• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ijuin said:

I think it's the XIIIth Amendment that Trump would prefer to repeal . . .

Nah, nobody cares about the 13th.  That just ended slavery, and even the most crazed elements of the alt-right mostly don't think slavery is a good idea anymore.  The 14th is the one that defines anybody born in the US as a citizen though.  If you reversed it, arguably the Dred Scott decision still stands and non-whites are not and cannot be citizens of the United States.  There certainly are people in favor of that, especially in a more limited form that would let you redefine citizenship for smaller groups.  There are a lot of people who might like to deny it to children of illegal immigrants for example.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, there are plenty of short-sighted prople who see that slaves dont need to be paid wages and who forget that it means that the master needs to pay for the slave's food and other upkeep directly (i.e. they mistakenly think of a slave as zero-cost labour). There are also folks who would get off on the ego gratification of being able to abuse a slave in ways that they could not abuse a free citizen employee (e.g. legally rape, beat, or otherwise intimidate then).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Troacctid said:

Hillary was a fantastic candidate. You all keep talking about her like, "Oh, she's so terrible, they're both terrible, Giant Meteor 2016," but I bet you can't even name two actual policies of hers that you don't like.

Overturning the Heller decision. Continued support for Obamacare. Continued arming of non-police federal agencies. Continued warmongering. Continued massive immigration. Continued non-enforcement of laws regarding illegal immigrants. Will that do?

(As Clinton herself said, "before it was known as Obamacare, it was known as Hillarycare". The Washington state legislature enacted Hillarycare in 1993. It was obviously bad by the end of the year, and obviously horribly bad by the middle of the next year. In the 1994 legislative election, most incumbents who didn't publicly pledge to repeal it were voted out - replaced by people who did make that pledge. The 1995 legislative session DID repeal it, and replaced it with a system that seemed to work passably well - until it was replaced by Obamacare.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton said in the third debate that she opposed the Heller decision because she felt it went too far in preventing regulations to protect toddlers from guns. I don't see how that's bad.

Obamacare isn't perfect, but it represented an incremental improvement over what we had before. Clinton supported the good bits and the general idea, and offered plans on how to improve the parts that haven't been working. What's wrong with that?

I keep hearing this "warmongering" thing and it bothers me. There's a difference between intervention and warmongering. Just because we're not involved in a conflict doesn't mean people magically stop dying. Now I don't know what specific wars you're thinking of, but personally, I think we can promote world peace more effectively if we use our military power to help end conflicts like the ones in Syria. It's a complicated issue, and there's a lot of room for debate, but IMO any candidate who takes a black-and-white stance on it probably hasn't really thought it through. It's one of the most difficult decisions that the President has to make, and you can't just reduce it to "War is bad, don't go to war."

I don't see the problem with legal immigration, and I'm pretty sure Clinton never supported non-enforcement of immigration laws, so I don't know what you're talking about on those last two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 9, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Vorlonagent said:

This was 2009.  There was no Supreme Court ruling in hand and no case before the Court to be ruled on.

Arguably, until the Supreme Court actually rules on a law, it is still Law and to be treated as such.  There is no allowance for maybe not enforcing a law when it is under Judicial Review, just in case the Court rules against it. 

The Supreme Court would have issue a stay order to temporarily suspend a law while it is under Review.  I'm pretty sure that only occurs when the constitutionality of a newly passed law is questioned, which wasn't the case with DOMA or many such anti-gay marriage statues across the US. 

With no case before the Court in 2009, Obama simply refused to enforce a law that conflicted with his political convenience.

So here's a couple questions I have here on this topic, because this is causing me to scratch my head. Because if we are talking about DOMA, then what we have here is a bit stickier than failing to enforce a law, and is not an accurate depiction of what the Administration did. 

In some ways, DOMA was about giving certain powers to the states (the ability to refuse to recognize marriage certificates from other states). Powers that the administration did not interfere in, nor had they really any enforcement duties related to them. So those can't be what we are talking about.

