Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Over 18 ONLY! For grown-ups. . .

Moderators: Sluggo, Amskeptic

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by Amskeptic » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:43 am

Perhaps we have said/heard in the past that "this election counts".
This time, it does.
The Imperative Of Voting For Hillary Clinton
11/07/2016

The Huffington Post
Richard North Patterson


What kind of country do you want?

That is the question each of us must answer tomorrow. Many millions of our fellow Americans will answer “Donald Trump.” This column is for everyone else.

First, reality. The only way to defeat Trump is by voting for Hillary Clinton. One can no longer assume that she will win — James Comey’s unprecedented and unwarranted intrusion in the election, though belatedly exposed as worse than pointless, may nonetheless alter its outcome.

Indeed, millions of Americans have already voted under the influence of Comey’s misjudgment — his letter of correction, stating that the Huma Abedin emails contain nothing new, came ten days too late. For voters to stay home tomorrow , or cast a protest vote, may well enable the most unstable and unqualified presidential candidate in American history. With respect, that is not a rational choice.

I appreciate that many voters wish their choice was different. Some question Clinton’s honesty and candor. Some wish she were more progressive or less tied to established institutions. Some want a political party which embraces their political beliefs without compromise or ambiguity. Some on the right think her too reliant on centralized solutions. Some object to the dynastic implications of electing a former first lady. And some flat-out just don’t like the Clintons.

Fine. But then what?

One’s moral purity is not on the ballot tomorrow. Nor is one’s personal vision of a perfect world. The stakes are far more profound — in an imperfect world, what choice is best for us, our children, and the future all of us share.

In that light, only one choice makes sense.

For progressives, the issues are enough. Only a President Clinton will work to combat climate change, reduce gun violence, reform the immigration system, and fight terrorism with reason instead of xenophobia. Only Clinton supports pay equity for women, raising the minimum wage, making public colleges and universities tuition free for all but affluent students, and reducing the crushing burden of college debt. Only Clinton will appoint progressives to the Supreme Court.

Only Clinton proposes to lower the price of prescription drugs. Only Clinton promises to rebuild our infrastructure. Only Clinton supports LGBT rights. And only Clinton pledges to secure our fiscal future by taxing those who can most afford it, rather than plunge us into further staggering debt through tax giveaways to the wealthy.

One’s moral purity is not on the ballot tomorrow. Nor is one’s personal vision of a perfect world. The stakes are far more profound.
For progressives, this may not be perfection, but it is surely a down payment. And achieving a meaningful part of this agenda will require all the support she can get.

Moderates may view that agenda with misgivings. And some traditional Republicans, including principled conservatives, may believe that it cedes too much to government, and grants too little credence to local and individual initiative.

Let me simply suggest that your recourse is to congenial candidates in down-ballot races — not to President Donald Trump.

Because of Trump, this is no ordinary year. He is certainly no moderate or, by any reasonable definition, a conservative. On issues, he is an ignorant creature of impulse who calls climate change a hoax; embraces an economic plan which would explode the deficit and, in the opinion of experts, throw us into a recession; lacks even a primitive understanding of counter-terrorism or the uses and limits of military power; and speaks cavalierly about nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. Pick any issue — all are potentially existential.

But as disqualifying as these positions are, they are mere signposts of a personal and psychological unfitness so profound that he would do the country that all of us care about — regardless of our philosophical preferences — terrible harm.

A frequent rejoinder from those who oppose Clinton is “she’s no better.” The basis for this flat assertion may involve careless handling of emails; or an overlap between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton’s personal finances; or a supposed absence of candor regarding Benghazi; or a general belief that she is calculating, above the rules and, when it serves her, untruthful. Or all the above.

For critics, these are more than sufficient grounds for objecting to Clinton as a candidate. But what then? For to assert a moral equivalence between Clinton and Trump is to substitute emotion for a mature comparison of what we know about both.

First, Clinton. Over 25 years she has been so battered by partisan charges that one tends to forget that the charges themselves came to little or nothing. This creates a remarkable dynamic — each new charge creates a presumption of guilt unjustified by the underlying facts.

The Abedin emails are but the latest example. One can deplore Clinton’s use of a private server, or conclude that the Clinton Foundation — whose many good works are indubitable — is too closely linked to the Clintons’ private business activities. But there is no evidence of “pay to play”; no sign that she subordinated her work as Secretary of State to personal interests; no objective evidence that the Republican FBI Director, Comey, failed in his duties when, in July, he called her email practices careless, not criminal.

