Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: The Strategy To End Corruption In Congress

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default The Strategy To End Corruption In Congress



    Politicians are supposed to represent us. But most Americans have a near-zero impact on public policy.

    America's corrupt political system is a complex problem. The American Anti-Corruption Act is a comprehensive solution.

    The American Anti-Corruption Act sets a standard for city, state, and federal laws that break big money's grip on politics. It will:

    Stop political bribery by making it illegal for lobbyists to lobby a politician and donate to their campaign. You can lobby, or you can donate, but you can't do both.
    End secret money so Americans know who is buying political power.
    Fix our broken elections so the people, not the political establishment, are the ones in control.

    Bring conservatives and progressives together to pass Anti-Corruption laws in cities and states across America.

    In communities across America, RepresentUs members – conservatives, progressives, and everyone in between – are working together to pass local Anti-Corruption Acts. Member-led RepresentUs chapters are leading the fight to protect our communities from the corruption that plagues Congress. Every town, city, state, and county has a unique political makeup, so every Anti-Corruption Act is uniquely tailored to the needs of each community.

    In 2018, RepresentUs members helped to pass 23 anti-corruption reforms across the nation—that's more than at any other time in history.

    By 2022, we'll pass dozens more, in pursuit of a tipping point where 'a rush of state activity leads to a change in federal law.'

    STUDY: Passing state laws leads to federal reform.

    The biggest changes in America almost always start in the states. From Women's Suffrage to Interracial Marriage, states led the way to federal reform. And it still works today.

    Every municipal and state Anti-Corruption Act creates common-sense ethics, conflict-of-interest, transparency, and campaign finance laws. State Acts create the opportunity for federal candidates from that state to campaign on the anti-corruption platform – accountable to their constituents, not special interests.

    Candidates who win election on this platform have a built-in incentive to champion Anti-Corruption laws in Washington, D.C. (because that's what got them elected). Every state we win gets us one crucial step closer to passing the American Anti-Corruption Act in the federal government.

    The Strategy To End Corruption In Congress
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    This is how we save America.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    23,532
    Thanks
    3,066
    Thanked 9,770 Times in 7,271 Posts
    Groans
    49
    Groaned 1,060 Times in 1,005 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    This is how we save America.
    Corruption is what goody-two-shoes Pollyannas talk about.

    It's not good, we agree. We can do what we can---NEVER including term limits. That's what elections are for.
    We can better regulate the lobbyists.

    But compared to bad policy, it's barely a paper cut. Less than that.

    Corruption costs us millions.

    Bad policy costs us billions.

    A sticky-fingered politician who votes correctly on the floor of congress
    is worth ten times more than an honest idiot who votes incorrectly in terms of policy.

    It should be obvious, but few people see it.
    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
    Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848
    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Kris Kristofferson, 1969

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    71,685
    Thanks
    6,597
    Thanked 12,131 Times in 9,660 Posts
    Groans
    14
    Groaned 504 Times in 477 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    Corruption is what goody-two-shoes Pollyannas talk about.

    It's not good, we agree. We can do what we can---NEVER including term limits. That's what elections are for.
    We can better regulate the lobbyists.

    But compared to bad policy, it's barely a paper cut. Less than that.

    Corruption costs us millions.

    Bad policy costs us billions.

    A sticky-fingered politician who votes correctly on the floor of congress
    is worth ten times more than an honest idiot who votes incorrectly in terms of policy.

    It should be obvious, but few people see it.
    bad policy is often from corruption.

    for instance, health officials having a stake in vaccines is a corruption contributing bad policy.

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    23,532
    Thanks
    3,066
    Thanked 9,770 Times in 7,271 Posts
    Groans
    49
    Groaned 1,060 Times in 1,005 Posts

    Default

    Corruption is what goody-two-shoes Pollyannas talk about.

    It's not good, we agree. We can do what we can---NEVER including term limits. That's what elections are for.
    We can better regulate the lobbyists.

    But compared to bad policy, it's barely a paper cut. Less than that.

    Corruption costs us millions.

    Bad policy costs us billions.

    A sticky-fingered politician who votes correctly on the floor of congress
    is worth ten times more than an honest idiot who votes incorrectly in terms of policy.

    It should be obvious, but few people see it.
    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
    Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848
    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Kris Kristofferson, 1969

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,075
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,929 Times in 13,196 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    I read their proposal.

    https://represent.us/anticorruption-...ource=homepage

    Term limits are a great idea, the rest of what they propose is either ineffective, or unrelated to corruption in office by officials.

    Ranked voting: How's that working out for NYC? It's a shitty idea at best.

