|
|
|
|
#1
07-09-2003, 09:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 2004 Election, for Non-Americans
I am somewhat embarassed to admit that I get most of my American news from these here boards. (It comes from having only three local TV channels, and spending my Internet time, well, here.)
I actually prefer to read it here, as I get analysis from many points of view, and I don't have to put up with Bill O'Reilley or commercials. And I think y'all provide pretty thorough coverage so I don't feel I'm missing much. What I am missing, though, is a comprehensive discussion of the November 2004 elections. I've seen some references to the lack of decent Democratic candidates, and support for Bush in his third year as compared with support with other presidents in their third year, and so on, but having missed the initial articles and not having seen CNN I don't really know what's going on. So, talk to me like I have no exposure to American media, and answer this question: Who's going to win the next election? 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
07-09-2003, 09:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'd say it's too early to tell.
|
|
#7
07-09-2003, 11:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here is the situation:
The Democratic party is infamous in recent decades for their internecine primary elections. For some daft reason, they think the best thing to do is to destroy each other as much as possible in the process of picking a Presidential candidate. As for Mr. Dean. He now has a chance, if he can gain more momentum on that "I'm an outsider." schtick he's using.
|
|
#8
07-09-2003, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
cowgirl, you wouldn't have much more useful knowledge if you had spend hours watching CNN or Fox News Channel. Just about every "expert" is lying. The independent pundits mostly say it will be a close election, because they'll look stupid if they wrongly predict a landslide, especially if their choice doesn't even win. Even those Bush supporters who think there will be a big victory are publicly predicting a close election. They want their supporters to be hyped. Every Democrat candidate and his/her supporters say they can or will win.
I don't think it matters much who the Democrats nominate. Kerry, Dean, Lieberman, and Gephardt are all adequately qualified, but not exciting. In particular, I think Dean handles himself well and would do just as well as the other three in a general election. With any of them, the campaign will be a referendum on Bush vs. the general Democratic Party position. Since I'm not a pundit or a politician, I'll go out on a limb and predict a Bush landslide. If I'm wrong, it won't the first time.
|
|
#9
07-09-2003, 11:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
T minus 483 days and counting.
Well, cowgirl, I’m an American, and I’ve lived in this country for most of my life, and have never relinquished citizenship. However, I know better than to rely on many American media sources for news, and mostly rely on the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Sacramento Bee, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer, the Economist, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Le Monde, the Manchester Guardian, Foreign Affairs magazine, Harper’s magazine, the New Yorker magazine, ABC News online, the BBC, and National Public Radio. For starters. And from what I can gather, it’s too early to call the 2004 election. It seems like a question one should be able to answer, since we’re already talking about it, but in America we start talking about who’s going to win a presidential election anywhere from two to five years in advance. As a presidential junkie, things are just getting good for me. By this winter, I’ll be in my glory.
I wish I could tell you, “Yes! Bush will lose by a landslide to Howard Dean, who will cream him by winning 442 electoral votes to Bush’s 96!” But it’s too early now to say anything. Bush could lose a hell of a lot of ground over the next couple of months or gain a hell of a lot of ground, but there are sixteen months left before the election, which is an eternity in politics. Whole fortunes could be reversed and reversed and reversed again by then. That said, gex gex, I think it’s eminently possible that Bush will lose to any of several Democrats, and that Howard Dean could be one of them. When I first heard Dean speak around Christmastime, I was impressed, but I figured, “This guy has no chance at all.” But he’s been gathering support and, more importantly, money. Money is the magic key in American politics, and Dean has hit record fund raising levels, putting him within striking distance of other Democratic contenders, like John Kerry and Richard Gephardt. No one expected him to pull this off, but Dean’s innovative net-based campaign strategy is proving to be a bonanza for him. Personally, I’d say Dean has an actual shot: he’s doing okay in the money department, he’s sufficiently moderate, personable, and is going after Bush with enough zeal that he seems like he’s a real choice. I think a candidate like Dean would translate very well outside of his native Northeast, and I like what the guy is all about. Recently I began campaigning for Dean, in fact; I’m that optimistic.
