Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Republican National Convention
  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 2:03 pm
amother wrote:
The media twists what he says then calls him a liar. In other words, you believe the lies the media feeds you and project it onto Trump, calling him a liar.


Here's another clip of the evil media twisting what he says and taking it out of context and making Trump look bad.


He explained this by insisting that he was just imitating "groveling."
Back to top

Amarante




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 2:12 pm
Admittedly an ad but it only shows Trump's actual words.

Back to top

Amarante




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 2:34 pm
This is a long piece on Trumps character and personality by the man who authored the Art if The deal and spent extensive time observing him.

http://www.newyorker.com/magaz.....731a2
Back to top

amother
Floralwhite


 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 2:40 pm
Amarante wrote:
This is a ridiculous statement in my opinion. There is no mainstream politician, including Hilary, who is pro-Palestine or anti-Israel. Israel, during Obama's administration and Hilary's tenure as Secretary of State continued to be the most important ally in the Middle East who received significant aid and assistance.

People can differ in terms of what can bring about some kind of peace and stability in the Middle East. That's very different from being pro or anti. Many Jews in the US don't support the extreme measures being taken by the Israeli government as being provocative - this doesn't mean they are pro-Palestine.


It was under our current president that Israel received an additional $1 billion in military aid from the US, that is in addition to the millions they receive from the US annually.
Back to top

Simple1




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 2:41 pm
allthingsblue wrote:
How did he make Cruz into the enemy? Cruz made himself into the enemy!


I think many who are not Cruz fans gained a new respect for him not caving to Trump, who really hurt him during the primaries.

Why did Trump take the risk and invite him during a prime speaking spot?
Back to top

Simple1




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 2:47 pm
I agree with all those who say Trump is full of problems. But I would honestly like someone to answer why Hillary would be a good choice, taking into consideration all her scandals.
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 2:58 pm
amother wrote:
It was under our current president that Israel received an additional $1 billion in military aid from the US, that is in addition to the millions they receive from the US annually.


In fact, Israel currently gets more US aid than any other county and more than at any time in history.
Back to top

amother
Floralwhite


 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 3:03 pm
marina wrote:
In fact, Israel currently gets more US aid than any other county and more than at any time in history.


I read some figures about last years military support for Israel and it was pegged at something silly, like $8mil a day (this didn't include the proposed billion for this year). There is likely more contributed through back channels for covert ops (which are never included in these figures).
Back to top

Amarante




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 3:07 pm
Simple1 wrote:
I agree with all those who say Trump is full of problems. But I would honestly like someone to answer why Hillary would be a good choice, taking into consideration all her scandals.


What scandals? I ask honestly because she and her husband have been hounded and investigated and nothing of any significance has eve been found.

And how does that compare to cheating many people in Trump Universty, multiple bankruptcies as well as a string of unpaid bills many of which were owed t small businesses that suffered terribly.

Hilary is an adult who has significant experience and knows what she is doing. Trump by his own admission doesn't read and has very glib judgments. He was not willing to state that he wouldn't use a nuclear bomb on Europe. The issue of terrorists is very complex because you can't use normal tactics against them. If one could rid the world of terrorists Israel would have none since they are probably the most sophisticated in terms f how long they have been dealing with them.

Every solution seems to cause additional problems and additional terrorists sprout up. It really takes very few terrorists to cause terror effectively. That is the natur of terrorists. And now they seem to have graduated to soft targets and single unlinked terrorists who are almost impossible to ferret it before they strike.

He is frightening our allies by discussing possible withdrawals from NATO which emboldens the Soviet Union. He says he admires Putin and other dictators.


Last edited by Amarante on Fri, Jul 22 2016, 3:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 3:12 pm
marina wrote:
Finally, and I've said this before and I stand by it, if you are voting for Trump you are most likely okay with electing- to the highest office in the country- a person who makes bigoted and misogynistic statements in public. Someone who makes fun of disabled people, who talks about his daughter's breasts, his p3nis size, women's periods, etc. Perhaps you think he has other redeeming qualities, but you are okay with that kind of leader.

