Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread

Who are your favorite candidates?

  • Kamala Harris

    Votes: 43 8.0%
  • Elizabeth Warren

    Votes: 99 18.4%
  • Julián Castro

    Votes: 16 3.0%
  • Pete Buttigieg

    Votes: 51 9.5%
  • Kirsten Gillibrand

    Votes: 7 1.3%
  • John Delaney

    Votes: 9 1.7%
  • Tulsi Gabbard

    Votes: 63 11.7%
  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 338 62.9%
  • Amy Klobuchar

    Votes: 12 2.2%
  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 45 8.4%
  • Andrew Yang

    Votes: 112 20.9%
  • Cory Booker

    Votes: 7 1.3%
  • Marianne Williamson

    Votes: 19 3.5%
  • Mike Bloomberg

    Votes: 12 2.2%

  • Total voters
    537

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
What evidence is there to suggest she is not credible... literally where is this narrative coming from
1. Her flagrant bias and political motivation. She's a die-hard Bernie broette, and she's voluntarily made it clear that she's doing this primarily to benefit Bernie. She's since set her Twitter to private, but her initial response to the story breaking was (paraphrasing), "Thank you for helping me share my story. #BernieIsOurFDR". That hashtag is not paraphrased. Considering her very first comment on the Tweet included cultish praise for Bernie, it's not a reach to say her motivations are very questionable.

2. Her inconsistency and suspicious timing. Last year, she accused Biden of exhibiting inappropriate behavior in 1983, but she noted that it wasn't sexual. That was consistent with the complaints he received from other women around the same time. Right when Biden practically secured the nomination against Sanders, the accusation changed to rape? We could typically overlook that, but it's incredibly suspicious considering point #1.

3. Her unconvincing and unsubstantiated story. The transcript she provided was ridiculous. It sounded like something out of Bernie's rumored rape-fantasy journal (/s). Even the nuances didn't add up. For example, she claimed Biden said, "C'mon, man," to her. The thing is, Biden didn't acquire that catchphrase until after Obama said it. It seems like she either misremembered the quote, or she sloppily made it up using Biden's current lexicon. It's hard to believe she misremembered, though, because she explicitly referred to it as, "that phrase that stayed with me." Considering she has no evidence and no reliable witnesses, those potential holes deserve scrutiny.

4. Connections to Russia. I'm not talking the typical "He visited Ukraine once, so he's a Putin operative!" hyperbole. She's been practically obsessed with Vladimir Putin as of late. For example, she wrote this last year in a (now-deleted) Medium blog:

Tara Reade said:
President Putin scares the power elite in America because he is a compassionate, caring, visionary leader. President Putin has higher approval ratings in America then the American President. President Putin is beloved by Russia and he not going anywhere. Instead of being ensnared in the recent political intrigues (and America is trying hard to set that trap). President Putin is keeping a calm focus on his own country’s development and future, without America.

To President Putin, I say keep your eyes to the beautiful future and maybe, just maybe America will come to see Russia as I do, with eyes of love. To all my Russian friends, happy holiday and Happy New Year.
Perhaps her admiration of Putin and devotion to Bernie motivated her to dive-bomb the nominee? Maybe someone from the Trump/Putin/Sanders camp paid her off? It wouldn't be the first time someone purchased a rape accusation against one of Trump's opponents.

Those are questions we can never answer, because she has no evidence. That's not to say she's lying, but we can't immediately assume she's telling the truth. This story is so weak that even Jacobin hasn't picked it up yet, and they'd never miss a shameless opportunity to boost the Sanders campaign. The Bernie fans who are weaponizing it to the point of saying Biden should be disqualified are pathetic, especially since those same people mindlessly called Warren a liar just a few weeks ago. "I believe women... unless they're accusing Bernie Sanders of saying something moderately sexist."
 
Last edited:
1. Her flagrant bias and political motivation. She's a die-hard Bernie broette, and she's voluntarily made it clear that she's doing this primarily to benefit Bernie. She's since set her Twitter to private, but her initial response to the story breaking was (paraphrasing), "Thank you for helping me share my story. #BernieIsOurFDR". That hashtag is not paraphrased. Considering her very first comment on the Tweet included cultish praise for Bernie, it's not a reach to say her motivations are very questionable.

