Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
paulsurovell said:South_Mountaineer said:So actions by a President are immune from impeachment if the actions were promised in the campaign? Where is that in the Constitution?paulsurovell said:So a Congress can make an after-the-fact declaration that a policy difference is a crime, and remove a President. What could possibly go wrong with supporting that idea?
Not an open question whether Congress alone decides what is a "high crime" and if it decides that accelerating global warming is a high crime -- which in fact it is -- it can impeach and convict on that basis.
Since that's not what I wrote (and you invented something to argue against instead of addressing my point), I guess there's no argument against my point.
paulsurovell said:South_Mountaineer said:He ... pointed out that liberals are making common cause with the CIA and neocon establishment that will ultimately be turned against anti-war Democrats by tarring them as "pro-Russian." Basic Cold War McCarthyism.paulsurovell said:He said a lot of things, but all of it was supporting Tucker's caricature of Trump opponents.
. . . and your response to what Blumenthal said in the video?
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
About the resort to calling people "McCarthyist" for supporting an investigation.
Memories of a Real ‘Witch Hunt’
So I cringe when I hear President Trump claim to be the victim of a “witch hunt” because of the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian interference in one of our most vital rights: free elections.
How ironic that Mr. Trump has adopted the phrase used to criticize the work of his friend and mentor, Roy Cohn. But this investigation is no witch hunt. It is an appropriate, responsible and intelligent response to a hostile act against the nation.
South_Mountaineer said:
About the resort to calling people "McCarthyist" for supporting an investigation.
Memories of a Real ‘Witch Hunt’
By JULIE GARFIELD
JULY 5, 2017
So I cringe when I hear President Trump claim to be the victim of a “witch hunt” because of the F.B.I.’s investigation into Russian interference in one of our most vital rights: free elections.
How ironic that Mr. Trump has adopted the phrase used to criticize the work of his friend and mentor, Roy Cohn. But this investigation is no witch hunt. It is an appropriate, responsible and intelligent response to a hostile act against the nation.
Former US amb to USSR Jack Matlock:
http://jackmatlock.com/2017/03...
The whole brou-ha-ha over contacts with Russian diplomats has taken on all the earmarks of a witch hunt. President Trump is right to make that charge. If there was any violation of U.S. law by any of his supporters—for example disclosure of classified information to unauthorized persons—then the Department of Justice should seek an indictment and if they obtain one, prosecute the case. Until then, there should be no public accusations. Also, I have been taught that in a democracy with the rule of law, the accused are entitled to a presumption of innocence until convicted. But we have leaks that imply that any conversation with a Russian embassy official is suspect. That is the attitude of a police state, and leaking such allegations violates every normal rule regarding FBI investigations. President Trump is right to be upset, though it is not helpful for him to lash out at the media in general.
Had the Trumpists not lied repeatedly about contacts, meetings and conversations, perhaps these investigations wouldn't be warranted.
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:
But seeing as you are, in turn, tarring anyone who doesn't think that the Trump-Russia collusion investigation is a "nothingburger" as a Basic Cold War McCarthyist, then how is it even possible to come to any kind of understanding?
Glad to see that you actually do care.
No, it is not McCarthyist to believe the Russia story, I never came close to suggesting that.
It's McCarthyist to label anyone who disagrees with the Russia story as "pro-Putin," "pro-Trump," "a useful idiot" or any of the other labels that are used to smear and intimidate dissenters.
Then I guess everything's McCarthyist if you want to call it that, considering your use of the term "dissenter" is being used to describe people who agree with the official government position.
As an aside, what I don't care about is Paul Begala, or the opinions of other pundits, who get paid for their ability to fill airtime. Many of them have as much insight or less than you or I, and yet are held up as paragons of political thought by people who demand our opinions of their inane utterances. I don't even have cable anymore, and yet I you demand that I agree or disagree with some nonsense from one of a thousand flapping heads appearing on it.
the issue for me is this, and I'll preface it by saying that I'm not convinced yet that there was any real collusion between Russian actors and the Trump campaign. That's why there is an investigation. To find if anything happened of that nature.
