Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jah

If The Green Party Can't Win, Should They Be Ignored?

Recommended Posts

I wrote two posts on Thom Hartman's message board last night. However, they were removed and my thoughts were censored. I will do my best to recreate them.

 

Background:

 

Last Night (7-21-16) on his show The Big Picture, Thom Hartmann expressed his opinion that since the Green Party, Libertarian Party and other minor political parties can not win, they are not worth the time to discuss.

 

"Frankly the reason why I haven't been paying much attention to either the Green Party or the Libertarian Party is because their candidates are not going to become president" (Hartmann). He later refers to minor political parties as "clubs".

 

Hartmann then goes on to express that he would love to see a revitalized Green Party that is doing a lot of grassroots work on every level from dog catcher on up. Hartmann said he knows there are several dozen elected Green Party officials across the country. He said he would like to see more of that.

 

However, Hartman then says because this presidential election is very consequential, any energy put in to minor political parties is "a waste of time".

 

My following commentary was censored and removed from his discussion forum. I guess since he owns it, he can decide what is allowed on it. How Progressive of him:

 

Censored Commentary:

 

On the Big Picture as well as on his radio show today, Hartmann presented the opinion that since they can't win, discussing the Green Party, Libertarian Party or any other minor political party in America is simply a waste of time. He calls them "clubs".

 

This is regressive thinking. It encloses the major parties in bubbles and ensures they will never really change, particularly in actual governance. It shields them from new ideas. Worst of all it ignores those voters that are attracted to the policies of minor parties. So, with this philosophy, Hartmann shuts out people and ideas with willful ignorance. Quite regressive indeed.

 

With 44% of registered voters not affiliated with either Republicans or Democrats, a lot of people are being shut out of the discussion.

In liberal or progressive media, all ideas and parties should be open for discussion. We are supposed to like and honor alternative choices regardless of their ability to win. We are supposed to value morality and not immoral practicality.

 

When The Green Party is finally given the attention it deserves, it will grow like a Bernie.

 

I live in the first and only community in America that has ever had a Green Party town council. Not a single council member, but the majority vote. We were the first community in the nation to ban the growth of ANY type of GMO within city limits (except for university research in controlled conditions). We were the first community in California to own a community forest. My entire county voted 68% for Sanders in the primary and will likely be won by Jill Stein.

 

It's not easy being green. But, we are growing like our Redwoods. Soon you will no longer be able to ignore us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote two posts on Thom Hartman's message board last night. However, they were removed and my thoughts were censored. I will do my best to recreate them.

 

Background:

 

Last Night (7-21-16) on his show The Big Picture, Thom Hartmann expressed his opinion that since the Green Party, Libertarian Party and other minor political parties can not win, they are not worth the time to discuss.

Of course your ideas can be discussed, but the time for you to develop enough support was well in advance of the actual election. If you can't create enough support to give your candidate a fighting chance to win, then asking liberals to throw away their votes and HELP PUT TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE is the height of irresponsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course your ideas can be discussed, but the time for you to develop enough support was well in advance of the actual election. If you can't create enough support to give your candidate a fighting chance to win, then asking liberals to throw away their votes and HELP PUT TRUP IN THE WHITE HOUSE is the height of irrespons

 

In case you missed it, the topic was not about Trump or Clinton. It is about the censorship of ideas and the disenfranchisement of anyone that refuses to conform to the coercion of Democrats and Republicans.

 

It is about the end not being justified by immoral means.

 

It's about rejecting manipulation, coercion and cognitive re-framing.

 

It's about selling out moral values in order to increase the probability of winning.

 

It's about liberal media behaving no differently than corporate media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you missed it, the topic was not about Trump or Clinton. It is about the censorship of ideas and the disenfranchisement of anyone that refuses to conform to the coercion of Democrats and Republicans.

I guess YOU must have "missed" my responding by saying that of course your ideas can be discussed.

 

It is about the end not being justified by immoral means.

It's about rejecting manipulation, coercion and cognitive re-framing.

It's about selling out moral values in order to increase the probability of winning.

