One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Interpreting Trump & Kim's Summit
Page 1 of 2 next>
Jun 12, 2018 16:36:10   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
FiveThirtyEight, taken from The Straits Times*

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-interpret-trump-and-kims-summit-in-singapore/

Jun. 12, 2018, By Oliver Roeder

“We will be fine!” President Trump wrote before meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Tuesday morning. A few hours later, Trump strode across a red carpet to shake the hand and squeeze the arm of Kim, the murderous and nuclear-armed dictator of North Korea. It was the first known meeting between two men holding these jobs.

It was a powerful moment. But was it a consequential one? Trump and Kim are now engaged in what will likely be the biggest deal either of them ever has to make — a back-and-forth game of negotiation and guile. The initial accounting of the summit has called Kim the “cannier negotiator,” having extracted concessions both expected and surprising from the United States while agreeing only to soft promises. But if the mere occurrence of the summit lowers the probability of nuclear war even a little, might it have been worth it?

In Singapore, Trump and Kim sat briefly for the cameras before heading to a closed-door meeting with only their translators. “I feel really great,” Trump said. “We’re going to have a great discussion and, I think, tremendous success. It will be tremendously successful.”

“The past worked as fetters on our limbs,” a somewhat more poetic Kim said in Korean. “And the old prejudices and practices worked as obstacles on our way forward. But we overcame all of them, and we are here today.”

With these gestures and statements, the two countries entered the second stage of a standoff that has morphed from a game of nuclear chicken into a classic negotiation. Earlier this month, after talking with some game theorists and Korean Peninsula experts, I argued that the way Trump successfully navigated Part 1 — “fire and fury” and all the rest — may be a liability in Part 2. Unpredictability can be a blessing in dangerous, high-speed contests, but a curse when making sober foreign policy agreements.

And it’s still unclear just how tremendously successful the summit was. The joint statement signed by Trump and Kim is short (less than 400 words) and anodyne, lacking schedules and specifics. It hews closely to the pre-summit expectations: North Korea will “work towards” denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the U.S. will “commit” to providing security guarantees in exchange. It also provides for further talks between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a “relevant high-level” North Korean official. Outside the statement, Trump also promised to stop U.S. joint military exercises with South Korea — what he called “war games.”

The result was a stark departure from the Trump administration’s self-professed “We’re America, Bitch” doctrine and the aggressive bluster toward close allies at the G7 summit days ago.

There is plenty that happened in Singapore that can be seen as a win for Kim: The U.S. decision to abandon the military exercises; the U.S. agreeing that the “Korean Peninsula” should be denuclearized — geographic language that North Korea prefers because it interprets it as applying to U.S. forces in the region, too; the absence of the words “verifiable” and “irreversible” in the statement; the absence of any mention of human rights; and the fact that Trump agreed to even take a meeting with a brutal dictator in the first place. And perhaps Kim had already extracted his quarry before the meeting even began. The photos with the American president, and even just those of the countries’ flags side by side, will likely prove potent talking points in the North.

Indeed, much of the early hot-taking seems to be that “Kim won” — that we got played, that this was just a photo op, and that it was symbolism over substance. If Trump felt this way, he smiled through it. He called it a “tremendous 24 hours.”

And maybe it was, assuming these loose commitments are really the start of a process that leads to a denuclearized North Korea. Not all games are zero-sum, as simple as one party losing and the other gaining. There are games where there is mutual benefit to be enjoyed. And symbolism matters. Perhaps this diligent score-keeping and hot-take-making ignores what is, one must admit, a fairly big deal. The meeting may well mark the beginning of the end of anxious cycles of nuclear brinkmanship and nuclear testing. And it may decrease the chance, even a little, that we all die in a nuclear holocaust.

So at least we might have that going for us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*The Straits Times is an English-language daily broadsheet newspaper based in Singapore currently owned by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). It is the country's highest-selling paper, with a current Sunday Times circulation of nearly 365,800.

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 16:59:58   #
badbobby Loc: texas
 
slatten49 wrote:
FiveThirtyEight, taken from The Straits Times*

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-interpret-trump-and-kims-summit-in-singapore/

Jun. 12, 2018, By Oliver Roeder

“We will be fine!” President Trump wrote before meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Tuesday morning. A few hours later, Trump strode across a red carpet to shake the hand and squeeze the arm of Kim, the murderous and nuclear-armed dictator of North Korea. It was the first known meeting between two men holding these jobs.