If we are talking about Obama signing onto the UN statement about decriminalization of homosexuality in 2009, then I'm not sure what laws we stopped enforcing on that front, as DOMA wasn't a law criminalizing homosexuality. So while we were still denying privileges by not recognizing marriages at the federal level, etc, we weren't criminalizing them. At least if you ignore the anti-sodomy laws still on the books for a few states, but that isn't for the federal government to enforce.

If we are talking about how the DoJ issued this statement saying they wouldn't defend the law in court, that is still different than enforcing it (and that statement is from 2011, in 2009, the DoJ did defend it). Is the DoJ required to defend laws when there are objections to those laws which amount to a constitutionality review working through the courts? Is that the same as failing to enforce it? How so?

So, what law, or what part of the law did Obama refuse to enforce? Details would be appreciated. Because I've done about as much random guessing at what you are getting at as I can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Troacctid said:

...various stuff...

The challenge was not for one person to name two Clinton policies that another person disagreed with...

The Heller decision essentially confirmed that the 2nd Amendment has the same legal standing as the 1st. If you think it would be reasonable to allow anyone to say anything the government approves of, provided they submit to a background check and get a government license (paying a fee for both) first, then I can understand why you wouldn't mind having the Heller decision overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Troacctid said:

Hillary was a fantastic candidate. You all keep talking about her like, "Oh, she's so terrible, they're both terrible, Giant Meteor 2016," but I bet you can't even name two actual policies of hers that you don't like.

I'll go further than that. I disagree with her entire ideological foundation, which for a lack of a better word, I call neoliberalism. By that I mean the ideology which advocates in the name of the free market cuts to the welfare state and privatisations of public services. This ideology has been put into action by politicians all over the world in the last 35 years.

Neoliberalism has hurt the poor, making it harder to be unemployed or disabled. It has made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Despite this, such policies in the US are supported by most politicians in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Indeed, Bill Clinton's disastrous welfare reform is a good example of neoliberalism. A policy which was of course strongly supported by Hillary.

I'm therefore not surprised that many people were not enthused by Hillary Clinton's campaign and only voted for her only with reluctance, as the lesser of two evils. Granted, she was of course a better choice than Trump, but that is a very low bar to clear.

As for Trump, his rise to power is in fact partly caused by neoliberalism.

Since the 1970s, corporations have moved manufacturing away from Western Europe and North America to sweatshops in periphery countries such as China. This process of globalization has left behind unemployment and poverty in the western world, a condition that has been worsened badly by neoliberalism and the recent recession. In the periphery countries, it has resulted in the most hideous form of exploitation where workers toil for low pay and in awful conditions. The only ones who have really benefited has been the wealthy businessmen that own the factories.

Thus, many people justifiably feel that something is deeply wrong with the world, and Trump validated and then exploited these feelings. Like most racist politicians, he scapegoated immigrants for America's problems ("they stole our jobs!") and promised the voters vague solutions. Of course, the truth is that his politics won't help ordinary people at all and that the real villains are wealthy businessmen like himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BurntAsh said:

So here's a couple questions I have here on this topic, because this is causing me to scratch my head. Because if we are talking about DOMA, then what we have here is a bit stickier than failing to enforce a law, and is not an accurate depiction of what the Administration did. 

In some ways, DOMA was about giving certain powers to the states (the ability to refuse to recognize marriage certificates from other states). Powers that the administration did not interfere in, nor had they really any enforcement duties related to them. So those can't be what we are talking about.

If we are talking about Obama signing onto the UN statement about decriminalization of homosexuality in 2009, then I'm not sure what laws we stopped enforcing on that front, as DOMA wasn't a law criminalizing homosexuality. So while we were still denying privileges by not recognizing marriages at the federal level, etc, we weren't criminalizing them. At least if you ignore the anti-sodomy laws still on the books for a few states, but that isn't for the federal government to enforce.