It's about liberal media behaving no differently than corporate media.

 

So you acknowledge that no one should vote Green this election cycle unless they want Trump in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you acknowledge that no one should vote Green this election cycle unless they want Trump in the White House.

I don't want Trump in the White House. I think he's a nightmare of a candidate. I wish the Democrats had put forth a candidate who I could trust and get enthused about. Unfortunately, they haven't done that, imo.

 

I won't vote for someone I don't like nor trust. Never again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are just going in circles here. I understand your point, and of course you can vote ay way you like. What you can't do is maintain your purity by throwing up your hands and refusing to play.

 

One of those two is going to be President. You should be helping the one you would prefer to be there. By not doing so, you are helping the one you DON'T want to be there.

 

It's just a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are just going in circles here. I understand your point, and of course you can vote ay way you like. What you can't do is maintain your purity by throwing up your hands and refusing to play.

 

One of those two is going to be President. You should be helping the one you would prefer to be there. By not doing so, you are helping the one you DON'T want to be there.

 

It's just a fact.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, Isabel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 44% of registered voters not affiliated with either Republicans or Democrats, a lot of people are being shut out of the discussion.

 

In liberal or progressive media, all ideas and parties should be open for discussion. We are supposed to like and honor alternative choices regardless of their ability to win. We are supposed to value morality and not immoral practicality.

 

When The Green Party is finally given the attention it deserves, it will grow like a Bernie.

Hi, Jah! :D I'm one member of that 44% (registered Independent) and a BernieOrBuster. I posted this in another thread regarding third parties, and will repost here because I think it applies:

 

It sends a powerful statement to the two 'brand name' parties that many Americans are no longer going to submit to whatever lame ass candidate "the party" trots out for us. It sends the message that the DNC and RNC need to provide candidates who are strong in character, experience, and have the issues important to the American voter at heart.

 

It sends the message that if they fail to provide that, many of us can (and will) go elsewhere.

 

I say bring on third parties, fourth parties, and even fifth parties. The more the merrier. When the voters have multiple options, ALL nominees will be forced to be attentive to the needs of their constituents (instead of big money and special interests). It's good for democracy.

I maintain that this election will be decided by the Independent voter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peoples election fear and fervor is understandable. Attachment and fear produces poor judgement.

 

I guess that is why my post was pathologically perceived of as campaign rhetoric either for or against peoples insane attachments and fears.

 

There are some people that would not cast a vote for Hillary Clinton even if Donald Trump strangled and murdered Hillary's VP pick on live television. Due to corrupted moral reasoning development redirected to align with an immoral coercive capitalist world, the reasoning behind this is beyond most peoples comprehension. So, don't worry if you don't get.

 

Personally, I may still decide to vote for Hillary, but she will need to win my vote. I will not vote for her out of fear of Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might suggest that the republican party may be imploding. That might completely destroy the party. If that happens, then there is room for a third party to take the place of the GOP. I would rather have democrats against greens in elections instead of what we have now. Avoiding discussion of the Green's platform is a disservice and may result in the Libertarians taking the place of the GOP. Yes, lots of work needs to happen to make that a possibility, but a blackout on information is certainly not helpful.

 

Here is a link to their platform. You can agree or disagree with as much of it as you like, but I would like it to be at least part of the discussion.

 

https://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, Isabel.

One less vote for Clinton helps Trump. Your not liking Clinton, or not wanting to vote for her doesn't change that fact.

 

Your answer should be, "Yes, I know it helps Trump but I am going to not vote anyway".

 

You are perfectly entitled to do that, of course - just don't try to deny that your action in that case would help Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might suggest that the republican party may be imploding. That might completely destroy the party. If that happens, then there is room for a third party to take the place of the GOP. I would rather have democrats against greens in elections instead of what we have now.

Agree totally.

 

Avoiding discussion of the Green's platform is a disservice and may result in the Libertarians taking the place of the GOP.

 

Who is "avoiding discussion"?

 

Yes, lots of work needs to happen to make that a possibility, but a blackout on information is certainly not helpful.