Let me be very clear: I do not think Trump supporters are idiots. Not at all. Some may have done all the research and come to an informed conclusion. But many others - despite their intelligence - just trust this guy and get sucked into fear mongering, perhaps because of anxiety or social factors, etc. People can be very very intelligent and still be swept along with the crowd or just make wrong calls.


Marina, I think you're 100 percent correct.

However, I would interpret Trump support slightly differently.

Yes. Donald Trump has long been a crass boor, and there's no reason to think he's particularly done t'shuva -- just that he has more energetic handlers. He is thoroughly dislikeable, and I think a huge percentage of people who will ultimately vote for him find him so.

However, many sane, intelligent people feel that the choice is not between a pig wearing lipstick and a decent candidate, but between pigs wearing different shades of lipstick. Sandy Beach Pink or Moonlit Amber -- your choice!

In fact, I think it's a reasonable argument that in realistic terms, a Trump presidency and a Clinton presidency might not be that much different. Obviously no one is going to build a wall along the Mexican border or any of the other crazy things that Trump has, well, trumpeted. Nor are we going to develop enormous infrastructures to spy on private citizens or spend the kind of money that Clinton has suggested.

So what are we left with? Basically, Trump is bellicose. A true NYer, his response to a challenge is to yell louder. Clinton, a career politician, uses carefully-selected, modulated words to ensure that she makes as few people as possible mad at her.

But why would anyone vote for a boorish bellicose performer over a carefully-spoken individual with a lifetime of government experience?

Because, increasingly, many people feel that a little bellicosity is needed on behalf of the US. They fully realize that the world's problems can't be solved by yelling, but they also realize that many people in the world don't appreciate even-handed, careful responses. They realize that a huge part of the world interprets those responses as weakness and proceeds to act accordingly. They believe -- or at least hope -- that a little bellicosity now will save us trouble later.

Are they correct in that belief? I wish I knew. I do believe that rhetoric matters. Virtually all of the same criticisms of Trump were made of Ronald Reagan. Many of them were true. Yet there are a number of Russian historians and former Soviet officials who claim that Reagan's bellicosity against Communism was the opening salvo that precipitated the end of the Soviet empire.

However, I think Clinton supporters and the left in general are making the same tactical mistake that anti-Reagan coalitions made in the 80s: by repeatedly painting Reagan supporters as uneducated, xenophobic yahoos, they created a backlash among the kinds of people you described in the last paragraph -- people who weren't necessarily crazy about everything Reagan stood for, but who were nevertheless thoughtful, informed citizens.

The key to using insult as a rhetorical device in politics is having command over whom you're actually insulting; the degree to which they'll be insulted; and whether or not it will cost you votes. For both better and worse, Trump wields insult like an M24 sniper rifle; the left wields it like an AR-15.
Back to top

amother
Wine


 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 6:04 pm
Fox wrote:


So what are we left with? Basically, Trump is bellicose. A true NYer, his response to a challenge is to yell louder. Clinton, a career politician, uses carefully-selected, modulated words to ensure that she makes as few people as possible mad at her.

But why would anyone vote for a boorish bellicose performer over a carefully-spoken individual with a lifetime of government experience?

Because, increasingly, many people feel that a little bellicosity is needed on behalf of the US. They fully realize that the world's problems can't be solved by yelling, but they also realize that many people in the world don't appreciate even-handed, careful responses. They realize that a huge part of the world interprets those responses as weakness and proceeds to act accordingly. They believe -- or at least hope -- that a little bellicosity now will save us trouble later.

Are they correct in that belief? I wish I knew. I do believe that rhetoric matters. Virtually all of the same criticisms of Trump were made of Ronald Reagan. Many of them were true. Yet there are a number of Russian historians and former Soviet officials who claim that Reagan's bellicosity against Communism was the opening salvo that precipitated the end of the Soviet empire.