It was a powerful moment. But was it a consequential one? Trump and Kim are now engaged in what will likely be the biggest deal either of them ever has to make — a back-and-forth game of negotiation and guile. The initial accounting of the summit has called Kim the “cannier negotiator,” having extracted concessions both expected and surprising from the United States while agreeing only to soft promises. But if the mere occurrence of the summit lowers the probability of nuclear war even a little, might it have been worth it?

In Singapore, Trump and Kim sat briefly for the cameras before heading to a closed-door meeting with only their translators. “I feel really great,” Trump said. “We’re going to have a great discussion and, I think, tremendous success. It will be tremendously successful.”

“The past worked as fetters on our limbs,” a somewhat more poetic Kim said in Korean. “And the old prejudices and practices worked as obstacles on our way forward. But we overcame all of them, and we are here today.”

With these gestures and statements, the two countries entered the second stage of a standoff that has morphed from a game of nuclear chicken into a classic negotiation. Earlier this month, after talking with some game theorists and Korean Peninsula experts, I argued that the way Trump successfully navigated Part 1 — “fire and fury” and all the rest — may be a liability in Part 2. Unpredictability can be a blessing in dangerous, high-speed contests, but a curse when making sober foreign policy agreements.

And it’s still unclear just how tremendously successful the summit was. The joint statement signed by Trump and Kim is short (less than 400 words) and anodyne, lacking schedules and specifics. It hews closely to the pre-summit expectations: North Korea will “work towards” denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the U.S. will “commit” to providing security guarantees in exchange. It also provides for further talks between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a “relevant high-level” North Korean official. Outside the statement, Trump also promised to stop U.S. joint military exercises with South Korea — what he called “war games.”

The result was a stark departure from the Trump administration’s self-professed “We’re America, Bitch” doctrine and the aggressive bluster toward close allies at the G7 summit days ago.

There is plenty that happened in Singapore that can be seen as a win for Kim: The U.S. decision to abandon the military exercises; the U.S. agreeing that the “Korean Peninsula” should be denuclearized — geographic language that North Korea prefers because it interprets it as applying to U.S. forces in the region, too; the absence of the words “verifiable” and “irreversible” in the statement; the absence of any mention of human rights; and the fact that Trump agreed to even take a meeting with a brutal dictator in the first place. And perhaps Kim had already extracted his quarry before the meeting even began. The photos with the American president, and even just those of the countries’ flags side by side, will likely prove potent talking points in the North.

Indeed, much of the early hot-taking seems to be that “Kim won” — that we got played, that this was just a photo op, and that it was symbolism over substance. If Trump felt this way, he smiled through it. He called it a “tremendous 24 hours.”

And maybe it was, assuming these loose commitments are really the start of a process that leads to a denuclearized North Korea. Not all games are zero-sum, as simple as one party losing and the other gaining. There are games where there is mutual benefit to be enjoyed. And symbolism matters. Perhaps this diligent score-keeping and hot-take-making ignores what is, one must admit, a fairly big deal. The meeting may well mark the beginning of the end of anxious cycles of nuclear brinkmanship and nuclear testing. And it may decrease the chance, even a little, that we all die in a nuclear holocaust.

So at least we might have that going for us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*The Straits Times is an English-language daily broadsheet newspaper based in Singapore currently owned by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). It is the country's highest-selling paper, with a current Sunday Times circulation of nearly 365,800.
FiveThirtyEight, taken from The Straits Times* ... (show quote)



who owns this paper?and who controls the statements?
sounds to me just like cnn cbs nbc washington post nytimes etc

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 17:05:37   #
Red Onion Rip Loc: Oklahoma
 
Trump should have requested the return of our Navy ship the North Koreans pirated in 1968, USS Pueblo AGER-2 (spy ship). They still have it tied up in the Taedong river in Pyongyang as a "tourist" attraction. The port side is kept painted and looking nice while the starboard side has been neglected and is rusty and desperately needs painting. Who knows what the inside is like. Had the crew had thermite charges on the equipment cabinets and document safes the North Koreans wouldn't have gotten nearly as much equipment and data as they did. They might even have been able to scuttle her before she was boarded. But that is water under the bridge now. When I was stationed at USNSGA Kamiseya, Japan in 1969 we had demonstrations of what thermite can do to equipment cabinets. Amazing.

Reply
 
 
Jun 12, 2018 17:19:19   #
bahmer
 
badbobby wrote:
who owns this paper?and who controls the statements?
sounds to me just like cnn cbs nbc washington post nytimes etc


It does come across as such. Those dastardly
Marines are always trying to pull the wool
over others eyes. I guess that is why they
think that they win all of the time.