But it should be of concern that any president might be indebted to another nation for favors they've done for him or more likely in Trump's case, that he's been involved in shady business deals there. Even if the country is a close ally like Britain or Germany, we should be concerned that our president is conducting foreign policy based on his own selfish interests and not the interests of the U.S.
And at this point, there's enough circumstantial evidence around Trump's Russian business dealings that there should be an investigation. It's a fact that at least one of his properties was penalized for laundering money.
It's also a fact that Russian actors settled a case in which they were accused of using Manhattan real estate to launder money: http://www.businessinsider.com...
There's a lot of pretty clear evidence that even aside from any election conspiracies, there's a lot of weird shady stuff going on with Russia and people who are close to Trump. We should be concerned about that. Is the Trump Administration conducting policy with Russia for the good of all of us, or the good of the Trump Organization.
paulsurovell said:So actions by a President are immune from impeachment if the actions were promised in the campaign? Where is that in the Constitution?
Here's a law professor's case for impeachment for withdrawal from the Paris Accord (actually less of a crime than gutting the EPA).
There are a rather sizable number of people in this country who believe the enactment of what they call "Obamacare" was a crime against the American People. Imagine if after the Republicans took over Congress rather than trying to repeal the ACA, which would be vetoed by Obama, they proceed to impeach Obama for signing the ACA.
paulsurovell said:
LOST said:
I guess I do not see much of a possibility of a War between the US and Russia. But if Trump is really as unstable as Paul thinks then it is imperative to get rid of him.
He should be impeached for lots of things he's done, especially gutting the EPA. But his declared interest in better relations with Russia is not only not impeachable, it's his only good position.
I did not use the word "impeach".
You believe Trump should be impeached for policies with which you greatly disagree. If that is the standard for impeachment then every time the other Party wins Congress in the midterm election after the President's Election they will begin impeachment proceedings. That would certainly turn us into a Banana Republic.
paulsurovell said:
In the case at hand, I think it's dangerous to push Trump on the basis of unproven allegations into a policy of hostility and confrontation that by definition would increase the risk of war. The "standard" that I'm relying on is essentially, a combination of policy: (1) based on factual information that is (2) proportional to those facts and (3) is designed to serve the interests of the United States. Pushing Trump into a policy of hostility toward Russia fails on all three counts.
PVW said:
...Netanyahu has opposed the international consensus (as well as US policy) on the expansion of Israeli settlements and the two-state solution, on the Iran Nuclear Deal and (just yesterday) the US-Russian cease-fire in Syria. Pushing Netanyahu on these issues meets the standard that I described above.
This just makes your position more inscrutable to me. By the standard you're laying out in your Netanyahu example, I'd expect you to say something along the lines of "I don't find the evidence of Russian interference in our election, or of their assistance to the Trump campaign, credible. But Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territory, and continuing military action against Ukraine, goes against international consensus and Trump should push Russia on this."
Yet that is not the line I hear you taking. Why?
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
In the case at hand, I think it's dangerous to push Trump on the basis of unproven allegations into a policy of hostility and confrontation that by definition would increase the risk of war. The "standard" that I'm relying on is essentially, a combination of policy: (1) based on factual information that is (2) proportional to those facts and (3) is designed to serve the interests of the United States. Pushing Trump into a policy of hostility toward Russia fails on all three counts.
PVW said:Netanyahu has opposed the international consensus (as well as US policy) on the expansion of Israeli settlements and the two-state solution, on the Iran Nuclear Deal and (just yesterday) the US-Russian cease-fire in Syria. Pushing Netanyahu on these issues meets the standard that I described above.
...
This just makes your position more inscrutable to me. By the standard you're laying out in your Netanyahu example, I'd expect you to say something along the lines of "I don't find the evidence of Russian interference in our election, or of their assistance to the Trump campaign, credible. But Russia's annexation of Ukrainian territory, and continuing military action against Ukraine, goes against international consensus and Trump should push Russia on this."
Yet that is not the line I hear you taking. Why?
The US response to Russian involvement in Ukraine was established by Pres Obama, including sanctions as well as a peace process called the Minsk Agreement. I have differences with the official narrative on Ukraine, which I've alluded to on other threads. However, on the whole, I think Obama's response was proportionate, especially his refusal to give offensive weapons to Ukraine. A major goal of the current effort to push Trump into a new Cold War posture toward Russia involves "punishment" beyond Obama's sanctions and providing offensive weapons to Ukraine. That would be a significant escalation and poses risks of real confrontation.