However, I think Clinton supporters and the left in general are making the same tactical mistake that anti-Reagan coalitions made in the 80s: by repeatedly painting Reagan supporters as uneducated, xenophobic yahoos, they created a backlash among the kinds of people you described in the last paragraph -- people who weren't necessarily crazy about everything Reagan stood for, but who were nevertheless thoughtful, informed citizens.

The key to using insult as a rhetorical device in politics is having command over whom you're actually insulting; the degree to which they'll be insulted; and whether or not it will cost you votes. For both better and worse, Trump wields insult like an M24 sniper rifle; the left wields it like an AR-15.


Your comparisons to Reagan are way off base. Reagan never had the pettiness and vindictiveness that Trump has. Reagan actually had a vision for this country and was able to articulate it. With Trump it is always all about him. He simply cannot let it go if anyone slights him in any way. This is not bellicosity on behalf of the USA--it's bellicosity on behalf of Trump's own ego. Reagan never made it personal, and with Trump it is ALL personal.

Can anyone seriously argue that there is some national interest at stake in the Trump University case? It clearly is Trump's private business interest yet he could not let go of it and made it into a campaign issue. I don't care if he insulted the judge because he was Mexican or red-headed or flat-footed. It makes no difference, what's alarming here is that Trump does not know how to separate national interests from his own interests. Brexit is good because there will be more tourists at his golf course??? No idea how brexit will actually affect tourism, but just the fact that this was the first thing that came to his mind, and he was utterly oblivious to the fact that as a prospective leader of the free world nobody gives a $#!@# about his golf courses!

Yes, I think it is a real possibility that Trump will cause a world conflagration because somebody somewhere offended him. It is certainly possible as a citizen of this country that I may one day be part of a group that Trump decides he dislikes. (Yay, he has a Jewish son-in-law. I feel so safe now.)

I'm not a fan of Hillary and I have a sober understanding of her weaknesses as a candidate. Still she is not dangerous in the way Trump is, simply because she doesn't see herself as the center of the universe the way Trump does. I would have happily voted for almost any of the 17 (except maybe for Carson... he was really way out there, but in a kinda endearing way). So the Republicans have to go and nominate the one person I cannot and will not vote for.
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 6:15 pm
Quote:
But why would anyone vote for a boorish bellicose performer over a carefully-spoken individual with a lifetime of government experience?

Because, increasingly, many people feel that a little bellicosity is needed on behalf of the US. They fully realize that the world's problems can't be solved by yelling, but they also realize that many people in the world don't appreciate even-handed, careful responses. They realize that a huge part of the world interprets those responses as weakness and proceeds to act accordingly. They believe -- or at least hope -- that a little bellicosity now will save us trouble later.

Are they correct in that belief? I wish I knew. I do believe that rhetoric matters. Virtually all of the same criticisms of Trump were made of Ronald Reagan. Many of them were true. Yet there are a number of Russian historians and former Soviet officials who claim that Reagan's bellicosity against Communism was the opening salvo that precipitated the end of the Soviet empire.


I don't agree. I think Trump's volatility will easily destabilize the middle east. He has insulted strategic leaders of various countries, our allies included. His rhetoric about Muslims feeds the extremist propaganda about how America hates Islam and it distances moderate Muslims- those whom we need most.
Back to top

tryinghard




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Jul 22 2016, 6:37 pm
Amarante wrote:

He is frightening our allies by discussing possible withdrawals from NATO


Interestingly, the NATO reaction to this was to immediately start talks of pulling more of their own weight.
Back to top

amother
Maroon


 

Post Sun, Jul 24 2016, 9:10 am
marina wrote:

There are many cites that immediately fact checked him. Feel free to read these results for yourself and see how data can be manipulated or wholly invented. Here's an article:
http://time.com/4418357/republ.....act-check/

Here's an example:

Quote:
“The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50% compared to this point last year.”

Again, that number is strictly true, but it lacks context. If you exclude the vast majority of officers who are killed by illnesses, heart attacks, or accidents — drowning, weather, car and motorcycle crashes — an average of about 50 to 60 officers are killed on-duty every year. In 2014, 60 police officers were killed by gunfire, assault or explosives. In 2015, 56 police officers were killed in the same way. So far in 2016, 42 officers have been killed by gunfire or assault.