If we are talking about how the DoJ issued this statement saying they wouldn't defend the law in court, that is still different than enforcing it (and that statement is from 2011, in 2009, the DoJ did defend it). Is the DoJ required to defend laws when there are objections to those laws which amount to a constitutionality review working through the courts? Is that the same as failing to enforce it? How so?

So, what law, or what part of the law did Obama refuse to enforce? Details would be appreciated. Because I've done about as much random guessing at what you are getting at as I can.

Remind me in a week.  Since my conversations seem to get really divisive, I'm taking a 2-week holiday from politics to let post election emotions settle.  Given next week is thanksgiving in the US I may not answer for a week after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

Remind me in a week.  Since my conversations seem to get really divisive, I'm taking a 2-week holiday from politics to let post election emotions settle.  Given next week is thanksgiving in the US I may not answer for a week after that.

Fine. I mostly wanted to figure out where it was coming from, since at least there, it should be an issue of facts, rather than one of ideologies. Should being the key word. I would have been more to the point myself, if there was a more concrete argument to interact with. It's a bit too nebulous as written to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BurntAsh said:

Fine. I mostly wanted to figure out where it was coming from, since at least there, it should be an issue of facts, rather than one of ideologies. Should being the key word. I would have been more to the point myself, if there was a more concrete argument to interact with. It's a bit too nebulous as written to do that. 

Agreed.  Facts from the public record, preferably tested empirically (it can be hard to have the same facts sometimes).  Then opinions informed by one's values and based on those facts. 

This is primarily a memory I have that is tagged "start of Obama Admin".  I remember because several years earlier then-CA state AG (now governor) Jerry Brown announced the same thing.  I'll see if I can find a reference when I come back from my holiday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 11:28 AM, ijuin said:

Nah, there are plenty of short-sighted prople who see that slaves dont need to be paid wages and who forget that it means that the master needs to pay for the slave's food and other upkeep directly (i.e. they mistakenly think of a slave as zero-cost labour). There are also folks who would get off on the ego gratification of being able to abuse a slave in ways that they could not abuse a free citizen employee (e.g. legally rape, beat, or otherwise intimidate then).

I think this misunderstands the politics.  People like that are all for illegal immigration, and like the welfare state (People who aren't even using the slaves will pay some of the cost to feed them?  Sign me up!).  They voted for Clinton.  Trump supporters who hate the Other mostly do because they are the competition for jobs.  The last thing they want is slavery to make replacing them even more attractive to employers. 

I think Americans get them confused because they think slavery is related to racism.  It's not.  People who favor slavery as a source of cheap labor, and for that matter most of them for it for sadistic or sexual reasons, were and are perfectly happy to enslave people of their own ethnic group.  It's a historical accident that one particular kind of racism was used try to quell moral objections to slavery in the Americas.  And in any case it was a different flavor of racism that is rather rare now, one that classed other races as resources to be used for our advantage.  Modern racism is mostly about other races as competition for resources.  It's evil extreme is not enslavement, but genocide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, malloyd said:

I think this misunderstands the politics.  People like that are all for illegal immigration, and like the welfare state (People who aren't even using the slaves will pay some of the cost to feed them?  Sign me up!).  They voted for Clinton.  Trump supporters who hate the Other mostly do because they are the competition for jobs.  The last thing they want is slavery to make replacing them even more attractive to employers.

Interestingly enough, almost none of the folks who are against immigrants taking jobs from citizens are in favor of the solution of making it so that immigrant labor is not cheaper than native labor (e.g. by having wage equality). The vast majority would prefer to remove them from the economy entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ijuin said:

Interestingly enough, almost none of the folks who are against immigrants taking jobs from citizens are in favor of the solution of making it so that immigrant labor is not cheaper than native labor (e.g. by having wage equality). The vast majority would prefer to remove them from the economy entirely.

As a purely practical matter, how could you enforce wage equality?   Minimum wages are hard enough to enforce, actual *equality* at levels higher than that...