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:
LOST said:
I guess I do not see much of a possibility of a War between the US and Russia. But if Trump is really as unstable as Paul thinks then it is imperative to get rid of him.
He should be impeached for lots of things he's done, especially gutting the EPA. But his declared interest in better relations with Russia is not only not impeachable, it's his only good position.
I did not use the word "impeach".
You believe Trump should be impeached for policies with which you greatly disagree. If that is the standard for impeachment then every time the other Party wins Congress in the midterm election after the President's Election they will begin impeachment proceedings. That would certainly turn us into a Banana Republic.
Not jusst "greatly disagree." As noted above, I agree with law professor Majorie Cohn who says Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord is a Crime Against Humanity and along with several other transgressions is grounds for impeachment.
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:So actions by a President are immune from impeachment if the actions were promised in the campaign? Where is that in the Constitution?
Here's a law professor's case for impeachment for withdrawal from the Paris Accord (actually less of a crime than gutting the EPA).
There are a rather sizable number of people in this country who believe the enactment of what they call "Obamacare" was a crime against the American People. Imagine if after the Republicans took over Congress rather than trying to repeal the ACA, which would be vetoed by Obama, they proceed to impeach Obama for signing the ACA.
It would have been exposed as an exercise based on lies.
The Wall Street Journal calls for "radical transparency" from Trump.
"They have created the appearance of a conspiracy that on the evidence Don Jr. lacks the wit to concoct."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...
paulsurovell said:
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:
So actions by a President are immune from impeachment if the actions were promised in the campaign? Where is that in the Constitution?
Here's a law professor's case for impeachment for withdrawal from the Paris Accord (actually less of a crime than gutting the EPA).
There are a rather sizable number of people in this country who believe the enactment of what they call "Obamacare" was a crime against the American People. Imagine if after the Republicans took over Congress rather than trying to repeal the ACA, which would be vetoed by Obama, they proceed to impeach Obama for signing the ACA.
It would have been exposed as an exercise based on lies.
To what result if the Republicans had the votes?
Donald Trump's attacks on Hispanic Immigrants and Muslims are the only actions that could possibly lead to what I would consider "Crimes against humanity". Withdrawing from an accord on climate or weakening a cabinet department is not the type of offense for which people were tried at Nuremberg.
Now there's some guy claiming that Trump had a second one-on-one meeting with Putin at the G20. Might be interesting if more details come out about that.
paulsurovell said:
Former US amb to USSR Jack Matlock:
http://jackmatlock.com/2017/03...
The whole brou-ha-ha over contacts with Russian diplomats has taken on all the earmarks of a witch hunt. President Trump is right to make that charge.
It is appropriate for some to have contacts with Russians. For others it may be treason (as I presume we will find out).
Let me ask you this question. Think about what you know of our President. All he has said and done, and the manner in which he did it. Now tell me do you honestly believe his (or his teams') outreach to the Russians was done in an effort to understand and improve relations and conditions around the world? Do you get the sense that he is the type of person to surround himself with experts, do his own research, consult with international counterparts, then make an informed decision on a pressing issue? Can you say this about ANY issue he has been confronted with?
The only input he seeks from experts is ring-kissing. You know as well as any of us that he knows nothing about any of this, and doesn't care to know. If someone put a gun to his head and demanded to know the contents of the current Senate healthcare bill (the one he has announced his readiness to sign) do you believe he would be able to answer? This is the guy who told the press 'I'm thinking about releasing the Comey 'tapes' next week. When he was caught dispensing incorrect information from the podium of the press room about his electoral win his response was to wave a piece of paper and say that he was just given this.
Our President is not worthy of your reasoned and researched defenses. Your efforts only contribute to the loss of your own credibility.
paulsurovell said:
The US response to Russian involvement in Ukraine was established by Pres Obama, including sanctions as well as a peace process called the Minsk Agreement. I have differences with the official narrative on Ukraine, which I've alluded to on other threads. However, on the whole, I think Obama's response was proportionate, especially his refusal to give offensive weapons to Ukraine. A major goal of the current effort to push Trump into a new Cold War posture toward Russia involves "punishment" beyond Obama's sanctions and providing offensive weapons to Ukraine. That would be a significant escalation and poses risks of real confrontation.