Here Comey’s reckless and precipitous letter of October 28 is the perfect illustration. Having enabled Trump to cite his letter as evidence of Clinton’s criminality without a shred of proof, Comey now reports that the actual contents of the Abedin emails were innocuous — as logic always suggested they were.

In casting their vote, Americans are left to sort all this out. But, in doing so, it is well to consider a few other things. A record of service to the underprivileged well before Clinton rose to prominence. Her deep preparation for the presidency. The skill, stamina and knowledge she displayed in debate. Her steadiness under pressure. Her ability to surmount adversity. Her record of bipartisan cooperation as a senator. And, unlike Trump, a general disinclination to complain about criticism.

All that adds up to the inner resources and emotional balance one would want in a president. And Trump?

Abysmally ignorant. Chronically narcissistic. Emotionally unbalanced. Temperamentally unstable. Indifferent to our political traditions and institutions. To his core, morally repellent.

Any sane consideration recitation of his disabilities places this election in a category all its own. This is not a choice between philosophies or parties. It is a profoundly moral choice for every voter — whether to enable, or oppose, the election of a president who will endanger and degrade us in every conceivable way.

He is a risk to our national security. He is a demagogue who divides us by race, religion and ethnicity, turning Americans against each other. He traffics in scapegoating and xenophobia. He is misogynist who, by his own account, revels in groping and abusing women. He slanders those who displease him, and threatens to turn the power of the presidency on his critics. He has no regard for the rule of law.

He lies incessantly. He concocts bizarre conspiracy theories. He plucks his information from the darker recesses of the Internet. He advocates torture. He refuses to commit to respecting our election results. He tells his followers that American democracy is rigged against him. He tried to delegitimize our first black president with racist lies. He bragged about conversations with Vladimir Putin that never occurred.

His inner world is barren of any concern but self. He cares nothing for others — not family, party, or country. He judges people based on whether they satisfy “Trump’s”need for adulation. He is so susceptible to manipulation that an antagonistic foreign power — Putin’s Russia — has siphoned thousands of hacked emails through Wikileaks in order to elect him.

Despite all this, polling suggests that a significant, perhaps critical, number of Americans — including millennials — will stay home or cast a protest vote. This deserves the most serious consideration: in a close election votes which are effectively cast aside may decide the winner by default. And so a word for potential third-party voters or non-voters, particularly in closely-contested states.

In themselves, their sentiments are easy to grasp. Some are disappointed that Bernie Sanders fell short; some are drawn to Gary Johnson or Jill Stein; some believe that America is stacked against social justice in favor of the wealthy; some distrust our societal institutions. Some feel all that at once.

Understandable, surely. But should one allow such frustrations, however deep, to impel what amounts to casting half a vote for Donald Trump? When the future of our country is at stake, does conscientious objection at the polls suffice?

Consider Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who are working hard to elect Hillary Clinton. The path of reason, they argue, lies with electing the best — and only real — alternative to Trump, in order to advance the policies they believe in. This is not the year, Sanders says, for third-party voting. As Warren puts it, “I understand the frustration, but channel that frustration into making government work, not into throwing away your vote... [T]he answer is to seize the system and make it work for the people, not to just turn it over to the bigots and billionaires.”

They are right. A vote for Johnson or Stein may best express one’s core beliefs. But, in the worst case, casting such votes in battleground states could elect Donald Trump.

For what purpose, in this year, does one take such a risk? And, in addition, the reality that third party candidates will lose may insulate some protest voters from considering in depth who, or what, they are voting for. So it is well to ask what abstract moral principles such voting represents.

Start with Gary Johnson. By now, it is widely known that Johnson has little grasp of foreign policy. Less known is his disinterest in climate change, his call for abolishing the Department of Education, his plan to phase out the progressive income tax, and his opposition to gun control.

If one is going to vote on principle alone, best to find better principles — unless these are the principles one thinks America needs more of. In which case, one must ask oneself whether they are worthy enough to risk electing Donald Trump.

When the future of our country is at stake, does conscientious objection at the polls suffice?
Which brings us to Jill Stein, whose candidacy is more likely than Johnson’s to help Trump by siphoning votes from Clinton — particularly crucial in states where the outcome is in doubt. For there is no doubt that the Green Party has a consistency of vision which results in a consistent level of support: just enough, among many other factors at work in 2000, to give George W. Bush the state of Florida and, as a result, the presidency.