2. Her inconsistency and suspicious timing. Last year, she accused Biden of exhibiting inappropriate behavior in 1983, but she noted that it wasn't sexual. That was consistent with the complaints he received from other women around the same time. Right when Biden practically secured the nomination against Sanders, the accusation changed to rape? We could typically overlook that, but it's incredibly suspicious considering point #1.

3. Her unconvincing and unsubstantiated story. The transcript she provided was ridiculous. It sounded like something out of Bernie's rumored rape-fantasy journal (/s). Even the nuances didn't add up. For example, she claimed Biden said, "C'mon, man," to her. The thing is, Biden didn't acquire that catchphrase until after Obama said it. It seems like she either misremembered the quote, or she sloppily made it up using Biden's current lexicon. It's hard to believe she misremembered, though, because she explicitly referred to it as, "that phrase that stayed with me." Considering she has no evidence and no reliable witnesses, those potential holes deserve scrutiny.

4. Connections to Russia. I'm not talking the typical "He visited Ukraine once, so he's a Putin operative!" hyperbole. She's been practically obsessed with Vladimir Putin as of late. For example, she wrote this last year in a (now-deleted) Medium blog:



Perhaps her admiration of Putin and devotion to Bernie motivated her to dive-bomb the nominee? Maybe someone from the Trump/Putin/Sanders camp paid her off? It wouldn't be the first time someone purchased a rape accusation against one of Trump's opponents.

Those are questions we can never answer, because she has no evidence. That's not to say she's lying, but we can't immediately assume she's telling the truth. This story is so weak that even Jacobin hasn't picked it up yet, and they'd never miss a shameless opportunity to boost the Sanders campaign. The Bernie fans who are weaponizing it to the point of saying Biden should be disqualified are pathetic, especially since those same people mindlessly called Warren a liar just a few weeks ago. "I believe women... unless they're accusing Bernie Sanders of saying something moderately sexist."
Ill save people the trouble of reading this and summarize:
speculation and russia conspiracy + really, really hysterical language lol
 

Luck O' the Irish

banned in dc
is a Tiering Contributor
Mikedawg, I think my biggest problem with your argument is how inherently dismissive of this person it is. I don't think there's anything wrong with not wanting to cancel biden over this, but points 1 2 and 4 reflect a problematic mindset, imo, of how we approach sexual assault. She can be a huge Bernie stan who wants above all else Bernie to beat Biden AND have been assaulted. She can have not been consistent with her story AND have been assaulted. She could be a Russian spy for all I care AND have been assaulted.

For point 2, I believe it possible she could have omitted details out of concern for her own safety or backlash. For point 3, I'll throw you a bone and say maybe some of this does warrant some healthy skepticism (although I wouldn't say anything in your post proves even comes close to irrefutably proving innocence). This is not to say I believe Biden is guilty. I think that for the sake of survivors in general, response to an accusation with "I'm 99% sure she's lying" is damaging not even just to her really, but could be to other people who might consider bringing their own story forward. I think "I believe survivors" doesn't mean "all accused rapists ARE rapists" but rather "I believe people saying they are survivors should have their voices heard without being summarily tossed in the garbage can". And I think the other posters are approaching "I believe survivors" with a similar attitude, which is why I'm having a hard time understanding how you keep doubling down on the way you're arguing this
 

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
And I think the other posters are approaching "I believe survivors" with a similar attitude, which is why I'm having a hard time understanding how you keep doubling down on the way you're arguing this
That's where we disagree. "Will he get away with it?" has nothing to do with giving someone a voice; it's just another (particularly toxic) smear to undermine the Dem nominee. That's the angle most Bernie/Trump fans are coming from, else they wouldn't be weaponizing an entirely unverified and unsubstantiated assault to slam a political opponent. The comments aren't pro-Reade, they're anti-Biden. Even Reade herself has been openly trying to weaponize the story from the start. This revelation, true or not, is objectively a political stunt, so it needs to be disputed as such.

Despite your strawman, I never said that the evidence against her means she's lying. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite. I was responding to your question about why people are suspicious of her story. That's it.