So on the question of Israel and Palestine, there are plenty of critics of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians who do in fact operate out of vehement anti-Israeli and anti-semitic motives, but the fact that you're opposed to the settlements and want to press Trump on this doesn't mean you share in those attitudes. It would be incorrect to accuse you, for instance, of wanting to arm the Palestinians, or see Israel destroyed, or have Trump make military threats against Netanyahu.
So on that issue, at least, you're able to see that there is a very wide range of motives and hoped for outcomes behind taking a critical stance, and that it would be unfair to find the most hostile and extreme views and attribute them to all critics of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.
I'd encourage you to take a similar attitude toward criticism of Russia, and of Trump's relationship with Putin. Certainly some of Trump's critics in this matter are unreconstructed Strangelovian hawks, but it's as unfair of you to scream "McCarthyism" here as it would be to scream "anti-semitism" at any criticism of Israeli settlement policy.
I think if you put aside unjustified fear that all criticism of Russia must lead to a new Cold War, you can admit that Trump's actions and attitude toward Russia warrant scrutiny. Why, in a campaign where he gleefully trashed so many countries, including many of our closest allies, was he so conspicuously friendly toward Russia? What exactly is his relationship to Putin and other significant Russian personalities? Why won't he release his tax returns, and would we have some answers if he did?
Now maybe it's nothing. Maybe it's as simple as the fact that Trump just admires, on a personal level, the kind of thuggish kleptocracy Putin pulls off. But on the other hand, when you have his son responding to an email saying "this ... is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" with "I love it," surely that raises an eyebrow or too?
For me, at least, this isn't about any desire to have a new cold war. It's about expecting basic accountability from my highest elected representative. Of course I want to reduce tensions between the US and other countries, including Russia. But while the publicly available evidence isn't conclusive that Trump is beholden in some manner to Vladimir Putin (whether that be from Russian hacking of the DNC email, or some shady money or real estate dealing, or something else), there's also enough out there that I can't dismiss the possibility out of hand. And that's worrying, and worth trying to get an answer to, because a vain, unstable man like Trump chafing under the pressure of Russian extortion would have dire implications, for America and the world.
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:To what result if the Republicans had the votes?
LOST said:
paulsurovell said:
So actions by a President are immune from impeachment if the actions were promised in the campaign? Where is that in the Constitution?
Here's a law professor's case for impeachment for withdrawal from the Paris Accord (actually less of a crime than gutting the EPA).
There are a rather sizable number of people in this country who believe the enactment of what they call "Obamacare" was a crime against the American People. Imagine if after the Republicans took over Congress rather than trying to repeal the ACA, which would be vetoed by Obama, they proceed to impeach Obama for signing the ACA.
It would have been exposed as an exercise based on lies.
Donald Trump's attacks on Hispanic Immigrants and Muslims are the only actions that could possibly lead to what I would consider "Crimes against humanity". Withdrawing from an accord on climate or weakening a cabinet department is not the type of offense for which people were tried at Nuremberg.
Is this a rebuttal of prof Cohn's argument for impeachment which characterized his withdrawal from the Paris Accord as a crime against humanity? She referenced this:
https://www.theguardian.com/gl...
Environmental destruction and landgrabs could lead to governments and individuals being prosecuted for crimes against humanity by the international criminal court following a decision to expand its remit.
The UN-backed court, which sits in The Hague, has mostly ruled on cases of genocide and war crimes since it was set up in 2002. It has been criticised for its reluctance to investigate major environmental and cultural crimes, which often happen in peacetime.
In a change of focus, the ICC said on Thursday it would also prioritise crimes that result in the “destruction of the environment”, “exploitation of natural resources” and the “illegal dispossession” of land. It also included an explicit reference to land-grabbing.
South_Mountaineer said:
Now there's some guy claiming that Trump had a second one-on-one meeting with Putin at the G20. Might be interesting if more details come out about that.
Trump moved to the other side of the banquet table where Putin was sitting next to Melania (see below) and they had a conversation. Treason!