My Green Party friends argue they should not be blamed for a system which, in their view, revolves around choosing the lesser of two evils. I respect this feeling, and their point is fair enough if stated in a vacuum. But what if one of the two electable choices in 2016 — Trump — is monstrous? So let us pause to consider whether, despite this, those drawn to the Green Party must feel morally compelled to cast a vote for Jill Stein which effectively helps Donald Trump.

For those to whom the answer is not clear, Stein herself deserves the scrutiny one applies to the remaining candidates. To start, she’s a bit of a political eccentric who encourages vaccine skeptics, and opposes the Green Party’s call for universal broadband on the theory that wireless signals could damage kids’ brains. More broadly, her appeal rests on a call to political and moral clarity in the service of progressive principles.

As a candidate, she denounces without compromise the banking industry, Wall Street, defense contractors, the pharmaceutical industry, big tobacco and energy companies which contribute to global warming — and, in her narrative, the major parties for representing them. As she puts it, “I’ve long since thrown in the towel on the Democratic and Republican parties because they are really a front group for the 1 percent, predatory banks, fossil fuel giants, and war profiteers.”

As a private citizen, however, she invests in those very same industries. As The Daily Beast reported, her financial disclosure statements reveal that much of her considerable wealth is invested — directly or through mutual funds — in big oil, the financial industry, major pharmaceutical companies, the tobacco industry, and defense contractors. In extenuation, she says, “Like many Americans... my finances are largely held in index funds or mutual funds... Sadly, most of these broad investments are as compromised as the American economy — degraded as it is by the fossil-fuel, defense and finance industries.”

It is true that the mutual funds, not Stein, direct her wealth to the industries she attacks. It is also true that she could put her money in other investments — such as socially responsible index funds, or clean energy funds — more consistent with the moral stance through which she seeks our votes. Despite this, she asserts that “I’ve not yet found the mutual funds that represent my goals of advancing the cause of people, planet and peace.”

God save Hillary Clinton should she ever say such a thing.

My point here is not to single out Stein. Candidates are people, not saints, and inconsistency between their public positions and private conduct is hardly unknown in politics. But when Stein’s political reason for being is uncompromising moral clarity, her personal contradictions make the protest vote she asks for less morally meaningful than she suggests — even in the abstract.

But the moral and practical consequences of this election are far from abstract. Yet Stein argues that it makes no difference who we actually elect — and, therefore, that she represents our only chance to vote against the corporate malefactors she invests her wealth in. Says she,”I will have trouble sleeping at night if Donald Trump is elected. I will also have trouble sleeping at night if Hillary Clinton is elected.”

This pat assertion of equivalency is not an adequate response to the threat posed by Donald Trump — or even to his claim, anathema to all that Stein espouses, that climate change is a “hoax” concocted by the Chinese. Nor, I respectfully suggest, is voting for Jill Stein a practical or morally adequate response — at least in battleground states — to an excruciatingly close election where the wrong choice could have devastating consequences for our country.

Beyond all this, there are additional matters of moral principle which impel a vote for Hillary Clinton — and against Donald Trump. One is to defeat his bogus claims of vote-rigging and his embrace of voter suppression, whether through intimidation or laws crafted to keep minorities from voting. The right of all Americans to vote is too essential to allow Trump to succeed.

Another is the damage he is doing to our social fabric by stereotyping blacks, and scapegoating Latinos and Muslims. For them — and for our collective sense of decency — countenancing the election of Donald Trump would be nothing short of tragic. All of us owe them better.

Still another is to consider the difference between electing a self-styled sexual predator and our first female president. What, one must ask, is this country saying to women — including the next generations — if we choose Trump over Hillary Clinton? Electing a woman empowers women; electing Trump rewards a man for treating women with contempt. Regardless of one’s politics or misgivings about Clinton, that alone makes enabling Trump close to inexcusable.

In its simplest terms, this election presents a binary choice. It is not a simply a choice between competing policies, and it is certainly not one between aspirants whose qualities are comparable. In 2016 our choice is between a candidate who is qualified to be president, and an ignorant and unstable demagogue who endangers our institutions, our compassion for each other and, beyond that, our common future.

This is an existential and moral choice. It may not be, for many of us, the ideal choice of candidates. But, far beyond any election in memory, the only sane choice is clear.