On that note, I'm not sure why you're addressing my individual points in a vacuum when I specifically noted that it's the unusually large collection of circumstantial evidence, not any one piece, that warrants scrutiny. Considering that evidence and her lack of witnesses, the only people who'd immediately assume Biden's guilt are the ones who were already desperate to see him fall.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BP

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
This whole thing really shows you which people cared about women and the power dynamic in today's society and which people only exploited the movement to gain political credibility. I'm just waiting for the "yeah even if Biden raped this girl Trump has raped more women so he's still better" argument
 

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
another way to read your last sentence is “the only people who’s immediately assume he’s innocent are the ones who are desperately backing him”
No, it's not.

but i guess its not credible when Biden has had 8 previous accusations of sexual misconduct since starting his campaign: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-allegations-women-2020-campaign-2019-6?amp
Already brought those up, and they're consistent with Reade's first complaint that Biden was inappropriate though not sexual towards her. They're inconsistent with her recent rape accusation, and I'm annoyed that you're conflating them. Again, that's not to say she's lying, but it's certainly not a point in her favor.

This whole thing really shows you which people cared about women and the power dynamic in today's society and which people only exploited the movement to gain political credibility.
Bro you got chewed out in this thread just last year for being blatantly sexist. Gtfo your high horse. lol You of all people have nothing to say about "political credibility" re: feminism.

I'm just waiting for the "yeah even if Biden raped this girl Trump has raped more women so he's still better" argument
I wouldn't hold your breath. If an investigation were to actually suggest Biden's guilt, he'd be over in a heartbeat. But until she comes up with some evidence, there's nothing to investigate. Really, it just sounds like you're projecting.

If you're only here for the circlejerk instead of genuine discussion, stop responding to me. I'm not interested.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BP

termi

bike is short for bichael
is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributor
https://www.newsweek.com/biden-camp...sault-allegation-former-senate-staffer-149479

this article is pretty good, it covers all sides and gives more context to reade's recent allegation, i suggest everyone reads it n_n

That's where we disagree. "Will he get away with it?" has nothing to do with giving someone a voice; it's just another (particularly toxic) smear to undermine the Dem nominee. That's the angle most Bernie/Trump fans are coming from, else they wouldn't be weaponizing an entirely unverified and unsubstantiated assault to slam a political opponent. The comments aren't pro-Reade, they're anti-Biden.
you may be correct that some people do believe reade merely because her statement is anti-biden, but that doesn't mean it is right to assume by default that all support for her is cynical. unfortunately we have no way of knowing how much of the support for reade is politically motivated on the "bernie bro" end, because bernie sanders has never been hit with an accusation of sexual misconduct (i sure do wonder why, it's almost like he's not a bad person)

Even Reade herself has been openly trying to weaponize the story from the start. This revelation, true or not, is objectively a political stunt, so it needs to be disputed as such.
why did you not grant warren's allegation against bernie sanders at least with the same level of scrutiny? how is it that you doubt tara reade, a woman who is not in politics, does not hope to win any legal battle against biden, and overall has more to lose than to gain on a personal level, yet assume by default that elizabeth warren, who had little to lose and potentially a lot to gain from her accusation, must be telling the truth? you seem to understand belief in tara reade's story as a partisan move, but you seem unwilling to turn that skepticism against yourself and ask whether you believed elizabeth warren because there were very good reasons to do so, or because you simply like her and dislike bernie sanders (also once again i want to stress how fundamentally different a rape allegation and a vague accusation of misogynist language are, the former is by default a very difficult thing to do with potentially grave consequences if you are not believed, the latter has little consequence if it is not believed and therefore should be more open to scrutiny, especially when the one making the accusation is a person in a position of power)

On that note, I'm not sure why you're addressing my individual points in a vacuum when I specifically noted that it's the unusually large collection of circumstantial evidence, not any one piece, that warrants scrutiny. Considering that evidence and her lack of witnesses, the only people who'd immediately assume Biden's guilt are the ones who were already desperate to see him fall.
it is fair to consider circumstantial evidence, but we also have to consider the circumstantial evidence that makes reade's story more likely, such as the fact that biden has shown a pattern of being inappropriate around women and girls, and the aforementioned fact that accusing a powerful person of sexual assault can very easily backfire and therefore is not something a relatively powerless person typically does out of pettiness or political interest
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Bro you got chewed out in this thread just last year for being blatantly sexist. Gtfo your high horse. lol You of all people have nothing to say about "political credibility" re: feminism.
lol when did i get "chewed out" for being sexist? This is news to me
 