According to data compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, between 2009 and 2015, under Obama, there were 17% fewer police officer fatalities that there were between 2002 and 2008, under George W. Bush.


Here's another example:
Quote:

“Nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens.”

Tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants do indeed have “criminal convictions,” according to federal data, but many of them are for crimes resulting from being in the country illegally — like breaking immigration laws, evading deportation notices, or driving without a license. There’s no data on murders committed by illegal immigrants.


Look at the parts that are bolded. You or the websites you cite, agree that what Trump says is true. So in your own words, he didn't lie. Thank you for clarifying that.



marina wrote:
There’s no data on murders committed by illegal immigrants.


How come there is no data on the murders committed by illegal aliens? Or are you saying that illegal aliens don't commit any murder just like Hillary didn't lie and commit any crimes?

marina wrote:
Tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants do indeed have “criminal convictions," according to federal data, but many of them are for crimes resulting from being in the country illegally — like breaking immigration laws, evading deportation notices, or driving without a license.


Its not a crime to break any American laws if you are an illegal alien? Are you not putting people at risk when you drive without a license? And why are breaking these laws less of a crime than say robbing a bank? I mean, they are only taking money out of the bank, it is not their fault that they don't have any documents to prove that the money is acctually theirs so why would you put them in jail for it? And if someone is taking a car from someone else then its not breaking a law, they are simply an "undocumented" car driver.. Kidnapping is not a crime, they are simply undocumented parents of these children..

Yup. Marina, you are a great lawyer.. I will send some people your way so that you can use the "undocumented" defense in court... Do you think the judge will accept that defense from American Citizens in the same way this corrupt administration, including corrupt judges, is accepting it from illegal aliens?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jul 24 2016, 11:35 am
amother wrote:
Your comparisons to Reagan are way off base. Reagan never had the pettiness and vindictiveness that Trump has. Reagan actually had a vision for this country and was able to articulate it.


Amother, I'm going to assume you're very young or have a worse memory than mine. Yes, if you read light historical analysis, you'll come away with the impression that Reagan was a visionary. However, that's largely a posthumous promotion. In 1980, no one on the left saw him that way, and a hefty percentage of the right agreed.

During his campaigns and administration, there was a steady drumbeat that Reagan was going to lead us into WWIII. He was an intellectually-impaired B-movie actor who would lead a race/class war in the US. He was too confrontational with the Soviet Union. He hated minorities and poor people. He was responsible for the spread of AIDS. He was a facile puppet of extremists. He was going to destroy unions. And this stuff came from moderates!

His "vision" was trickle-down economics and putting us out of our Jimmy Carter-induced "malaise." Not the worst vision a candidate has ever offered, but hardly a solid policy outline.

This doesn't mean that Donald Trump is another Ronald Reagan. Trump's biggest weakness, IMHO, is the same as Obama's. Neither has lengthy experience in the sausage-making process that is US governance. Neither has the personal connections that allow deals to get made. Each selected a Vice President and various Cabinet members with those connections, but it's often been inadequate. Both have careers that have relied on their own personal attributes, and that simply doesn't work in Washington. The resulting deadlock means that bad laws and appointments can't be passed, but neither can good ones.

amother wrote:
Still she is not dangerous in the way Trump is, simply because she doesn't see herself as the center of the universe the way Trump does.


Hard to say. I'm still waiting to find any serious rebuttal to Clinton Cash. The page on Clinton's campaign website has been removed, and I got tired of clicking on alleged rebuttals that essentially said, "It happened on a Monday, not a Tuesday," or "Clinton never promised anything to the Saudis in writing!"

I don't necessarily think that Clinton's enthusiasm for feeding at the trough of politics is necessarily worse than Trump's penchant for self-promotion, but it worries me that she is oblivious to even the appearance of quid pro quo, let alone actually selling access. It's one thing to use bad judgment; it's another to apparently not even recognize that there might be a problem.

marina wrote:
He has insulted strategic leaders of various countries, our allies included. His rhetoric about Muslims feeds the extremist propaganda about how America hates Islam and it distances moderate Muslims- those whom we need most.