 

What "blackout"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One less vote for Clinton helps Trump. Your not liking Clinton, or not wanting to vote for her doesn't change that fact.

 

Your answer should be, "Yes, I know it helps Trump but I am going to not vote anyway".

 

You are perfectly entitled to do that, of course - just don't try to deny that your action in that case would help Trump.

I have no intention of helping Trump or Clinton. I don't want either one to be president; therefore I won't vote for either one. :D How's that? Look, I don't like feeling this way. I simply do not trust her.

 

That said, my state votes 65% blue in every presidential election. Trump's got a better shot at winning the Powerball than he does win my state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no intention of helping Trump or Clinton. I don't want either one to be president; therefore I won't vote for either one. :D How's that?

Illogical. Your lack of "intention" doesn't change the facts.

 

Look, I don't like feeling this way. I simply do not trust her.

 

Yes, I know - you've made that quite clear.

 

That said, my state votes 65% blue in every presidential election. Trump's got a better shot at winning the Powerball than he does win my state.

 

Now THAT makes sense. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isabel is 100 percent right. It's time to do our civic duty and vote for the better of the two realistic options. If not, don't bitch and moan when trump gets in and don't try to jump on the bandwagon if Clinton turns out to be a good president. Just stay in your own little green world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isabel is 100 percent right. It's time to do our civic duty and vote for the better of the two realistic options.

There are no "realistic" options within the two "brand name" parties.

 

If not, don't bitch and moan when trump gets in and don't try to jump on the bandwagon if Clinton turns out to be a good president.

Either way, we will not get a president that gives a rat's ass about the average American. I will "bitch and moan" all I choose.

 

Just stay in your own little green world

Wrong. I'm not with the green party. Feel free to try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have no clue. - snip - I suspect many of you have never even voted

 

 

Are you saying you voted for McCain or Romney? Or did you stay home then too? Admit it you're just pissed that your guy didn't get the nomination. Now grow up and do the right thing

 

 

If not, don't bitch and moan when trump gets in and don't try to jump on the bandwagon if Clinton turns out to be a good president. Just stay in your own little green world

 

Prg1 - You are brand new to the forum. Please tone down on your commands to your debate opponents. And stop making self-serving assumptions about those with whom you disagree .... They've been 100% wrong anyway. This is the Liberal's Only Room. If you want more rough and tumble debate, you will find that No Holds Barred will rock your world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree totally.

 

Avoiding discussion of the Green's platform is a disservice and may result in the Libertarians taking the place of the GOP.

 

Who is "avoiding discussion"?

 

Yes, lots of work needs to happen to make that a possibility, but a blackout on information is certainly not helpful.

 

What "blackout"?

The mainstream media has a blackout on the Green platform. I have never heard it mentioned, and even the green party is seldom mentioned. The debates in 2012 had Jill Stein arrested for wanting to participate. Even Thom Hartmann suggested even talking about the Green party is not helpful, and he seldom mentions it.

 

Even in this forum discussion of the green party is infrequent. I don't remember seeing the platform discussed.

 

If you can state places where it was mentioned, talked about, considered, please enlighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mainstream media has a blackout on the Green platform. I have never heard it mentioned, and even the green party is seldom mentioned. The debates in 2012 had Jill Stein arrested for wanting to participate. Even Thom Hartmann suggested even talking about the Green party is not helpful, and he seldom mentions it.

 

Even in this forum discussion of the green party is infrequent. I don't remember seeing the platform discussed.

 

If you can state places where it was mentioned, talked about, considered, please enlighten me.

No one is ever prevented from bringing up any topic here. Are you suggesting people tried to discuss that here and were blocked somehow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your responses. However they seem to be as morally void as the political system itself.

 

I understand people have election fervor and are advocating their lesser evil. So, I also understand people are compelled to waste their time trying to give others unsolicited election advice.

 

However, my issue has nothing to do with the practicality of winning elections. It's strictly moral in nature. It involves the disenfranchisement of voters and ideas, not only in corporate media, but in self-described "Progressive media" as well. It has to do with the monopolization of discussion. It has to do with the hypocrisy of claiming to be liberal or progressive, but shut ideas out if they expose your candidate's inadequate positions on issues. It's about censorship.