Both parties in the transaction have a real incentive to cheat - employers obviously want to pay less, but the applicant who otherwise wouldn't get a job but would prefer not to starve to death has a strong motive to make a lower counteroffer too.  And then there's the problem that you need to standardize jobs so you can compare them.  Rare or unique jobs, like say anything that involves doing something new and innovative, must be made illegal.  It sounds good, but actual implementation would be an administrative nightmare at best.  I do think wage transparency - making what you pay everybody a matter of public record - might go a long way toward the goal, but Americans will scream privacy rights, not for employers sake but because they'd have to reveal what they earn themselves.

Admittedly much of the problem is at the minimum wage level (though some of the grumbling is about tech jobs).  But that just highlights the difficulty - it's already illegal to pay immigrants less than minimum wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

The other half of American race relations in the 1800s.

Most people's race relations through history really.  The ethnic enslavement kind only shows up when you have a labor shortage among your own group, which isn't nearly as common as having a surplus population you'd like to steal your neighbors' cropland to support.  Still, it does happen.  I wonder if we'll start to see it reappear in first world places with negative population growth like Western Europe or Japan in the near future.  I think it's already a factor in the Gulf States.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, malloyd said:

As a purely practical matter, how could you enforce wage equality?   Minimum wages are hard enough to enforce, actual *equality* at levels higher than that...

Just to set a bench mark, a disabled veteran, who after getting out of the military spent about 20 years in fairly high paying tech/IT/programmer/SysAdmin jobs, gets $1,570 a month.  That works out to $9.80 an hour.  That is 2.56 over the minimum wage in Oklahoma.  I can live, fairly comfortably on that, because I live in Oklahoma and am willing to live in a 400 sq foot apartment.  So what is the equality wage for me?  At my peak earnings I was making $75.00 an hour.  That company went dot bomb, and it's pay scale might have had something to do with that.  My "normal" pay averaged out to about $25-30 an hour.  And because all my 401(k) stuff was in tech stocks (didn't have much choice) it's value is close to nil.  Add in that almost every company I've worked with has gone belly up for one reason or another I have diddly over squat for savings.  I will be living on my disability or Social Security for the rest of my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, malloyd said:

As a purely practical matter, how could you enforce wage equality?   Minimum wages are hard enough to enforce, actual *equality* at levels higher than that...

Both parties in the transaction have a real incentive to cheat - employers obviously want to pay less, but the applicant who otherwise wouldn't get a job but would prefer not to starve to death has a strong motive to make a lower counteroffer too.  And then there's the problem that you need to standardize jobs so you can compare them.  Rare or unique jobs, like say anything that involves doing something new and innovative, must be made illegal.  It sounds good, but actual implementation would be an administrative nightmare at best.  I do think wage transparency - making what you pay everybody a matter of public record - might go a long way toward the goal, but Americans will scream privacy rights, not for employers sake but because they'd have to reveal what they earn themselves.

Admittedly much of the problem is at the minimum wage level (though some of the grumbling is about tech jobs).  But that just highlights the difficulty - it's already illegal to pay immigrants less than minimum wage.

Well, I'm talking less about the practicality than I am about the political philosophy--that is, the only people who advocate that we should deal with the "employers preferentially hire foreigners because foreigners are cheaper" issue by removing the "foreigners are cheaper" part are in favor of lowering native wages to match immigrant wages rather than raising immigrant wages to match native wages.

Looney says he can live on $1600 a month because he lives in a cheap-real-estate area. Over here in Silicon Valley, houses cost upwards of a million each for a 3-bedroom place on a quarter-acre, and even his 400 square foot apartment would cost $1600 a month by itself unless you like the idea of living so far from the job centers that your commute is a three-hour drive each way. That's what happens when you pile all of the jobs in one spot with no mass transit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ijuin said:

Well, I'm talking less about the practicality than I am about the political philosophy--that is, the only people who advocate that we should deal with the "employers preferentially hire foreigners because foreigners are cheaper" issue by removing the "foreigners are cheaper" part are in favor of lowering native wages to match immigrant wages rather than raising immigrant wages to match native wages.