    Gerrymandering: Right now the biggest problem isn't gerrymandering but both parties setting districts friendly to them, and then there's "minority" majority districts to consider. Arizona already has an independent districting commission and all of the above still happens. The proposed solution won't work base on actual attempts to use it.

    Open primaries: Why not 2 round voting instead? The first round eliminates all but the top 2 or 3 for an office with the largest 2 parties having a candidate included. Then there's a second round of voting for a winner. No primaries necessary.

    Vote by mail and automatic voter registration: These do nothing to stop corruption or collusion in office by politicians

    Public funding of elections: Highly unpopular and usually struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme court.

    As for lobbying and such:

    If you make it illegal for lobbyists to donate they will just work in parallel with organizations that can donate. The donations might get laundered through several hands to ensure there's no provable link between lobbyist efforts and the money but the end result will be the same as it is now.

    As for politicians getting cushy jobs post office, that too is virtually unenforceable.

    Instead, severely limit terms in office. Give little or no perks or benefits when the individual ends their term of service. No retirement, no other benefits. They have to get a job like the rest of us, thank you for your service. This is the best way to ensure minimal corruption. Politicians simply don't have the time to get corrupt in office and even if they do the damage is limited because they're soon gone by term limits.

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello T. A. Gardner,

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I read their proposal.

    https://represent.us/anticorruption-...ource=homepage

    Term limits are a great idea, the rest of what they propose is either ineffective, or unrelated to corruption in office by officials.

    Ranked voting: How's that working out for NYC? It's a shitty idea at best.

    Gerrymandering: Right now the biggest problem isn't gerrymandering but both parties setting districts friendly to them, and then there's "minority" majority districts to consider. Arizona already has an independent districting commission and all of the above still happens. The proposed solution won't work base on actual attempts to use it.

    Open primaries: Why not 2 round voting instead? The first round eliminates all but the top 2 or 3 for an office with the largest 2 parties having a candidate included. Then there's a second round of voting for a winner. No primaries necessary.

    Vote by mail and automatic voter registration: These do nothing to stop corruption or collusion in office by politicians

    Public funding of elections: Highly unpopular and usually struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme court.

    As for lobbying and such:

    If you make it illegal for lobbyists to donate they will just work in parallel with organizations that can donate. The donations might get laundered through several hands to ensure there's no provable link between lobbyist efforts and the money but the end result will be the same as it is now.

    As for politicians getting cushy jobs post office, that too is virtually unenforceable.

    Instead, severely limit terms in office. Give little or no perks or benefits when the individual ends their term of service. No retirement, no other benefits. They have to get a job like the rest of us, thank you for your service. This is the best way to ensure minimal corruption. Politicians simply don't have the time to get corrupt in office and even if they do the damage is limited because they're soon gone by term limits.
    Thanks for reading it. You are very well read, and often cause me to learn more.

    I have not been following the NYC race. Ranked voting is already in use all over the world. It is logical. Not using it causes people to vote against candidates instead of for candidates; and thus we don't find out who they really want. Ranked voting allows us to discover who is really preferred, while still allowing people to not feel like they are throwing away their vote if they vote for their true best choice. Why is it suddenly unworkable because NYC adopted it?

    Do you think Arizona would be 5-4 Democrats/Republicans in the House if it was gerrymandered?

    Closed primaries discourage voting.

    Vote by mail is already used 100% in several states with no problems. It allows more people to vote, which fortifies and preserves our democracy. We need to open it up.

    And we need to have automatic voter registration upon achieving voting age. Every American needs their chance to have a say in who runs our government.

    Don't say rules and laws can't be created to address the revolving door of Congress and Lobbying until we actually try. Unless, of course, you LIKE having big money have such an influence on Congress.

    Agreed on term limits, but retiring legislators should be properly compensated so they are less likely to accept post government big money offers.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  8. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,075
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,929 Times in 13,196 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello T. A. Gardner,
    Thanks for reading it. You are very well read, and often cause me to learn more.
    You're welcome.

    I have not been following the NYC race. Ranked voting is already in use all over the world. It is logical. Not using it causes people to vote against candidates instead of for candidates; and thus we don't find out who they really want. Ranked voting allows us to discover who is really preferred, while still allowing people to not feel like they are throwing away their vote if they vote for their true best choice. Why is it suddenly unworkable because NYC adopted it?
    An irrelevant appeal to popularity. Just because it is used doesn't mean it's useful or a good way to do things. I see it as a disaster for numerous reasons. Better two round voting.

    Do you think Arizona would be 5-4 Democrats/Republicans in the House if it was gerrymandered?
    It'd be more like 7-2 Republicans to Democrats if it was Gerrymandered.