 

Think of this as if there were no election happening. The idea that people's moral reasoning changes during an election is frightening lack of integrity. Also, a great hypothesis for a psych dissertation.

 

Can a moral person place practicality above morality and claim their actions are moral?

It's very egocentric and even sociopathic to disrespect someones ideas and affiliations, then ask them for something like their vote. Such actions are not embracing and attractive, they are repulsive. They are the justifying of immoral behavior to achieve an end. Where does such a person draw the line? Where does a moral observer that despises attempted coercion draw the line? How can such people be trusted?

 

What is really telling is that nobody actually put any thought into or provided an answer to the question I originally asked. They went straight to the very election rhetoric that I am complaining drove an otherwise good, mostly progressive, talk show host into thinking and behavior that alienates voters and ideas.

 

It's actually counterproductive on his part. So is advocating for the corrupt two party system that people are demanding be changed - 44% of us. We want a voice too. We outnumber Democrats by 14% and Republicans by 18%. We left those parties - 44% of all registered voters do not affiliate D or R. Yet, minor parties and issues aren't worth discussing? That is a disgustingly hypocritical and undemocratic idea for anyone that calls themselves Democrat, let alone a Progressive.

 

Is anyone surprised 44% of registered voters refuse to call themselves Democrats or Republicans? You can not get us back or drive us to the polls for you by reminding us of how bad the other side is. We left the major parties, not because of the behavior of the other side, but because of the bad behavior of the major party to which we were once registered.

 

Therefore, the only way to satisfy us is to change the party for which you would like us to vote or rejoin. You must improve your party and your candidate. You can not do that by discussing the opposition. It's counterproductive, like shutting us out of your primaries, then trying to fear monger us into voting for who you chose without our input. 44% of registered voters, you should probably start treating us better.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in a politically perfect world, ideals would nullify practicalities. The unavoidable reality is that the two are always in in flux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your responses. However they seem to be as morally void as the political system itself..

Simply going to ignore my question I see, and simply post your cut and paste bullshit. Guess what that says about YOUR morals, cupcake?

 

I understand people have election fervor and are advocating their lesser evil. So, I also understand people are compelled to waste their time trying to give others unsolicited election advice.However, my issue has nothing to do with the practicality of winning elections. It's strictly moral in nature.

 

LOLOL. What a self-congratulatory pile of crap.

 

It involves the disenfranchisement of voters and ideas, not only in corporate media, but in self-described "Progressive media" as well. It has to do with the monopolization of discussion. It has to do with the hypocrisy of claiming to be liberal or progressive, but shut ideas out if they expose your candidate's inadequate positions on issues. It's about censorship.

 

Again and again you whine and wail about your "ideas" being blacked out and censored and shut down here, and yet you can never ever ever cite anyone doing any such thing.

Gosh, I wonder what THAT means?

 

Think of this as if there were no election happening. The idea that people's moral reasoning changes during an election is frightening lack of integrity.

 

It does no such thing, you pompous asshole.

 

Also, a great hypothesis for a psych dissertation.

 

Your feeble attempts to deceive and manipulate people with this flaccid bullshit certainly is.

 

Can a moral person place practicality above morality and claim their actions are moral?

 

Liberals are doing no such thing, liar.

 

It's very egocentric and even sociopathic to disrespect someones ideas and affiliations,

 

Yeah, you certainly are doing that by telling people they are "morally void" and lacking integrity. If you are already aware that you are egocentric and sociopathic, why aren't you doing something about it?

 

then ask them for something like their vote. Such actions are not embracing and attractive, they are repulsive.

 

Cupcake, you said a mouthful.

 

They are the justifying of immoral behavior to achieve an end. Where does such a person draw the line? Where does a moral observer that despises attempted coercion draw the line? How can such people be trusted?

 

No one is doing any such thing, lying con stooge. Well, except YOU, of course.

 

What is really telling is that nobody actually put any thought into or provided an answer to the question I originally asked.