Looney says he can live on $1600 a month because he lives in a cheap-real-estate area. Over here in Silicon Valley, houses cost upwards of a million each for a 3-bedroom place on a quarter-acre, and even his 400 square foot apartment would cost $1600 a month by itself unless you like the idea of living so far from the job centers that your commute is a three-hour drive each way. That's what happens when you pile all of the jobs in one spot with no mass transit.

We have a similar problem in Canada where the government has been increasing minimum wage every year, it's currently $11.40 in Ontario, $12.20 in Alberta and Nunavut is $13.00, Alberta is also going to be $15.00 by October of 2018. Thing is though, whenever minimum wage goes up, the prices of goods and services goes up as well in order to maintain the profit margin, this is made worse by unions asking for more wage increases and such which also causes increased prices of goods and suddenly those who are making minimum wage are still barely scraping by.

Unions were good back in the day when workers had to deal with poor working conditions and getting paid next to nothing for long hours which by today's standard would be extremely close to slave labour, but now I feel like all they want to do is see how much more they can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Well, I'm talking less about the practicality than I am about the political philosophy--that is, the only people who advocate that we should deal with the "employers preferentially hire foreigners because foreigners are cheaper" issue by removing the "foreigners are cheaper" part are in favor of lowering native wages to match immigrant wages rather than raising immigrant wages to match native wages.

I don't know of anyone who's explicitly advocating a national policy of paying Americans less so they can compete with foreigners. (Every company pursuing H1B visas for potential employees would prefer for its competitors to NOT be able to get them.) I know of people advocating paying both immigrants and natives more while continuing current immigration policies, and people advocating having fewer immigrants (particularly illegal immigrants) which would have the effect of raising wages in general - particularly in those fields the immigrants tend to congregate in - because of that old supply-and-demand thing.

And, oddly, people who advocate having MORE immigrants, particularly entry-level-job immigrants, and simultaneously advocate RAISING wages for entry-level jobs. That DOES NOT WORK, unless there is a shortage of entry-level labor (there isn't), and the attempt is likely to be damaging to people who have or seek entry-level jobs. Depending on how it is attempted, it can also damage retirees, pension funds, and others relying on assets denominated in a fixed amount of money without inflation adjustment (while, incidentally, benefiting debtors... such as governments that run deficits).

Now there are some people who are saying that if - and to the extent that - American workers can't offer anything that third-world workers don't, their choices in the long run are to accept third-world-level wages or to be replaced by third-world workers for any good or service that can be shipped at reasonable cost. That isn't a policy proposal. It's an observation on the basic laws of economics. Those are the three choices, in the long run, no matter what policies the government pursues. (And the same three choices apply, replacing "third-world" with "robot".)

It is clearly beyond the US government's power - AND beyond its responsibility - to raise the wages of third-world workers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

I don't know of anyone who's explicitly advocating a national policy of paying Americans less so they can compete with foreigners.

I believe Trump has said he would like to eliminate the federal minimum wage, if that counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he said that he wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage so that American workers can compete with foreign workers, it would count.

If he said that he wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage so that states could set minimum wages (or choose to have no minimum), without federal restraint, based on their own economic conditions, then no, that wouldn't count.

If he said that he wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage because it's not within the scope of federal authority (unless the worker crosses state lines as part of the job), that also wouldn't count.

If he said that he wanted to eliminate the federal minimum wage so that kids whose records mean no sane person would risk $10-$12 an hour (including employer taxes and benefits) on them could legally offer them a job at a lower wage, so they can - we hope - start building a better record that qualifies them for a higher-paying job, then no, that wouldn't count either.

If an employer thinks that a particular potential employee in a particular job is not a good bet to deliver benefit to the employer greater than the job's wages plus employer taxes and benefits, the employer does not hire that person. Perhaps the employer would, at a lower price.

