonal labor that they can hire, fire, mistreat or maim without worrying about lawsuits or unions.

The great irony of conservative immigration policy is that it is just bad policy. A good immigration policy would process asylum seekers under a simple rubric - those whose claims have merit receive asylum, those who do not are deported. A good immigration policy would seek to process asylum seekers as quickly as possible to relieve stress on the detention centres and free up DHS resources for combating drug smugglers, sex traffickers, and other serious criminal activity. A good immigration policy would fund its courts and its detention centres to match the current need, and not waste money on building border barriers that the border patrol simply does not need.

But conservative immigration policy is more concerned with hollow displays of strength, so instead you end up with a situation where agencies like ICE are so poorly managed that the department devoted to enforcement and removal - the guys who raid Latino neighbourhoods in the middle of the night looking to arrest and deport someone's grandma - receives vastly more funding and resources than the department devoted to investigating and tracking transnational criminal gangs like MS-13. Rather than serve as a filter which keeps out criminals and allows sympathetic or economically desirable migrants to enter the country, conservative immigration policy is like a poorly-bolted steel plate - superficially tough, but very leaky in practice.

This has probably already been answered but of course he didn't mean they'd pay "directly". Reading between the lines they'd pay "indirectly" through recovery of the fiscal loss due to illegal immigration.

True, it's not nearly as much as Trump said, but heads need to be in the sand not to acknowledge it's still quite a significant sum.

hanselthecaretaker:
This has probably already been answered but of course he didn?t mean they?d pay ?directly?. Reading between the lines they?d pay ?indirectly? through recovery of the fiscal loss due to illegal immigration.

True, it?s not nearly as much as Trump said, but heads need to be in the sand not to acknowledge it?s still quite a significant sum.

I am fairly certain there is a direct quote from him that Mexico would pay a "one time payment of 5 - 10 billion dollars" in a memo to CNN or wherever.

Here we go!
A web archive of Trumps own website which copies a memo sent to the Washington Post.

"It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year."

"On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall" then Trump proposes we threaten them with introducing a regulation that "no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States", using his good friends Tariffs or by cancelling visas/adding fees to visas.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here