Hillary Clinton.
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

TrollFromDownBelow
IAC Addict!
Location: Metro Detroit
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by TrollFromDownBelow » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:24 pm

Michigan race must have really tightened up....over the past few days Hillary, Bill, President Obama and the donald have been stumping here. I will be at the polls at 7a when they open.
1976 VW Bus aka tripod
FI ...not leaky, and not so noisy...and she runs awesome!
hambone wrote: There are those out there with no other aim but to bunch panties. It's like arguing with a pretzel.
::troll2::

TrollFromDownBelow
IAC Addict!
Location: Metro Detroit
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by TrollFromDownBelow » Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:46 pm

Guess I need to add Sarah Palin ... she stumped for trump in front of 12 people in a bar.... :/
1976 VW Bus aka tripod
FI ...not leaky, and not so noisy...and she runs awesome!
hambone wrote: There are those out there with no other aim but to bunch panties. It's like arguing with a pretzel.
::troll2::

User avatar
wcfvw69
Old School!
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by wcfvw69 » Mon Nov 07, 2016 8:58 pm

SSSOOOO sick of this election.. So sick of it as I'm sure most Americans are.. The really bad news? No matter which candidate wins, we're still going to be plastered in hate, accusations, political infighting, conspiracy theories, finger pointing, 24-7 coverage of the president elect, etc, etc, etc...

So, we still lose...
1970 Westfalia bus. Stock 1776 dual port type 1 engine. Restored German Solex 34-3. Restored 205Q distributor, restored to factory appearance engine.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by Amskeptic » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:56 pm

wcfvw69 wrote:SSSOOOO sick of this election.. So sick of it as I'm sure most Americans are.. The really bad news? No matter which candidate wins, we're still going to be plastered in hate, accusations, political infighting, conspiracy theories, finger pointing, 24-7 coverage of the president elect, etc, etc, etc...

So, we still lose...
We can make it stop. Make our voices heard for civility.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

Jivermo
IAC Addict!
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by Jivermo » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:49 am

Those third party votes that were siphoned off really hurt...that must be apparent. That, and the fact that Hillary never did really connect with the shifting definition of the American "common man". But going further, I am disturbed by the mendacious nature of the media, both on the left and on the right. Fox News is akin to a resurrected Joseph Goebbels propaganda machine, we all know, but the leftest press is just as bad. Very little of our news is currently fed to us accurately. There is always a slant to it. A quite recent example are the Temple University attacks upon white students, and people on the street, by an estimated 150 black teens in a "flash mob". These racially motivated attacks were given scant attention by most news sources, and it was initially reported as "roving groups of teenagers", with no racial component to the story. In fact, the real heart of the story is the fact that the attacks were totally racial in nature. This denial of reality, and the idea that the press can be less than truthful in the news and the manner in which it chooses to dole it out, gives real fodder to Trump supporters who complain about "political correctness". I have a journalism background, and wear my big boy pants. I don't need my news run through a filter by people who choose to give us only the story as they see fit. Give me the facts, and give them to me straight-now more than ever.

User avatar
Bleyseng
IAC Addict!
Location: Seattle again
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by Bleyseng » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:30 am

I am more disgusted at the turn we will be forced to endure. The GOP has won and we will be a "God Fearing, Anti abortion, Huge Fucking Military, pay as you go " country...If you are poor well then, pull yourself up by the bootstraps in your homeless tent working for peanuts because no one gives a crap about you. If you need some assistance then after the drug tests here is a small handout. Your children if they want to go to college will need a loan at 9% paying it back for the rest of their lives....
Big Oil won big showing everyone that Money talks so where can we start the next war.
Geoff
77 Sage Green Westy- CS 2.0L-160,000 miles
70 Ghia vert, black, stock 1600SP,- 139,000 miles,
76 914 2.1L-Nepal Orange- 160,000+ miles
http://bleysengaway.blogspot.com/

User avatar
hippiewannabe
Old School!
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by hippiewannabe » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:00 pm

Bleyseng wrote:Big Oil won big showing everyone that Money talks so where can we start the next war.
Actually, if there is one thing in which you can take solace, it's that Big Money was repudiated in this election.
Trump spent less than $5 per vote, compared to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s more than $10 per vote, with Trump spending $285.6 million for 59.21 million votes versus $609 million for 59.38 million votes for Clinton
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/09/trump ... z4PdQ7bwdE

There was an absolute tsunami of over the top anti-Trump attack ads the few days before the election. Say what you want about the result, it was negatively correlated with money spent.
Truth is like poetry.
And most people fucking hate poetry.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by Amskeptic » Fri Nov 11, 2016 9:43 am

hippiewannabe wrote: Actually, if there is one thing in which you can take solace, it's that Big Money was repudiated in this election.
Big Money is already descending upon Washington via hordes of happy lobbyists who are finding remarkable traction in the transition team and in the nascent Trump Administration job positions.