No country maintains or dissolves a relationship with the US because the President insulted its leaders. In fact, for all the reasons Donald Trump shouldn't be President, his ability to insult people who need insulting might be the single reason he should be President. Perhaps we could leave Pence in charge at home and just send Donald around the world to yell at whoever is misbehaving at any given moment. Instead of the US as "the world's policeman," we could have the US as "the world's fed-up dad."

Moderate Muslims have no more influence on the dominance of Wahhabi-dominated Islam than you or I. As long as Saudi Arabia is providing the money that builds the Islamic infrastructure in the West, moderate Muslims are captives, keeping their heads down and praying that the next perpetrator of terror won't be a Muslim.

From two significantly different perspectives, including a strong progressive one:

The Problem With Moderate Muslims

I'm Running Out of Ways to Defend Islam
Back to top

Amarante




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jul 24 2016, 12:07 pm
tryinghard wrote:
Interestingly, the NATO reaction to this was to immediately start talks of pulling more of their own weight.


This is not correct and the statement appalled people conversant with foreign policy including all of the Republican foreign policy people who had "endorsed" Trump.

This kind of statement emboldens Russia. Trump has already expressed admiration for Putin and seems to have financial ties with Russia.

It is frightening that the fate of the world is potentially in the hands of such an ignoramus who speaks thoughtlessly without any thought for the ramifications.

He is also walking away from the doctrine of America exceptionalism in which America serves as a shining light of democracy to the world. Of course, we are not perfect but for the President to publicly state that we have no moral authority to pass judgment on actions of other countries is incorrect. At times we are a moral beacon.

Foreign policy is not a business decision in which one walks away from the table if one doesn't want what one gets.
Back to top

tryinghard




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jul 24 2016, 12:16 pm
Amarante wrote:

He is also walking away from the doctrine of America exceptionalism in which America serves as a shining light of democracy to the world. Of course, we are not perfect but for the President to publicly state that we have no moral authority to pass judgment on actions of other countries is incorrect. At times we are a moral beacon.


Are you referring to Obama? The past 7+ years has been a world tour of apologizing for America by our illustrious President, who has made it very clear he does not believe America is all that exceptional. I am not a huge Trump fan, far from it. But I do like to hear someone who is actually proud of this country.
Back to top

amother
Wine


 

Post Sun, Jul 24 2016, 1:06 pm
Fox wrote:
Amother, I'm going to assume you're very young or have a worse memory than mine. Yes, if you read light historical analysis, you'll come away with the impression that Reagan was a visionary. However, that's largely a posthumous promotion. In 1980, no one on the left saw him that way, and a hefty percentage of the right agreed.

During his campaigns and administration, there was a steady drumbeat that Reagan was going to lead us into WWIII. He was an intellectually-impaired B-movie actor who would lead a race/class war in the US. He was too confrontational with the Soviet Union. He hated minorities and poor people. He was responsible for the spread of AIDS. He was a facile puppet of extremists. He was going to destroy unions. And this stuff came from moderates!


Show me the quotes from Ronald Reagan where he insulted women, minorities, foreigners, the disabled and anyone else who he felt offended him in some way.

Show me examples of Ronald Reagan unable to let go of a personal feud and continued to agitate about it publicly long past the point of relevance.

Show me examples of Reagan responding to an international crisis by reflecting on how it would affect his personal business interests, not the United States or world economy.

I'm not interested in how he was portrayed in the media. I'm interested in his own words. Just like Donald Trump's own words will ultimately hurt him more than any media hit piece.
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jul 24 2016, 1:52 pm
Quote:
Look at the parts that are bolded. You or the websites you cite, agree that what Trump says is true. So in your own words, he didn't lie. Thank you for clarifying that.


Sure. And the headlines that proclaim "Israeli soldiers kill palestinian in invasion" are also technically true. If you are interested in the truth, you don't just accept little soundbites or simplistic explanations.