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 17:32:44   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
slatten49 wrote:
FiveThirtyEight, taken from The Straits Times

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-interpret-trump-and-kims-summit-in-singapore/

Jun. 12, 2018, By Oliver Roeder

“We will be fine!” President Trump wrote before meeting North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Tuesday morning. A few hours later, Trump strode across a red carpet to shake the hand and squeeze the arm of Kim, the murderous and nuclear-armed dictator of North Korea. It was the first known meeting between two men holding these jobs.

It was a powerful moment. But was it a consequential one? Trump and Kim are now engaged in what will likely be the biggest deal either of them ever has to make — a back-and-forth game of negotiation and guile. The initial accounting of the summit has called Kim the “cannier negotiator,” having extracted concessions both expected and surprising from the United States while agreeing only to soft promises. But if the mere occurrence of the summit lowers the probability of nuclear war even a little, might it have been worth it?

In Singapore, Trump and Kim sat briefly for the cameras before heading to a closed-door meeting with only their translators. “I feel really great,” Trump said. “We’re going to have a great discussion and, I think, tremendous success. It will be tremendously successful.”

“The past worked as fetters on our limbs,” a somewhat more poetic Kim said in Korean. “And the old prejudices and practices worked as obstacles on our way forward. But we overcame all of them, and we are here today.”

With these gestures and statements, the two countries entered the second stage of a standoff that has morphed from a game of nuclear chicken into a classic negotiation. Earlier this month, after talking with some game theorists and Korean Peninsula experts, I argued that the way Trump successfully navigated Part 1 — “fire and fury” and all the rest — may be a liability in Part 2. Unpredictability can be a blessing in dangerous, high-speed contests, but a curse when making sober foreign policy agreements.

And it’s still unclear just how tremendously successful the summit was. The joint statement signed by Trump and Kim is short (less than 400 words) and anodyne, lacking schedules and specifics. It hews closely to the pre-summit expectations: North Korea will “work towards” denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the U.S. will “commit” to providing security guarantees in exchange. It also provides for further talks between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a “relevant high-level” North Korean official. Outside the statement, Trump also promised to stop U.S. joint military exercises with South Korea — what he called “war games.”

The result was a stark departure from the Trump administration’s self-professed “We’re America, Bitch” doctrine and the aggressive bluster toward close allies at the G7 summit days ago.

There is plenty that happened in Singapore that can be seen as a win for Kim: The U.S. decision to abandon the military exercises; the U.S. agreeing that the “Korean Peninsula” should be denuclearized — geographic language that North Korea prefers because it interprets it as applying to U.S. forces in the region, too; the absence of the words “verifiable” and “irreversible” in the statement; the absence of any mention of human rights; and the fact that Trump agreed to even take a meeting with a brutal dictator in the first place. And perhaps Kim had already extracted his quarry before the meeting even began. The photos with the American president, and even just those of the countries’ flags side by side, will likely prove potent talking points in the North.

Indeed, much of the early hot-taking seems to be that “Kim won” — that we got played, that this was just a photo op, and that it was symbolism over substance. If Trump felt this way, he smiled through it. He called it a “tremendous 24 hours.”

And maybe it was, assuming these loose commitments are really the start of a process that leads to a denuclearized North Korea. Not all games are zero-sum, as simple as one party losing and the other gaining. There are games where there is mutual benefit to be enjoyed. And symbolism matters. Perhaps this diligent score-keeping and hot-take-making ignores what is, one must admit, a fairly big deal. The meeting may well mark the beginning of the end of anxious cycles of nuclear brinkmanship and nuclear testing. And it may decrease the chance, even a little, that we all die in a nuclear holocaust.

So at least we might have that going for us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Straits Times is an English-language daily broadsheet newspaper based in Singapore currently owned by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH). It is the country's highest-selling paper, with a current Sunday Times circulation of nearly 365,800.
FiveThirtyEight, taken from The Straits Times ... (show quote)

Since you posted an article that appears to be making an effort to be positive, I will try to be less sarcastic than I am on the topic I started about the "summit" http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=2451274&t=132698 where I posted the full text of the actual agreement between Trump to expose just how useless the whole charade really is.

Instead, I'll jump right to the silver-lining that the author of your article is suggesting, that despite Kim getting the better end of the deal, ANY move toward negotiations is better than a nuclear threat, right? But again, I think we have to look at the agreement if we're going to be objective about this...

Here's the ENTIRE list of commitments made... verbatim.

1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

The point I want to make here, is that none of these four statements really mean anything.

#1 is so vague that it's indistinguishable from what is already a reality.
#2 pretty much the same thing as #1
#3 the DPRK has already been promising this since the Clinton era.
#4 Is a nice perk (I guess) but it doesn't address the the nuclear issue at all.