If an employer thinks that nobody could take on a particular job and deliver benefit to the employer greater than the minimum wage plus employer taxes and benefits, that job does not exist, and nobody gets hired. Maybe if the minimum wage were lower the job would exist, and someone would get hired and start building a work history that will help qualify them for a higher-paying job.

Because, really, the minimum wage is precisely what it always has been and always will be: zero.

The question is, what is the next step up from zero? The bigger it is, the more people there are who won't be able to reach it. And if they can't reach that step, the next one up from there is going to also be beyond them.

But there's another good reason for Trump to want to repeal the minimum wage: perhaps he knows about the racist origin and effect of it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest reason IMO that lots of people can't live on $10 an hour no matter how thrifty they are is that there are huge regions in this country where cheap housing and cheap transit simply aren't to be had. There are plenty of people who, like Looney above, are willing to live in what amounts to a single bedroom with minimal bath and kitchenette (my apartment in college was 200 square feet including the bath and kitchenette), but those aren't available because developers prefer higher-margin-per-tenant units whenever they can fill them, so would-be renters have to go searching for housing far enough away from their jobs that motor transport is essential (nobody is going to spend more than about four hours on foot just getting to and from work). But, there aren't enough buses going between this housing and where the non-retail/school jobs are (Of the approximately four bus lines that come within two miles of my home, ALL of them go to retail or school sites and none of them go to industrial sites/office parks--I have to transfer buses for that, and at that point the commute now exceeds two hours one-way). The only reason anybody is surviving around here on jobs whose total paycheck is less than the monthly rent of the minimal housing is because most such people are either living under their parents' roofs into their 20s and beyond, or else are tripling and quadrupling up with roommates who are in the same boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2016 at 0:14 AM, Troacctid said:

I believe Trump has said he would like to eliminate the federal minimum wage, if that counts.

He doesn't have the power, that said the Congress (technically Congress is both the Senate & House even though many use it to refer to only the House) and it's key supporter may find that proposal attractive and they DO have the power.

On 11/20/2016 at 2:07 AM, ijuin said:

The biggest reason IMO that lots of people can't live on $10 an hour no matter how thrifty they are is that there are huge regions in this country where cheap housing and cheap transit simply aren't to be had. There are plenty of people who, like Looney above, are willing to live in what amounts to a single bedroom with minimal bath and kitchenette (my apartment in college was 200 square feet including the bath and kitchenette), but those aren't available because developers prefer higher-margin-per-tenant units whenever they can fill them, so would-be renters have to go searching for housing far enough away from their jobs that motor transport is essential (nobody is going to spend more than about four hours on foot just getting to and from work). But, there aren't enough buses going between this housing and where the non-retail/school jobs are (Of the approximately four bus lines that come within two miles of my home, ALL of them go to retail or school sites and none of them go to industrial sites/office parks--I have to transfer buses for that, and at that point the commute now exceeds two hours one-way). The only reason anybody is surviving around here on jobs whose total paycheck is less than the monthly rent of the minimal housing is because most such people are either living under their parents' roofs into their 20s and beyond, or else are tripling and quadrupling up with roommates who are in the same boat.

QFT, I'll also note studio/efficiency apartments in my area start at $480 unless you qualify for low income housing or section 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PSadlon said:

He doesn't have the power, that said the Congress (technically Congress is both the Senate & House even though many use it to refer to only the House) and it's key supporter may find that proposal attractive and they DO have the power.

QFT, I'll also note studio/efficiency apartments in my area start at $480 unless you qualify for low income housing or section 8.

The way that section 8 works it would cost me more to be on it than off it.  It is one third of your income, which would make my $400 apt a $500 apt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mlooney said:

The way that section 8 works it would cost me more to be on it than off it.  It is one third of your income, which would make my $400 apt a $500 apt.

True, I'm just saying it's the only option for some to get an apartment for less than the base cost. For me, it would likely cost $245 if the waiting list were even open in my area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now