    Closed primaries discourage voting.
    Closed primaries are about the voters in a particular party selecting their candidate to run on the election ticket. Again, that's why 2 round voting works better.

    Vote by mail is already used 100% in several states with no problems. It allows more people to vote, which fortifies and preserves our democracy. We need to open it up.
    Vote by mail is rife with potential for fraud. Again, an appeal to popularity doesn't mean we should.

    And we need to have automatic voter registration upon achieving voting age. Every American needs their chance to have a say in who runs our government.
    Registering to vote is the same as choosing to vote. Each person should be able to choose, not be forced to.

    Don't say rules and laws can't be created to address the revolving door of Congress and Lobbying until we actually try. Unless, of course, you LIKE having big money have such an influence on Congress.
    I gave an example of how lobbyists would get around what was proposed. The lobbyists go to their congress critter and tell them what they want. Then an "independent" / "non-profit" group hands the congress critter a pile of money. Everybody involved knows what the score there is. It just changes the rules of the game.
    Better that ALL donations have to be made publicly and no group can shield donors. That is everything is out in the open. The only other rule is that groups with involuntary membership by employment or other reason (like union membership) must by law first get the permission of the members as public record, for each donation they want to make. Groups with voluntary membership don't have to do that since the members joined on their own volition.
    That means a big corporation wants to donate a pile of money to congress critter X then they have to get the shareholders to vote to do that since they are the ones that are really making that donation being the owners of the company.

    Agreed on term limits, but retiring legislators should be properly compensated so they are less likely to accept post government big money offers.
    Term limits limit corruption to that term of service, can't go wrong with that.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to T. A. Gardner For This Post:

    Hermes Thoth (07-04-2021)

  10. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I read their proposal.

    https://represent.us/anticorruption-...ource=homepage

    Term limits are a great idea, the rest of what they propose is either ineffective, or unrelated to corruption in office by officials.

    Ranked voting: How's that working out for NYC? It's a shitty idea at best.

    Gerrymandering: Right now the biggest problem isn't gerrymandering but both parties setting districts friendly to them, and then there's "minority" majority districts to consider. Arizona already has an independent districting commission and all of the above still happens. The proposed solution won't work base on actual attempts to use it.

    Open primaries: Why not 2 round voting instead? The first round eliminates all but the top 2 or 3 for an office with the largest 2 parties having a candidate included. Then there's a second round of voting for a winner. No primaries necessary.

    Vote by mail and automatic voter registration: These do nothing to stop corruption or collusion in office by politicians

    Public funding of elections: Highly unpopular and usually struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme court.

    As for lobbying and such:

    If you make it illegal for lobbyists to donate they will just work in parallel with organizations that can donate. The donations might get laundered through several hands to ensure there's no provable link between lobbyist efforts and the money but the end result will be the same as it is now.

    As for politicians getting cushy jobs post office, that too is virtually unenforceable.

    Instead, severely limit terms in office. Give little or no perks or benefits when the individual ends their term of service. No retirement, no other benefits. They have to get a job like the rest of us, thank you for your service. This is the best way to ensure minimal corruption. Politicians simply don't have the time to get corrupt in office and even if they do the damage is limited because they're soon gone by term limits.
    "Public funding of elections: Highly unpopular and usually struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme court."

    You are wrong again!! Its habitual from the bitch who thinks she knows everything.

  11. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,075
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,929 Times in 13,196 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    "Public funding of elections: Highly unpopular and usually struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme court."

    You are wrong again!! Its habitual from the bitch who thinks she knows everything.
    Explaining the unpopularity of public funding for congressional elections
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...onal_elections

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...in-free-money/
    How Barack Obama Spurred the End of America’s Public Presidential Election Funding System
    https://promarket.org/2020/04/27/how...unding-system/

    Yep, Barack Obama was the first presidential candidate since public funding for Presidential elections was put in place to opt out of using it, it was so popular...

  12. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    25,590
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 9,916 Times in 6,548 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 1,882 Times in 1,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...onal_elections

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...in-free-money/

    https://promarket.org/2020/04/27/how...unding-system/

    Yep, Barack Obama was the first presidential candidate since public funding for Presidential elections was put in place to opt out of using it, it was so popular...
    Come on sweetie, this is a pathetic attempt to cover up your complete ignorance on the subject. No where does it say anything about the Supreme Court decision you referred to.
    Your handlers must do better than this

  13. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,075
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,929 Times in 13,196 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by floridafan View Post
    Come on sweetie, this is a pathetic attempt to cover up your complete ignorance on the subject. No where does it say anything about the Supreme Court decision you referred to.
    Your handlers must do better than this
    Hey, I offered evidence. You offer ad hominem.