So, beyond that - does the mere existence of such a meeting somehow reduce the nuclear threat from North Korea? I dunno, did the mere existence of a meeting with Iran reduce the nuclear threat from Iran?

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 17:35:33   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
badbobby wrote:
who owns this paper?and who controls the statements?
sounds to me just like cnn cbs nbc washington post nytimes etc

What does it matter? Can't you just read something and figure it out for yourself?

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 17:36:49   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
badbobby wrote:
who owns this paper?and who controls the statements?
sounds to me just like cnn cbs nbc washington post nytimes etc

Did you not read the note beneath the article, BB? For more....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Straits_Times

Also....

Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPH; Chinese: 新加坡报业控股) is a media organisation in Singapore with businesses in print, Internet and new media, radio and outdoor media, and property and healthcare. SPH has over 5,000 employees, including a team of approximately 1,000 journalists, including correspondents operating around the world. The company was one of the country's "blue-chip" counters on the Singapore Stock Exchange, and is a constituent of the Straits Times Index.

Reply
 
 
Jun 12, 2018 17:41:09   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
bahmer wrote:
It does come across as such. Those dastardly
Marines are always trying to pull the wool
over others eyes. I guess that is why they
think that they win all of the time.
It does come across as such. Those dastardly br M... (show quote)

Not always, Bahmer. It just seems that way when the wool is already over their eyes.

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 17:54:47   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
madsciontist wrote:
Trump should have requested the return of our Navy ship the North Koreans pirated in 1968, USS Pueblo AGER-2 (spy ship). They still have it tied up in the Taedong river in Pyongyang as a "tourist" attraction. The port side is kept painted and looking nice while the starboard side has been neglected and is rusty and desperately needs painting. Who knows what the inside is like. Had the crew had thermite charges on the equipment cabinets and document safes the North Koreans wouldn't have gotten nearly as much equipment and data as they did. They might even have been able to scuttle her before she was boarded. But that is water under the bridge now. When I was stationed at USNSGA Kamiseya, Japan in 1969 we had demonstrations of what thermite can do to equipment cabinets. Amazing.
Trump should have requested the return of our Navy... (show quote)

Yes, I remember the Pueblo incident, with its Commander, Lloyd M. 'Pete' Bucher. The scuttlebutt among we Marines was that we were about to have another war to engage in. I've seen pictures of it tied to the dock in the river.

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 17:55:03   #
bahmer
 
slatten49 wrote:
Did you not read the note beneath the article, BB? For more....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Straits_Times

Also....

Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPH; Chinese: 新加坡报业控股) is a media organisation in Singapore with businesses in print, Internet and new media, radio and outdoor media, and property and healthcare. SPH has over 5,000 employees, including a team of approximately 1,000 journalists, including correspondents operating around the world. The company was one of the country's "blue-chip" counters on the Singapore Stock Exchange, and is a constituent of the Straits Times Index.
Did you not read the note beneath the article, BB?... (show quote)


This is from your article posted here.

In his memoir OB Markers: My Straits Times Story, former editor-in-chief Cheong Yip Seng recounts how, since 1986, there has been a government-appointed "monitor" at the newspaper, "someone who could watch to see if indeed the newsroom was beyond control", and that disapproval of the "monitor" could cost a reporter or editor their job.[31] Cheong identifies the first monitor as S. R. Nathan, director of the Ministry of Defence's Security and Intelligence Division and later president of Singapore.[31] Editors were bound by out of bounds markers to denote what topics are permissible for public discussion,[32] resulting in self-censorship.[33]

Criticisms[edit]
The Straits Times has also been criticised by netizens for sloppy and biased reporting. For instance, the newspaper repeatedly interviewed a commuter named Ashley Wu on 8 occasions within a span of 10 months, whenever the trains broke down, rather than getting fresh viewpoints from different affected commuters.[34][35] The newspaper is also known to modify and insert additional lines to op-ed contributors' works, altering the tone and message of the articles, without notifying them in advance.[36]

These two comments makes the Straits Times tp appear more closely to the MSM here in the States. So it is not a fresh new newspaper but more of a political type newspaper the runs at the approval of the government. That is the way it appears to me but I could be proved wrong maybe. That is why I was agreeing with badbobby is those two paragraphs.