MikeDawg

Banned deucer.
Im not a fan of Bernie, the person, you absolute Double Whipped Cream Mocha Frappuccino. That’s the literal point of my post!!! Bernie fails on so many fronts for me, but he’s consistently at the very least in the right position.
I'm not talking about Bernie the person. I'm talking about the worldview of most Bernie voters, including yourself.

And I literally just told you what people see in Biden
And it was literally unsubstantiated drivel.

Look at how fucking toothless this is. How it is absolute pure unadulterated “if it were me I’d do something and it would be better.”
It's a Tweet. Sorry that those 120 characters didn't meet your policy standards. Do you want me to link a few hundred Bernie tweets and statements of similar detail?

This is especially inane when his opponent constantly spews the most empty and juvenile rhetoric of all. He's the king of, "My plan is to go to Wall Street and tell them to cut it out!" He can't even answer basic questions without pivoting to his totally irrelevant stump speech.

Fundamentally: the quality that most of the electorate values the most is quote unquote leadership.
Do you have a source? Because the data I've seen seems to suggest that people just don't care about Bernie's idiotic "outsider" narrative.

rakich-POLLA-0322-01.png


And I love how you totally ignored the fact that "electability" has consistently taken the top spot in voter concerns this cycle. Please don't respond to this with some absurd suggestion that Bernie is more electable than Biden. I'm truly not interested, and neither were the large majority of primary voters. Try harder.


Meanwhile Bernie secures 100% Salary coverage for unemployment benefits for four months.
Bernie didn't do shit. He hasn't even been in the Senate. Even prominent Bernie fans have been calling him out for massively inflating his role. You people can't go 2 weeks without trying to take someone else's accomplishments and plaster them onto Bernie. At least this time you're just stealing from politicians like Michael Bennet instead of civil rights activists. Sam already provided some evidence, and considering none of you are interested in even reading that, it'd be a waste of time for me to elaborate.

Biden talks about making a hypothetical task force.
Bernie's entire career is hypothetical. Seriously. He's accomplished nothing. You can look to his Congressional record for proof, as well as my previous response to dk. When Bernie was running vanity campaign instead of paying child support, Biden was passing the first major climate bill ever.

This thread is littered with evidence that you're a fundamentally unserious debater (lol I still get a kick out of, "gay dude benefits from homophobia," and, "I'm the only gay person you've ever met." My husband laughed too), but defending Bernie Sanders of all people by saying his former opponent doesn't take enough action is a losing battle, to say the least.

That's especially true considering Bernie's poor response to the pandemic. He can't even do his current job.

But what matters more to people is the posturing, not the work that needs to be done.
This literally sums up Bernie supporters. That's not even an insult. You people constanly claim it with pride. Two pages ago Gato outright said Bernie's history of incompetence and not effecting actionable change was a positive.

But what’s even the point of responding to you
I'm also confused as to why you keep trying, but I personally enjoy your responses. It's a great ego boost for me to so thoroughly disagree with someone who produces perhaps the stupidest comments in this whole thread.

Disclaimer: I'm still confused as to whether it's allowed to insult people in this thread, or if personal attacks are only okay when directed at me. If it's the latter, please shoot me a message and I'll edit out my reciprocated... observations. :)

the fact that you can’t even see how this is exactly the same as the reaction to the Kavanaugh claims is fucking detestable.
The fact that you deliberately refuse to acknowledge the difference between this and Ford's accusation is detestable. Why do you guys always have to make these false equivalences? It's like you have to be the most oppressed group just for political leverage, despite the fact that Biden won women, working class people, and black voters by substantial/gigantic margins.

Reade is your less credible version of Ford.

"Residue" was your less compelling version of "Basket of deplorables".

"Bernie bro" was your asinine version of an actual slur.

Your inability to differentiate these things (specifically Reade v Ford in your case) speaks volumes about your actual commitment to social justice. In other words, you aren't committed to social justice, you're committed to damaging Biden's election chances by whatever means necessary.

Can you show me your past comments condemning the handling of sexual assault in Bernie's 2016 campaign, Bernie's fervent support for the crime bill (especially increasing police and prisons), and his claim that most drug dealers are black? This isn't me accusing me of being a Bernie stan. I'm just wondering if you gave a shit when it happened on your side.

I genuinely wish I knew why you think the way that you do. I can’t even fathom what it’s like to live in the world thinking the way you do.
That makes one of us. It helps me sleep at night knowing there's at least a tiny chance that you've just been trolling this whole time.

Considering the vast majority of people live in "my" world, I'd suggest taking a visit. Leaving the echo chamber for a second could really benefit you guys.
 
Last edited:

Stratos

Banned deucer.
watching bernie partisans scream "Oh so you'll believe women when it's warren but not when it's reade?" while biden partisans scream "Oh so you'll believe women when it's reade but not when it's warren" is fucking epic. personally speaking, i dont put much stock in any story that hinges on Joe Biden being sexually attracted to an adult
 
i have lost faith in partisan politics. pages upon pages of this thread are such inane arguments. i don't stan or align with any politician, but biden is fundamentally a conservative candidate. any politician who doesn't push for m4a, a drastic increase in minimum wage, taxing the rich, eliminating money in politics... and other very basic necessities for the sake of people in our country and democracy... if our "progressive" option doesn't support these things, what's the point? burn this shit down.

i cannot believe this thread has devolved into chinwagging about the legitimacy of a rape survivor's testimony. about the mythology of bernie supporters being toxic [spoiler alert: when people have been denied access to basic needs and live in an exploitative system, people tend to be angry]. about 'electability' instead of change. about gotchas instead of understanding.

black trans women have a life expectancy of 35.

the wealth gap is only about to balloon in light of the covid stimulus, giving corporations more power to exploit.

most folks can't afford property and have to pay rent.

the value of a degree is only depreciating, and the cost of a degree is rising. colleges are functional businesses.

the legacy of primitive accumulation has never been accounted for.

incarceration exists. for profit.

racism is unceasing.

so much of the country is living paycheck to paycheck. trying to stay afloat.

and we are told partisan politicking will do something. that democracy is sacred. so we put stock into our civic duty. we support our candidates. so many people viewed bernie as the only light in the presidential race. so many people were jaded by obama's fauxgressive campaigns that bamboozled the populace. so many people were promised change and never got it. we were let down. and then. a true progressive runs. one that will actually give workers more power. one that understands the oligarchy and wants to do something about it. even if it's a stump speech.

and yet. we have people itt who spend their time justifying biden. justifying the status quo. electability they say. bernie has done nothing they say (even though he forced obama left, even...)

it's so maddening reading this thread and realizing that people are too dedicated to misunderstanding. dedicated to being 'right'. dedicated to a candidate, instead of a politic.

ask yourself this: are you supporting the powerful or the powerless? why do you support them? where do your politics align? how will you actualize this? are the resources spent toward the presidency the best way we can spend them?
 
i have lost faith in partisan politics. pages upon pages of this thread are such inane arguments. i don't stan or align with any politician, but biden is fundamentally a conservative candidate. any politician who doesn't push for m4a, a drastic increase in minimum wage, taxing the rich, eliminating money in politics... and other very basic necessities for the sake of people in our country and democracy... if our "progressive" option doesn't support these things, what's the point? burn this shit down.
Biden is one of very few Democrat that didn't take a hard turn to the left. He just happens to look much further right in comparison to the dramatic shift in political alignment. Is he practically a walking corpse at this point? I don't deny that, nor do I deny that Bernie was more or less ripped off again by the establishment, but Biden by no means is a conservative. I'm sorry that the differences are so stark that there cannot be an in-between moderate lane anymore as according to the rest of your statement, which is how the Dems flipped many house seats in 2018, and how you ended up with Biden having the most unlikely comeback in the primaries. Middle America by-in-large, which is filled by suburban independents which are largely credited giving Trump his 2016 upset, is what can make or break coming elections. It has shown in the two most previous ones we've had. My advice: do not single them out, and don't act utterly unpatriotic in a time where, while things are not perfect as with many things in this world, we in the US have it much better than many other countries (I will not derail and go into why that is, such as bringing up the economy, because I've seen the rabbit hole that some of you animals will go down from there).