 

LOL. I pointed out the false premise of your specious "question", that ideas were somehow being blocked here. Now you lie because your trick failed you.

 

They went straight to the very election rhetoric that I am complaining drove an otherwise good, mostly progressive, talk show host into thinking and behavior that alienates voters and ideas.

 

Another lie - I went straight to pointing out the lie that your dishonest "question" was based on. Now you run away from that and chant your talking points. Good plan.

 

It's actually counterproductive on his part. So is advocating for the corrupt two party system that people are demanding be changed - 44% of us. We want a voice too. We outnumber Democrats by 14% and Republicans by 18%. We left those parties - 44% of all registered voters do not affiliate D or R. Yet, minor parties and issues aren't worth discussing? That is a disgustingly hypocritical and undemocratic idea for anyone that calls themselves Democrat, let alone a Progressive.

 

You really have been well trained to stay on script, haven't you. No matter what anyone says to you, you simply ignore it and just keep repeating your cut and paste propaganda.

 

Is anyone surprised 44% of registered voters refuse to call themselves Democrats or Republicans? You can not get us back or drive us to the polls for you by reminding us of how bad the other side is. We left the major parties, not because of the behavior of the other side, but because of the bad behavior of the major party to which we were once registered.Therefore, the only way to satisfy us is to change the party for which you would like us to vote or rejoin. You must improve your party and your candidate. You can not do that by discussing the opposition. It's counterproductive, like shutting us out of your primaries, then trying to fear monger us into voting for who you chose without our input. 44% of registered voters, you should probably start treating us better.

 

Trump is not going to win, no matter how much or how hard you lie for him. The real question here is how can someone like you be so morally void and lacking in integrity that you would spend all this energy actively trying to destroy America.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is ever prevented from bringing up any topic here. Are you suggesting people tried to discuss that here and were blocked somehow?

I see you can't cite a location where the Green party platform is discussed. Instead you try to claim it isn't prohibited, therefore no problem. The mainstream media could, if they so desired, talk about anything they wanted, except of course they can only talk about things the ownership of the media wants presented, otherwise they are out of a job.

 

No, your inability to cite anyone talking about the Green party platform suggests that while the blackout might not be formalized, it certainly exists for all practicality.

 

The wealthy have the power to select the candidates, and they selected Trump and Clinton. Trump is such an unattractive candidate that no thoughtful person would vote for him. That leaves Hillary, who was selected by the rich to represent their interests over ours. Thus we get no representation no matter who we vote for. The candidate choice leaves us voting for someone strongly against our interests. This is an untenable choice.

 

Without an educated public you can't have a democracy. Our media, our school are not preparing people to vote, thus we do not have an educated public, so for all practical purposes we do not have a democracy.

 

Perhaps there is some secret reason the Green party platform is not discussed, but neither are most of the issues. I believe it is clear that without even a discussion of the important issues of the day, proper voting is impossible.

 

Your suggestion to vote for Hillary, despite the damage she would do to most people, is simply not realistic. It comes more like a demand that people give their money to the rich and if you don't like it, too bad. Instead of pushing people away, why not work to get Hillary to support the public instead of just the very very rich. If Hillary wants to support only the rich, why doesn't she become a republican?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote two posts on Thom Hartman's message board last night. However, they were removed and my thoughts were censored. I will do my best to recreate them.

 

Background:

 

Last Night (7-21-16) on his show The Big Picture, Thom Hartmann expressed his opinion that since the Green Party, Libertarian Party and other minor political parties can not win, they are not worth the time to discuss.

 

"Frankly the reason why I haven't been paying much attention to either the Green Party or the Libertarian Party is because their candidates are not going to become president" (Hartmann). He later refers to minor political parties as "clubs".

 

Hartmann then goes on to express that he would love to see a revitalized Green Party that is doing a lot of grassroots work on every level from dog catcher on up. Hartmann said he knows there are several dozen elected Green Party officials across the country. He said he would like to see more of that.

 

However, Hartman then says because this presidential election is very consequential, any energy put in to minor political parties is "a waste of time".