Red_Barchetta said:
paulsurovell said:It is appropriate for some to have contacts with Russians. For others it may be treason (as I presume we will find out).
Former US amb to USSR Jack Matlock:
http://jackmatlock.com/2017/03...
The whole brou-ha-ha over contacts with Russian diplomats has taken on all the earmarks of a witch hunt. President Trump is right to make that charge.
Let me ask you this question. Think about what you know of our President. All he has said and done, and the manner in which he did it. Now tell me do you honestly believe his (or his teams') outreach to the Russians was done in an effort to understand and improve relations and conditions around the world? Do you get the sense that he is the type of person to surround himself with experts, do his own research, consult with international counterparts, then make an informed decision on a pressing issue? Can you say this about ANY issue he has been confronted with?
The only input he seeks from experts is ring-kissing. You know as well as any of us that he knows nothing about any of this, and doesn't care to know. If someone put a gun to his head and demanded to know the contents of the current Senate healthcare bill (the one he has announced his readiness to sign) do you believe he would be able to answer? This is the guy who told the press 'I'm thinking about releasing the Comey 'tapes' next week. When he was caught dispensing incorrect information from the podium of the press room about his electoral win his response was to wave a piece of paper and say that he was just given this.
Our President is not worthy of your reasoned and researched defenses. Your efforts only contribute to the loss of your own credibility.
The CIA told you a story with no evidence and the media has told you the same story 24/7 for months, with no evidence. You trust, them, you believe them. To paraphrase Harry Truman -- I spent a year in Missouri, Show Me.
Ian Bremmer is the one who broke the news today about Trump's second meeting with Putin. Here is a clip from his interview with Charlie Rose today in which he discusses the entire Russia story.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
The US response to Russian involvement in Ukraine was established by Pres Obama, including sanctions as well as a peace process called the Minsk Agreement. I have differences with the official narrative on Ukraine, which I've alluded to on other threads. However, on the whole, I think Obama's response was proportionate, especially his refusal to give offensive weapons to Ukraine. A major goal of the current effort to push Trump into a new Cold War posture toward Russia involves "punishment" beyond Obama's sanctions and providing offensive weapons to Ukraine. That would be a significant escalation and poses risks of real confrontation.
So on the question of Israel and Palestine, there are plenty of critics of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians who do in fact operate out of vehement anti-Israeli and anti-semitic motives, but the fact that you're opposed to the settlements and want to press Trump on this doesn't mean you share in those attitudes. It would be incorrect to accuse you, for instance, of wanting to arm the Palestinians, or see Israel destroyed, or have Trump make military threats against Netanyahu.
I've been accused on this board of being "anti-Israel" and "anti-Semitic" because I advocated a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and called Israeli settlements illegal. Those epithets were the equivalent of calling me "pro-Trump" or "pro-Putin" because I don't accept the CIA/media allegations of Russian hacking and Trump campaign collusion.
PVW said:
So on that issue, at least, you're able to see that there is a very wide range of motives and hoped for outcomes behind taking a critical stance, and that it would be unfair to find the most hostile and extreme views and attribute them to all critics of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.
I'd encourage you to take a similar attitude toward criticism of Russia, and of Trump's relationship with Putin. Certainly some of Trump's critics in this matter are unreconstructed Strangelovian hawks, but it's as unfair of you to scream "McCarthyism" here as it would be to scream "anti-semitism" at any criticism of Israeli settlement policy.
There is an official narrative promoted by the media, CIA, neocons and Democratic leaders that calls alleged Russian hacking of emails "an act of war," "the destruction of American democracy," "the political crime of the century," etc. The narrative also accuses the Trump campaign of collusion with these efforts.
Supporters of the narrative suggest that virtually any contact with Russian officials are nefarious and potentially treasonous (tonight's "bombshell" about Trump's conversation with Putin at the G20 dinner table is a good example). Those who dispute the narrative are tarred "pro-Trump," "pro-Putin" or "traitors."
In short, the Russia story is framed in the rhetoric of war -- Russia is not an adversary, it is an "enemy."
I've explained why I reject the narrative and why I believe it is designed to promote a new Cold War. I've debated others on this thread who support the narrative primarily by challenging what I consider the flawed evidence or lack of evidence behind their positions. But just because someone supports the narrative doesn't mean they support confrontation or war, and in general, I don't think I've made such an accusation.