Sidenote: It's absolutely fair to credit a "rape survivor's" legitimacy when they're bringing zero evidence to the table. People can, and have, lied about circumstances like this sadly, hence why its a dangerous policy to simply believe women outright. Give them the benefit of doubt, absolutely, but that is how we turn from innocent until proven guilty to the reverse. We have seen this throughout history, and it sets bad precedent. The onus of proof is on the accuser, and that is how we prevent going into absolute anarchy. I had the same standard during the Kavanaugh circus, I have the same opinion now, despite the fact that its Biden whom I do disagree with politically by-in-large. It still does not make it right. I do not care who it is or what side of the political isle they're on because I choose consistency and integrity above all else.

Sorry not sorry.
 
Last edited:
you managed quoted my post and proceeded to use every talking point i bemoaned. ignoring the stagnancy biden represents. ignoring how we live in one of the most far right empires in the world and globally, biden is a conservative. ignoring the continued inequalities that have never been solved through partisan politics. ignoring how disgusting it looks to use stringent carceral logics to rip into a woman’s livelihood. my politics are here to support the systemically disempowered.
 
circlejerking each other about how radical you are compared to Joe Biden doesn't really change that your idea of political activism is to complain about how no one likes your preferred geriatric on Pokemon forums. you mfers want to roleplay as Lenin online but lack the solidarity to even vote against Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Hitler. smh
 
you managed quoted my post and proceeded to use every talking point i bemoaned. ignoring the stagnancy biden represents. ignoring how we live in one of the most far right empires in the world and globally, biden is a conservative. ignoring the continued inequalities that have never been solved through partisan politics. ignoring how disgusting it looks to use stringent carceral logics to rip into a woman’s livelihood. my politics are here to support the systemically disempowered.
And I'm telling you we do not live in a far-right empire (if you want that, go to Russia or North Korea), and I already explained that Biden is nowhere near a conservative. I'm sorry, but what an absurd notion. I'll tell you now that a couple of the inequalities you're crying about are not nearly as bad as you are making it out to be (I stress a couple, there are others that are more legitament that I'll go with you on like the fact that there is a population in the US in dire poverty).

One is wealth inequality. I'm not following how the rich being richer is a bad thing, especially while considering that poor are in fact not getting poorer, but also richer. The gap is expanding, sure, but why this isn't a bad thing imo is because having the ability to get ahead is not a bad thing once so ever. I believe people have a right to do that. Jeff Bezos is a great example. He created possibly one of the best online shopping services worldwide. He didn't just get rich out of nowhere; people habitually rely on Amazon, and investors believe in its value.

The other I take issue with is unceasing racism. I do not deny racism still exists, and it is impossible to get rid of it in its entirety. It's a sickness that has has plagued the entire world for centuries. I would like to say though as a country we have progressed profusely. I guess you're gonna have to tell me why America by-in-large is unceasingly racist because for one, given we just overwhelmingly elected Obama not so long ago for starters, I'm having trouble believing that. What I've seen more of is our media trying to frame a narrative out of only partial bits of a story and does not always use the full context or notable statistics.

The rest of your post did a great job embodying a Bernie Sanders speech, so you really proved that you don't align with any politician. You're just like almost everyone else in this thread, friend. I'll stress in more detail, not pushing for a $15 minimum wage that'll be taxed like crazy back to previous levels anyways, eliminating "money in politics" (you weren't very specific there), and taxing the rich (presumably at exorbidant rates such as over 50% of all of their income or imposing a literal with tax) does not make you conservative. It just doesn't make you far left. Conservatism has its own threshold; just because your party is moved dras tically further left over these past years does not mean, in turn, everyone outsiide of that limited bubble is an evil conservative. The spectrum, let alone the world, is not molded around you.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top