From CNN:
Leaders in his transition include former Rep. Mike Rogers, former Reagan Attorney General and Heritage Foundation fellow Edwin Meese, former President of Heritage Edwin Feulner, former Bush administration official and lobbyist Christine Ciccone, former Dick Cheney adviser Ado Machida, former Senate Budget Committee staffer Eric Ueland and former Sen. Jeff Sessions' chief of staff Rick Dearborn. The effort is chaired by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Trump counts former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sessions as close advisers.
From the NYT:
Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications Commission.

Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds the “energy independence” portfolio.

Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.


Trump promised to drain the swamp? He is already mired in the swamp. Trump is so far out of his depths, that he will be relying on snakes and charlatans. And he will just change his positions willy-nilly as he has done so many times before, "I never said that". Look at who is heading the EPA transition team, a climate science denier who once said, "global warming could be beneficial." Trump's stated priority of pulling out of the Paris Accords is a message to the world to compete once more in the pillage of Mother Earth in the name of profit.

Trent Lott and hordes of other lobbyists are already sidling up to Jeff Sessions to overturn banking reforms, to dismantle the Consumer Protection Bureau, to roll back our carbon reduction goals, ad nauseum.

Americans who voted for this guy, I shall be relentless in pointing out the real consequences of your decision, as I should have been relentless in the pointing out that your claims that "Obama destroyed our country" were laughably and now tragically utterly stupid.
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
Bleyseng
IAC Addict!
Location: Seattle again
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by Bleyseng » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:55 am

You can't argue with stupid as the stupid voters have spoken, racism,fear and hate is back.
Geoff
77 Sage Green Westy- CS 2.0L-160,000 miles
70 Ghia vert, black, stock 1600SP,- 139,000 miles,
76 914 2.1L-Nepal Orange- 160,000+ miles
http://bleysengaway.blogspot.com/

User avatar
tommu
Old School!
Location: Sunny Burbank
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by tommu » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:43 pm

So what proportion of the Electorate (those actually permitted to vote for their own destiny) voted for this shower worthy of a parallel reality? 25%?

It's going to take Miami flooding for the fact of climate change to convince everyone of the risk? Petrifying.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by Amskeptic » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:08 pm

tommu wrote:So what proportion of the Electorate (those actually permitted to vote for their own destiny) voted for this shower worthy of a parallel reality? 25%?

It's going to take Miami flooding for the fact of climate change to convince everyone of the risk? Petrifying.

As of today, Donald Trump has received 60,071,650 votes, 47.3% of votes cast.
Trump won votes from 27 percent of the overall population.

Hillary Clinton received 60,467,245 votes, 47.7% of votes cast.


We come in 9th from bottom for voter participation.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
asiab3
IAC Addict!
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by asiab3 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:00 am

We come in ninth? Sorry, who is we?

I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm actually wondering who the demographic is amongst.

Robbie395
1969 bus, "Buddy."
145k miles with me.
322k miles on Earth.

User avatar
Amskeptic
IAC "Help Desk"
IAC "Help Desk"
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by Amskeptic » Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:14 pm

asiab3 wrote:We come in ninth? Sorry, who is we?

I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm actually wondering who the demographic is amongst.

Robbie395
We, The United States Of America come in ninth for voter participation amongst all current democracies/pretend democracies.
Colin
BobD - 78 Bus . . . 112,730 miles
Chloe - 70 bus . . . 217,593 miles
Naranja - 77 Westy . . . 142,970 miles
Pluck - 1973 Squareback . . . . . . 55,600 miles
Alexus - 91 Lexus LS400 . . . 96,675 miles

User avatar
dingo
IAC Addict!
Location: oregon - calif
Status: Offline

Re: Election Day Is Upon Us . . .

Post by dingo » Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:31 pm

"According to new voter turnout statistics from the 2016 election, 47 percent of Americans voted for nobody, far outweighing the votes cast for Trump (25.5 percent) and Hillary (25.6 percent) by eligible voters"
'71 Kombi, 1600 dp

';78 Tranzporter 2L

" Fill what's empty, empty what's full, and scratch where it itches."

Post Reply