PVW said:
I think if you put aside unjustified fear that all criticism of Russia must lead to a new Cold War, you can admit that Trump's actions and attitude toward Russia warrant scrutiny. Why, in a campaign where he gleefully trashed so many countries, including many of our closest allies, was he so conspicuously friendly toward Russia? What exactly is his relationship to Putin and other significant Russian personalities? Why won't he release his tax returns, and would we have some answers if he did?
Now maybe it's nothing. Maybe it's as simple as the fact that Trump just admires, on a personal level, the kind of thuggish kleptocracy Putin pulls off. But on the other hand, when you have his son responding to an email saying "this ... is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump" with "I love it," surely that raises an eyebrow or too?
For me, at least, this isn't about any desire to have a new cold war. It's about expecting basic accountability from my highest elected representative. Of course I want to reduce tensions between the US and other countries, including Russia. But while the publicly available evidence isn't conclusive that Trump is beholden in some manner to Vladimir Putin (whether that be from Russian hacking of the DNC email, or some shady money or real estate dealing, or something else), there's also enough out there that I can't dismiss the possibility out of hand. And that's worrying, and worth trying to get an answer to, because a vain, unstable man like Trump chafing under the pressure of Russian extortion would have dire implications, for America and the world.
I don't trust Trump and I don't rely on his views to formulate my opinions.
paul,
You've mentioned this "new cold war" thing several times. Who, exactly, is advocating for a new cold war? Maybe advocating is too strong a word, but who do you think is behind trying to start a new cold war? And to what end?
paulsurovell said:
Red_Barchetta said:
paulsurovell said:It is appropriate for some to have contacts with Russians. For others it may be treason (as I presume we will find out).
Former US amb to USSR Jack Matlock:
http://jackmatlock.com/2017/03...
The whole brou-ha-ha over contacts with Russian diplomats has taken on all the earmarks of a witch hunt. President Trump is right to make that charge.
Let me ask you this question. Think about what you know of our President. All he has said and done, and the manner in which he did it. Now tell me do you honestly believe his (or his teams') outreach to the Russians was done in an effort to understand and improve relations and conditions around the world? Do you get the sense that he is the type of person to surround himself with experts, do his own research, consult with international counterparts, then make an informed decision on a pressing issue? Can you say this about ANY issue he has been confronted with?
The only input he seeks from experts is ring-kissing. You know as well as any of us that he knows nothing about any of this, and doesn't care to know. If someone put a gun to his head and demanded to know the contents of the current Senate healthcare bill (the one he has announced his readiness to sign) do you believe he would be able to answer? This is the guy who told the press 'I'm thinking about releasing the Comey 'tapes' next week. When he was caught dispensing incorrect information from the podium of the press room about his electoral win his response was to wave a piece of paper and say that he was just given this.
Our President is not worthy of your reasoned and researched defenses. Your efforts only contribute to the loss of your own credibility.
The CIA told you a story with no evidence and the media has told you the same story 24/7 for months, with no evidence. You trust, them, you believe them. To paraphrase Harry Truman -- I spent a year in Missouri, Show Me.
I made no statement about who I believe or trust. I wrote 'I presume we will find out' which is pretty obviously referring to the eventual outcome of the Mueller investigation. You responded with a classic childish pivot / non - answer. You must be related to Kellyanne Conway. There is something seriously wrong with you.
Donnie Doofus is being investigated for collusion with Russia. He then goes to a private meeting with Trump and Trump's "translator"? What a great day for Russia.
paulsurovell said:
Trump moved to the other side of the banquet table where Putin was sitting next to Melania (see below) and they had a conversation. Treason!
The conversation reportedly lasted an hour. For comparison's sake, that's about 56 minutes longer than the amount of time you implied was sufficient for Obama to get down to business with Putin in Peru.
"BREMMER: At all, that's right. It was just - and, you know, one has to assume that that means the Russians probably have a tape of this conversation. I suspect we don't. And you just hate to see all of the vulnerabilities that the American president continues to create around this issue. It certainly doesn't add up."
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Do you have any standards?