Quote:
How come there is no data on the murders committed by illegal aliens? Or are you saying that illegal aliens don't commit any murder just like Hillary didn't lie and commit any crimes?


I'm sure illegal aliens commit murder, but from everything I read, they do so at much lower rates than citizens.

Murder is a state crime, very rarely prosecuted in federal court. So the states would have to collect data differentiating btw illegals and citizens. And most states- dk why - don't do that. Even Texas which distinguishes "criminal aliens" from citizens, includes both legal and illegal aliens in that term. Sorry! Not so simple.

amother wrote:
Its not a crime to break any American laws if you are an illegal alien? Are you not putting people at risk when you drive without a license? And why are breaking these laws less of a crime than say robbing a bank? I mean, they are only taking money out of the bank, it is not their fault that they don't have any documents to prove that the money is acctually theirs so why would you put them in jail for it? And if someone is taking a car from someone else then its not breaking a law, they are simply an "undocumented" car driver.. Kidnapping is not a crime, they are simply undocumented parents of these children..

Yup. Marina, you are a great lawyer.. I will send some people your way so that you can use the "undocumented" defense in court... Do you think the judge will accept that defense from American Citizens in the same way this corrupt administration, including corrupt judges, is accepting it from illegal aliens?


Trump's entire speech was about fear. We should all fear the murderous, thieving illegals who are coming to kill us as we sleep and rape our daughters in front of our eyes. If the crimes of an illegal immigrant is... being illegal, that doesn't really help create that much fear, does it?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Jul 24 2016, 2:16 pm
amother wrote:
Show me the quotes from Ronald Reagan where he insulted women, minorities, foreigners, the disabled and anyone else who he felt offended him in some way.

Show me examples of Ronald Reagan unable to let go of a personal feud and continued to agitate about it publicly long past the point of relevance.

Show me examples of Reagan responding to an international crisis by reflecting on how it would affect his personal business interests, not the United States or world economy.

I'm not interested in how he was portrayed in the media. I'm interested in his own words. Just like Donald Trump's own words will ultimately hurt him more than any media hit piece.


It's impossible to compare an actual Presidential administration such as Reagan's with a theoretical Presidential administration.

Donald Trump is a boorish provocateur. Ronald Reagan oozed charm. If that's your argument, you're preaching to the converted. I don't see anyone seriously disagreeing with that. I don't see any diehard Trump supporters here on Imamother, a la Diamond & Silk. Though a frum version of Diamond & Silk would be entertaining if anyone wants to launch a YouTube career.

My point is not that Trump is a necessarily a great candidate or that Reagan wasn't necessarily a great President.

My point is that anti-Trump-ers are making the same mistake that anti-Reagan forces made in the 1980s. There were plenty of Reagan supporters -- just as there are plenty of Trump supporters -- who made it entirely too easy to make fun of them for being ignorant yahoos. But by stereotyping and demonizing moderate voters who thought Reagan made some good points, Democrats and leftists drove those voters further and further into Reagan's camp.

Someone who says, "How could anyone possibly vote for Trump?" might as well hand him a vote. The Internet has allowed for a greater range of conservative voices, and all of them are eager and willing to point out to voters, "See! These leftists think you're a troglodyte, misogynist, racist, provincial, inbred bumpkin if you even think about voting for Trump!"

Personally, I don't think Clinton has enough of a lead to risk a persuasive technique with such a high backlash rate.
Back to top
Page 6 of 8   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
How to make a trip to Yellowstone National Park 3 Fri, Feb 09 2024, 9:14 am View last post
Did you know today is National Curmudgeons Day?
by amother
8 Mon, Jan 29 2024, 12:42 pm View last post
Private Health Insurance in NJ -national coverage for 2024
by amother
8 Mon, Nov 13 2023, 10:04 am View last post
Torah Umesorah Convention
by amother
9 Sun, Oct 29 2023, 12:45 pm View last post
Acadia National Park
by amother
3 Fri, Sep 29 2023, 10:03 am View last post