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 18:12:48   #
badbobby Loc: texas
 
straightUp wrote:
What does it matter? Can't you just read something and figure it out for yourself?


seems to me that our President should be negotiating with you
since you profess to know veverything
the positive of this meeting is
you have to start somewhere
and I figgered that out for myself

Reply
 
 
Jun 12, 2018 18:15:21   #
badbobby Loc: texas
 
slatten49 wrote:
Did you not read the note beneath the article, BB? For more....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Straits_Times

Also....

Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPH; Chinese: 新加坡报业控股) is a media organisation in Singapore with businesses in print, Internet and new media, radio and outdoor media, and property and healthcare. SPH has over 5,000 employees, including a team of approximately 1,000 journalists, including correspondents operating around the world. The company was one of the country's "blue-chip" counters on the Singapore Stock Exchange, and is a constituent of the Straits Times Index.
Did you not read the note beneath the article, BB?... (show quote)



does the word' Chinese' bother you at all??

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 18:15:23   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
bahmer wrote:
This is from your article posted here.

In his memoir OB Markers: My Straits Times Story, former editor-in-chief Cheong Yip Seng recounts how, since 1986, there has been a government-appointed "monitor" at the newspaper, "someone who could watch to see if indeed the newsroom was beyond control", and that disapproval of the "monitor" could cost a reporter or editor their job.[31] Cheong identifies the first monitor as S. R. Nathan, director of the Ministry of Defence's Security and Intelligence Division and later president of Singapore.[31] Editors were bound by out of bounds markers to denote what topics are permissible for public discussion,[32] resulting in self-censorship.[33]

Criticisms[edit]
The Straits Times has also been criticised by netizens for sloppy and biased reporting. For instance, the newspaper repeatedly interviewed a commuter named Ashley Wu on 8 occasions within a span of 10 months, whenever the trains broke down, rather than getting fresh viewpoints from different affected commuters.[34][35] The newspaper is also known to modify and insert additional lines to op-ed contributors' works, altering the tone and message of the articles, without notifying them in advance.[36]

These two comments makes the Straits Times tp appear more closely to the MSM here in the States. So it is not a fresh new newspaper but more of a political type newspaper the runs at the approval of the government. That is the way it appears to me but I could be proved wrong maybe. That is why I was agreeing with badbobby is those two paragraphs.
This is from your article posted here. br br In h... (show quote)


Understood, Bahmer. But, I printed the link so one could read the entire write-up, and not just selected portions. The paper has a rich history since being established n 1845. If Straits Times is "more of a political type newspaper that runs at the approval of the government," that would be The Republic of Singapore government. I don't know the political climate there...but, both parties agreed to meet in Singapore.

It often seems that many OPP posters only want to read from a source of their choice such as The Heritage Foundation, The Nation, NYT or WND, depending upon their ideology. I try, as much as possible, to go with sources outside the usual suspects of bias. I did not do an exhaustive search on The Straits Times, but saw nothing to suggest it was biased from either the left or right perspective. But, then, that's getting harder and harder to do...finding a source that isn't suspicious to some. As they say...c'est la vie.

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 18:24:36   #
bahmer
 
slatten49 wrote:
Understood, Bahmer. But, I printed the link so one could read the entire write-up, and not just selected portions. The paper has a rich history since being established n 1845. If Straits Times is "more of a political type newspaper that runs at the approval of the government," that would be The Republic of Singapore government. I don't know the political climate there...but, both parties agreed to meet in Singapore.

It often seems that many OPP posters only want to read from a source of their choice such as The Heritage Foundation, The Nation, NYT or WND, depending upon their ideology. I try, as much as possible, to go with sources outside the usual suspects of bias. I did not do an exhaustive search on The Straits Times, but saw nothing to suggest it was biased from either the left or right perspective. But, then, that's getting harder and harder to do...finding a source that isn't suspicious to some. As they say...c'est la vie.
Understood, Bahmer. But, I printed the link so on... (show quote)


That is true and you do an excellent job that way but I guess after reading many news articles in America here I have become suspicious of all of them. It is hard to find any with the reposters of yesteryear where they went and dug out the information to their stories, I guess that the last investigative reporting that I can remember was during the Nixon presidency and possibly the Clinton presidency in regard to Monica Lewinsky. Nixon of course was the watergate scandal. The one statement that they had someone watching over them kind of chilled it for me is all. I believe that if the MSM could find it in their heart to publish good news about Trump that when they published negative news it would at least be looked at as somewhat credible but when 91-98% of all of their reporting is negative toward Trump it is really difficult to take them seriously.

Reply
Jun 12, 2018 18:24:52   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
badbobby wrote:
does the word' Chinese' bother you at all??

Not after reading the following...

http://singaporepress.pbworks.com/w/page/11489262/companies

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.