 

My following commentary was censored and removed from his discussion forum. I guess since he owns it, he can decide what is allowed on it. How Progressive of him:

 

Censored Commentary:

 

On the Big Picture as well as on his radio show today, Hartmann presented the opinion that since they can't win, discussing the Green Party, Libertarian Party or any other minor political party in America is simply a waste of time. He calls them "clubs".

 

This is regressive thinking. It encloses the major parties in bubbles and ensures they will never really change, particularly in actual governance. It shields them from new ideas. Worst of all it ignores those voters that are attracted to the policies of minor parties. So, with this philosophy, Hartmann shuts out people and ideas with willful ignorance. Quite regressive indeed.

 

With 44% of registered voters not affiliated with either Republicans or Democrats, a lot of people are being shut out of the discussion.

In liberal or progressive media, all ideas and parties should be open for discussion. We are supposed to like and honor alternative choices regardless of their ability to win. We are supposed to value morality and not immoral practicality.

 

When The Green Party is finally given the attention it deserves, it will grow like a Bernie.

 

I live in the first and only community in America that has ever had a Green Party town council. Not a single council member, but the majority vote. We were the first community in the nation to ban the growth of ANY type of GMO within city limits (except for university research in controlled conditions). We were the first community in California to own a community forest. My entire county voted 68% for Sanders in the primary and will likely be won by Jill Stein.

 

It's not easy being green. But, we are growing like our Redwoods. Soon you will no longer be able to ignore us.

 

The answer to your question is no. The party has the political voice to put ideas in the arena for discussion.

 

In the case of getting any of those ideas given any consideration, you have to cast your vote for the candidate that gives those ideas the best chance, or you have basically censored yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you can't cite a location where the Green party platform is discussed.

I don't have to disprove your silly lies. You wailed that Green party stuff is blocked and blacked out and shut down. It is clear that you are simply lying, as this cowardly and dishonest dodge of yours away from the question illustrates.

 

Instead you try to claim it isn't prohibited, therefore no problem.

 

I am claiming that YOUR claims are bullshit. Every time I ask you to support your claims, you run and dodge and try to change the subject.

 

The mainstream media could, if they so desired, talk about anything they wanted, except of course they can only talk about things the ownership of the media wants presented, otherwise they are out of a job.

 

More empty claims.

 

No, your inability to cite anyone talking about the Green party platform suggests that while the blackout might not be formalized, it certainly exists for all practicality.

 

It suggests nothing of the kind. I see, like all cons, logic is your mortal enemy. Your endless dodging suggests that you are just another paid con whore, obediently trying to convince liberals to waste their votes.

 

The wealthy have the power to select the candidates, and they selected Trump and Clinton. Trump is such an unattractive candidate that no thoughtful person would vote for him. That leaves Hillary, who was selected by the rich to represent their interests over ours. Thus we get no representation no matter who we vote for. The candidate choice leaves us voting for someone strongly against our interests. This is an untenable choice.Without an educated public you can't have a democracy. Our media, our school are not preparing people to vote, thus we do not have an educated public, so for all practical purposes we do not have a democracy.

 

More of the same.

 

Perhaps there is some secret reason the Green party platform is not discussed,

 

Or perhaps no one is that interested in what their platform has to offer. Stein supports HOMEOPATHY, for god's sake.

 

but neither are most of the issues. I believe it is clear that without even a discussion of the important issues of the day, proper voting is impossible.

 

"Important issues of the day" ARE being discussed, you silly little liar.

 

Your suggestion to vote for Hillary, despite the damage she would do to most people,

 

More lies and slander - undoubtedly just as unsupported as your earlier bullshit.

 

is simply not realistic. It comes more like a demand that people give their money to the rich and if you don't like it, too bad. Instead of pushing people away, why not work to get Hillary to support the public instead of just the very very rich. If Hillary wants to support only the rich, why doesn't she become a republican?

 

Your endless lies are irrelevant, and illustrate your complete and utter lack of honesty, integrity or honor. Congratulations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...