__________________
"We are in an environment where Republicans talk constantly about class—in a coded way, to be sure—but where Democrats are afraid to bring it up."—Thomas Frank True or Better
|
|
#10
07-09-2003, 11:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dean certainly has a charisma that is woefully lacking in the other condidates. And he's a Governor, not a Congressman like the other main candidates, which seems to be a crtical factor regardless of the party.
And Elucidator thinks the Pubs are nefariously funneling money into his campaign chest since they believe he'll be the easiest one to beat. If you like conspiracy theories, that one is a doozie. But, if the election were held today the latest polls show Bush handilly beating any Dem candidate. Still lots of time for that to change, esp if the economy worsens, some catastrophy occurs in Iraq or there is another major terrorist attack. There's also the Nader factor. If he runs again as a Green, he'll likely ciphon off votes from the Dems, as would Buchanan fromt he Pubs. I'd say wait until this time next year before you start speculating. So much can happen between now and then.
|
|
#11
07-09-2003, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nobody worth listening to is really sure or very confident about who'll win the Democratic nomination or next year's election.
None of the 9 Democratic contenders is terribly impressive, but 6 of them (Dean, Edwards,Gephardt, Graham, Kerry, or Lieberman) could win next year, depending on a host of circumstances that can't be foreseen just yet. Will the economy improve, or will it remain in the doldrums? Will Iraq be stabilized by next year, or will it be looking like a bloody quagmire? Anyone who pretends to know the answers to those questions is a fool- but the answers to those questions could be crucial in determining who gets elected. If things change drastically, on the economic or foreign policy front, it's anyone's guess whatwill happen. But if things DON'T change drastically... I think we're looking at a replay of the 2000 election. Most of the states that went for Al Gore are going to vote for ANY Democrat again, and almost all the states that President Bush won last time will go for him again. There are a few crucial "swing" states (Florida being the most important) that are likely to decide the outcome.
|
|
#13
07-09-2003, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Dean is the former governor of Vermont. Here's his campaign site.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/ As governor, he was fairly conservative, especially fiscally, but he's been running to the left of his past record. He's come out against the war in Iraq, and, as governor, signed into law the bill allowing gay people to enter into domestic partnerships, both of which might prove controversial this election.
|
|
#15
07-09-2003, 12:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You can safely ignore the "If the election were held today ..." questions. It ain't being held today. The set date determines the schedule, and the flow, of the campaigns, unlike in a parliamentary system. A large part of the electorate, enough to swing most elections, doesn't decide until the last few weeks before the primaries, and more decide just before the general election.
Not even the TV pundits, who get paid to spout opinions, will for the most part say what will or won't happen; it's all couched in ifs. And to that extent they're right. Ask again next January and we'll talk. Until then, perhaps you can bring it up with Bricker. He has a bottle of something he's been trying to give away to anyone foolish enough to take a stand this early.
|
|
#16
07-09-2003, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Astorian is right--too many unknowables out there to call the election. We can only speculate on how vastly different Bush would have been as a President had 9/11 not happened. National security has now become very important again, and that's traditionally a Republican preserve; if there's another severe terrorist attack here, Bush will win in a cakewalk unless it can be proven that there was something the Administration could have done to prevent or detect it.
The Supreme Court seems that it'll remain intact next session, but if there's a bruising battle to replace a Justice in the summer of 2004, that could change a lot of things, as everybody will have to state their cases and take sides. I think we'll see a backlash against liberal third-party candidates in this election, as lefties decide that stopping Bush, not making a political point, is more important. There's a visceral hatred of Bush among some on the Left that parallels the visceral hatred of impeached Clinton on the Right. It's kind of amusing. But we'll see if it leads to voting against the guy or just dropping out of the process in disgust. There are a lot of people who dislike Bush because they think he represents a rich hegemony imperious to change, and they may not vote because they think "what difference does it make?" As a Democratic cat myself, I like Kerry but don't liiiiiike! Kerry. But 'tis many a slip between now and November 2004. Also, outside places like this, a lot of Merkuns just aren't paying attention yet. My baby brother, an intelligent guy, couldn't name one Dem candidate, although he did recognize most of the names when I listed them (although I realized I forgot Dennis Kucineck (sp?) As for Dr. Dean, he's pretty cool, a little out there on some issues for me, but sure, I'll give him a good listen. Unfortunately, he has a tendency to speak out which again is cool but...my prediction is he will say something so 'outrageous' or truculent that the mass of voters simply will not be able to bring themselves to forgive him. He'll be the John McCain of the Democrats, which is certainly not the worst thing to be. JMHO. It's exciting, ain't it? 
|
|
#17
07-09-2003, 12:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'll take Howard Dean in a very narrow win.
And I'd even risk Brickers Gambit on it.
|
|
#18
07-09-2003, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: T minus 483 days and counting.
Quote:
|
|
#20
07-09-2003, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If the election were held today, Bush would win, easy.
Good thing the election isn't being held today. 
|
|
#21
07-09-2003, 03:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I heard that all presidents end up winning or losing their second term based on the domestic economy. It seems that the domestic economy is kind of in the shits these days - is he expecting that support for his overseas actions will outweigh this?
Or are these arguments (like "Most of the presidents in the past have had XX% support under these circumstances") along the same lines as Cliff Claven's assertion, based on the numerology of past president's names, that the next president must be named Yelnick McWaWa?
|
|
#22
07-09-2003, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mehitabel said:
Quote:
|
|
#23
07-09-2003, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Presidents tend to be blamed for a bad economy, and credited for a good economy, despite the lack of control the president has over the business cycle.
Yes, the economy is doing poorly--today. Will it be doing poorly a year from now? The likelyhood is that it will be recovering. I don't think it would be wise for the democrats to base their campaign on a bet that the economy will still be in recession in November 2004. I think the Democratic primary comes down to a contest between Howard Dean and John Kerry. Kucinich, Mosley-Braun and Sharpton are comedy relief, not serious. Lieberman is a solid candidate, but...why would the Democrats nominate Bush Lite? If people like Bush, they'll vote for Bush. Edwards is a long shot, too unexperienced. Watch for him in 2008. Graham is too weird, too unexciting. Gephart has solid union support, but he is really a party apparatchik. His time has come and gone. People don't want warmed over protectionism and so-called "industrial policy". Gephart represents brain-dead knee-jerk union populism that went out with Walter Mondale. So we are down to Dean vs. Kerry. I gotta say, Dean is looking more and more likely every day. Kerry is a generic acceptable Democratic candidate. No big pluses, no big minuses. But Dean is something different, more interesting. He is a natural politician, he doesn't have that stunned, confused, hit upside the head by a two-by-four look some of the other candidates have. He's smart, articulate, likeable. His only downside is his current reputation as some sort of left-wing nut. But in my opinion this is undeserved, although Dean certainly doesn't go out of his way to correct the notion. Right now, as a libertarian conservative, Dean is the only Democratic candidate that I could see myself voting for over Bush. The big risk is that Dean will implode over some gaffe or ill-considered statement or position. But...for all his reputation as a tell it like it is speaker, I believe that Dean is actually a very careful person, much like Clinton was. He is relentlessly on message. Somehow...I just don't see him self-destructing like Gary Hart. So finally, guessing he's got at least a 51% chance, I've got to predict Howard Dean as the democratic nominee. The we match Dean vs. Bush. Hard to say. Dean is obviously a better speaker and debater, but will he be able to overcome his (cynical, in my opinion) leftist image from the primaries? Will the electorate choose someone who supports gay civil unions and opposed Iraq? As others have pointed out, the election is Bush's to lose. If Bush flubs between now and next November, Dean has a very good shot. If Bush muddles through, Dean is in trouble. How likely is a Bush implosion? Some might think it is very likely, but it seems to me that they are really HOPING it is likely. Hoping it will happen, and thinking it is likely to happen are two different things. In a year, the WMDgate issue will be settled. Those who already hate Bush will still hate him, but it won't change the electoral map substantially. If the occupation of Iraq is doing well, people will forgive him. If it isn't going well, how he got us into the quagmire will be irrellevant. So bottom line 3:2 odds for Bush if he faces Dean, 2:1 odds if he faces any other candidate. Bush is likely to win, but Dean is the best chance the Democrats have.
|
|
#24
07-09-2003, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://www.campaignline.com/odds/odds.cfm
|
|
#25
07-09-2003, 05:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#27
07-09-2003, 06:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The presidential primaries that will occur in early 2004 are where the parties whittle their contenders down to a single candidate who will receive the party's full backing for the general election in November. With respect to the Democratic party, there are currently nine candidates vying for the privilege of competing against the incumbent president. While primary season technically lasts from January to September, the majority of the nation will have cast its vote by the middle of March. The Democratic presidential candidate will then be formally appointed at the party's convention in Boston the week of July 26. From August through the general election in November it's a dog-eat-dog world of debates, handshaking, baby-kissing, sound bites, overpromising and wooing what both major parties recognize to be a centrist but disenfranchised majority of eligible voters. For historical and situational reasons, I pick Anybody But Bush by a landslide over Bush in 2004. Quote:
First, Republicans are economically libertarian, but they're not very good at managing the economy which is the soft underbelly to their morally totalitarian exterior. As Bush Sr. demonstrated, high approval ratings don't mean much when you're 16 months away from a general election in an economy that has no hope of rebounding to the level of prosperity you started with. Second, the war is starting to blow up in the President's face. During a Senate hearing today, the Secretary of Defense explained that the decision to go to war with Iraq wasn't based on fresh intelligence, but on a "reinterpretation" of existing intelligence in the aftermath of September 11. That puts the administration in the uncomfortable position of having to "reinterpret" exactly what it is our troops are over there dying for, since the intelligence the war was based on has proven to be unreliable. Meanwhile, the Internet seems to have a crush on Howard Dean. He's economically conservative, socially progressive, articulate, personable and untainted by the scandal unfolding in Washington. He also has a reputation for candor, a quality I find irresistable in a political candidate. Look at the list of sites on the left-hand margin of the campaign's official blog -- Dean for Deaf America? DeanPix? Hack4Dean? Christians for Dean? This man's appeal is astonishingly diverse considering he was unheard of a few months ago, and it bodes very well that six months ahead of the earliest primary a consensus Democratic candidate is emerging.
|
|
#29
07-10-2003, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I read a website on Mr. Dean begin this year, and I've send immediately a mail to say that if I was a US citizen, he could count on my vote and my support of his campaign.
I found him refreshing, and realistic. And when reading his comments on the Palestine/Israel issue I discovered a politician who is very well aware of the sensitivities about that issue in the USA yet at the same time not blinded by this at all. I think he could repare what the current government has ruined: the credibility of the US presidency and US government worldwide. Aldebaran.
|
|
#30
07-10-2003, 07:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I'll probably vote Libertarian and watch Bush win a 200 vote landslide. The litigation was interesting. Which reminds me, I have a trunk full of Gore ballots. What should I do with those? If the election were to be held today I'd be really surprised.
|
|
#31
07-10-2003, 07:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Right now I'm sending them all Dean's way.
|
|
#32
07-11-2003, 01:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#33
07-11-2003, 03:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
OK... hypothetical question here...
Assuming... (1) that no campaign funding issues existed and that all potential candidates were on a level playing field... (2) that no internecine political deals were taking place in either the Reupublican or Democratic parties... (3) that TV did NOT play a role in the electoral process and that non-aesthetically pleasing candidates had just as much chance as anyone else... (4) that the Electoral Primary system was scrapped and every existing congressman and senator and stage governor potentially could rise to the top of the totem pole... Who would be the best candidates of all? And why?
|
|
#34
07-11-2003, 09:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's hope Aldebaran at least let the Deanie Babies know what country he was writing from, something he hasn't bothered to do here.
And that word doesn't get out that Dean has his support. How embarassing would that be?Rjung, that was hilarious! But I really do think that, if the election doesn't prove to be the Repub juggernaut some are prediciting, people who would have voted for a thiird-party candidate will hold their noses and pull the lever (or whatever they have to do--in MA I drew a line with a pencil to complete an arrow) for the Dem.
|
|
#35
07-11-2003, 09:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Anybody predicting "landslide" for either party is engaging in wishful thinking.
Look, I'm a card-carrying spokesman for the far Right, and I plan to vote for President Bush next year. I think he'll PROBABLY win, but I don't expect it to be easy, and I don't think it's a lock by any means. He's definitely vulnerable, on several fronts. But while Howard Dean certainly CAN win the Democratic nomination and the 2004 election, he's definitely got his work cut out for him. Dean is an impressive candidate in many ways, but he has serious weaknesses, too. Among them: 1) Unlike Bill Clinton, Dean is utterly lacking in humor and charm. He comes across as a scold (trust me, I recognize the type: we have plenty of charmless scolds on the Right, too!). That sort of thing plays well with True Believers, and Dean can certainly inspire people who already agree with him on all the major issues. But to win an election by a landslide, a candidate needs a lot MORE than the people who share his ideology. He has to attract people who have NO strong ideology, who simply want to vote for a man who gives them a positive, warm feeling. FDR had that quality. Kennedy had that quality. Reagan had it. Bill Clinton definitely had it. But Howard Dean doesn't. MANY people may agree with him, but VERY few will like him. 2) Unlike Bill Clinton, Howard Dean has no chance of carrying any Southern states. 3) Unlike Bill Clinton, Dean will find it nearly impossible to pose as a moderate. He's far too liberal on the social issues, and he's been too quickly/completely embraced by the far left. Now, are these weaknesses necessarily fatal? No. Insurmountable? No. Dean definintely CAN win. Depending on the circumstances in November of 2004, he can DEFINITELY pull together enough electoral votes to win. But he CAN'T win by a landslide.
|
|
#36
07-11-2003, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
One great thng I dislike about USA elections is that most states have a closed primary system. For the presidency, I would prefer an open primary, wherein the top two, three, or four total popular vote candidates, regardless of party, would then run off in the general election, run according to our "Winner Take All" electoral college rules. Yes, even if the top primary candidate gets a majority in the primary. In essence, this would allow for smaller states to still have some say in the presidential election instead of just becoming landfills for New Puke and Kalipornia.
|
|
#37
07-11-2003, 10:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Other than that, intriguing idea, except that the parties themselves would scream at having to back up and allocate funds to more than one guy at once, especially if they had varying messages.
|
|
#38
07-11-2003, 10:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#39
07-11-2003, 11:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Besides the far left embraced Kucinich.
|
|
#40
07-11-2003, 11:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I know, I know, in an ideal world, that wouldn't matter! The issues would be everything! But they're not. Look, you wanna pretend that Dean is a charmer, go right ahead. But you sound a lot like the people who insisted that Bob Dole and Al Gore were "really" personable guys once you got to know them. Lest you think I'm just bashing a liberal I dislike, I hasten to add that Dean DOES have strengths: he comes across as smart, confident, decisive and principled. That's the good news for his supporters. The bad news (and they ignore it at their peril) is that those same qualities can make him seem smug and dogmatic. If you don't think that matters, you're ignoring history. Millions of people who didn't agree with Ronald Reagan on the issues voted for him anyway because they LIKED him (that drove Tip O'Neill nuts!). Similarly, even people who are basically conservative voted for Bill Clinton because they LIKED him (that drove right-wing talk radio hosts nuts!). But Howard Dean lacks that quality completely. Every fiber of Dean's being sends the message that "if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot." And while ideologues in the Democratic Party will find that attitude bracing, it will NOT play with the electorate at large. Lastly, you give John Edwards and Wesley Clark WAAAAY too much credit if you think either man can put a single Southern state in the Democratic column. Frankly, I don't think there's ANYBODY in EITHER party who's popular enough to swing/deliver ANY state from the #2 spot on the ticket.
|
|
#41
07-11-2003, 11:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You mean the far far left, Sterra. Based on the biased sample of this message board, the only leftists who aren't Dean supporters are those that think Dean will lose the general. Are there any leftist non-Dean supporters out there who want to contradict me?
|
|
#42
07-11-2003, 11:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
George's Own Pachyderms
Quote:
Of course, there’s always Bob Graham, the man who’s “running for vice president.” He could surely help Dean in the South. But even if Dean chooses a fellow non-Southern moderate (like Governor Vilsack of Iowa or Senator Durbin of Illinois or Senator Binghaman of New Mexico,) he’d still probably do well in Florida, at least. I agree that Dean does have the humor and charm to do well on the campaign trail, and in front of the TV cameras. Better still, Dean comes across as thoughtful and informed and engaged in the policies that he’s espousing. And the civil unions question will turn out to be a red herring. The Bush/Cheney ticket will lose a lot of traction with civil libertarians if they try to force Governor Dean to take a hard line on issue—because Dean will, forcing Bush to explain just how he feels about gays and the right to privacy. If it becomes an issue to smear Dean with, it’ll backfire—which is why I don’t think it’ll become an issue in the first place. Besides, as Sterra pointed out, Vice President Cheney is in favor of civil unions. Most Americans are tolerant of gays, which puts Bush in a difficult position when it comes to appealing to his far-right supporters and the all-important moderates.
__________________
"We are in an environment where Republicans talk constantly about class—in a coded way, to be sure—but where Democrats are afraid to bring it up."—Thomas Frank True or Better
|
|
#43
07-11-2003, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And if you want to know which countries border the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea you can find that on a World Map. So what's the problem? Is it an other Command of The Group to post your whole personal life and your locations in order to get "accepted" by The Rulers? You people keep amazing me. Quote:
Salaam. A.
|
|
#44
07-11-2003, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#45
07-11-2003, 04:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Deanie Babies" is the nickname for the Dean supporters that I've heard used in New York--if they don't want it to stick (and I wouldn't if I were them) they'd better get cracking on a new name for themselves.
I just turned 39 years old, but you bring out the little kid in me! Did you receive "a decent reply?"
|
|
#46
07-11-2003, 04:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dogface, I don't follow how this would protect the smaller states. I mean, if half the CA voters vote for, say, Lieberman, and every single voter in VD, VT, and MT voted for Dean, by your system wouldn't only Lieberman go to the General Runoff anyway?
Not to mention the nightmare of counting it--we screwed it up last time with only two candidates.
|
|
#47
07-12-2003, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am not voting.
Whoever the "people in power" want in will be put in. Maybe folks are starting to realize that recently. But I encourage others not to vote. Both candidates will do as they are told. Though i may write in someone.... Conan O'Brien?
|
|
#48
07-12-2003, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The fact that the Democrats seem to feel that they're entitled to the any vote that is not for Bush (witness the Nader comments) isn't going to help them a lot either. Whining that Nader voters cost them the last election without attempting to do anything about Nader voters' issues is not, IMO, the best strategy for winning over Nader voters.
|
|
#49
07-12-2003, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, OK, but isn't one of Nader's main points that it doesn't matter which of the two main parties you vote for? So why should the Dems run the risk of alienating their mainstream by courting voters who *by definition* do not believe it's any use to vote for them?
<boy, do I sound kvetchy in this thread! But I do have questions...>
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