    But, if you want more of a drubbing

    Communications Workers of America v. Beck
    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supre...t/487/735.html

    Brnovich v. DNC
    https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/07/...tion-measures/

    Supreme Court curbs Arizona public funding in elections
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...609-story.html

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Limits On Campaign Spending
    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...aign-spending/

  14. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Public funding of elections: Highly unpopular and usually struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme court.
    I'm not familiar with any public funding laws ruled unconstitutional (could you provide information)?

    As a matter of fact, we have had public funding of presidential nominations and elections since 1976. All candidates accepted public funding for the general election until Obama. Now, candidates do not use it because it limits spending too much and candidates can raise and spend much more if they do not accept the funding.

    I agree most of these measures would accomplish little. The most powerful group in the U. S. (AARP) lobbies Congress but is a non-profit and cannot give campaign contributions.

    Some states have term limits for legislators and the result has been power shifting to lobbyists, staff, and the executive branch because of inexperienced legislators.

    Fiddling with mechanics does not change human nature.

    What do the American people want that politicians are not giving them? The public seems very split about what they want.

    Most laws regulating campaign finance, etc. do not work because they are based on false assumptions.

  15. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I'm not familiar with any public funding laws ruled unconstitutional (could you provide information)?

    As a matter of fact, we have had public funding of presidential nominations and elections since 1976. All candidates accepted public funding for the general election until Obama. Now, candidates do not use it because it limits spending too much and candidates can raise and spend much more if they do not accept the funding.

    I agree most of these measures would accomplish little. The most powerful group in the U. S. (AARP) lobbies Congress but is a non-profit and cannot give campaign contributions.

    Some states have term limits for legislators and the result has been power shifting to lobbyists, staff, and the executive branch because of inexperienced legislators.

    Fiddling with mechanics does not change human nature.

    What do the American people want that politicians are not giving them? The public seems very split about what they want.

    Most laws regulating campaign finance, etc. do not work because they are based on false assumptions.
    Can we agree that legal corruption makes Congress ineffective and tainted?

    And then I suppose the only thing we really disagree about is that I think something can actually be done about it and you think it's hopeless so we should not even try?

    I would ask if you have ever considered the macroscopic view of this and wondered how big change such as women's suffrage ever came about.

    That too seemed hopeless to many.

    And change did not come from the powerful.

    It came from the people, and it took many many years.

    It happened from the bottom up.

    Just like this proposal.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  16. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,

    Can we agree that legal corruption makes Congress ineffective and tainted?
    Yes, but I don't think that controls American politics. If campaign contributions determine how members of Congress vote they should all be voting the same way based on who gives them the most money. If you assume their primary motivation is getting reelected, then votes and not campaign contributions is their goal. Unless campaign contributions buy our vote then it doesn't matter how much they spend.

    I think you are going to vote (almost) straight Democratic regardless of how much the Republicans spend--so, the contributions are not buying your vote or anyone else who will admit it. So, I don't agree that the problem is that contributions buy votes in most cases. Can you tell me which member of Congress took money to vote a certain way? If not, it is just an oft-repeated cynical view based on those who think money is the main motivation for most people.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    And then I suppose the only thing we really disagree about is that I think something can actually be done about it and you think it's hopeless so we should not even try?

    I would ask if you have ever considered the macroscopic view of this and wondered how big change such as women's suffrage ever came about.

    That too seemed hopeless to many.

    And change did not come from the powerful.

    It came from the people, and it took many many years.

    It happened from the bottom up.

    Just like this proposal.
    I don't think nothing can be done--I just don't think tweaking the system is the answer. I think we already have the means to accomplish our goals if we just choose to use them.

    Take your example of the 19th Amendment. It took a movement of the people, a little drama, and persistence (much like civil rights). But, it was the powerful that made the change happen because public actions generated enough support in Congress and the states to propose the amendment.

    In your interpretation the 19th only passed Congress because lobbyists gave members money to vote for its passage. Or, is it only corruption when you don't like the legislation? The solution is there--get people to write their members to support the legislation they want. If the members vote against their wishes vote against them at election time (term limits). Most people cannot name their U. S. Representative much less identify how he voted on any legislation. Structural changes cannot substitute for public action.

    To some extent, we can see that action today with an increased voter turnout (20 million) in 2020 and polarized electorate. Voters are very intense in their beliefs. However, we can obviously see the problems with intense voter interest.

Similar Threads

  1. Lefty election strategy vs righty strategy
    By Evmetro in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-03-2020, 05:14 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-15-2019, 05:24 PM
  3. Replies: 79
    Last Post: 02-28-2019, 11:47 AM
  4. Brit Anti-Corruption police facing corruption charges.
    By moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-22-2018, 07:41 AM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 06:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •