• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-Mossad Head: Russia Ran Trump for President

You are aware that if Hillary wasn't so lazy, ceding to Trump, letting Trump both outwork and out campaign her by a 116 campaign visits/stops to 71 for Hillary between 1 Sep 2016 through 8 Nov 2016, it wouldn't have mattered one iota what Russia did or didn't do?

It's less the number of stops, and more the fact that she just about ignored a few key swing states that went for Obama assuming they'd go for her too. She lost by 20-50k votes or so in those few states if memory serves. Would've flipped the election if she had poured energy in. I remember reading reports about despairing ground operations in those states that were just about making it up as they went along. The campaign didn't devote resources to them.

I found it blindingly foolish behavior for a Clinton campaign.



Then there was Hillary's ho hum campaign, completely lacking energy and enthusiasm. He inept campaign strategy, her whole lackadaisical attitude toward running for president. Her complete inattention to the so called blue wall states, her concentration putting in time, energy and money into winning states like Georgia, Arizona and Utah. Just so she could boast she received more electoral votes than Obama.

Then there was the matter of the DNC and state Democratic Party leaders jury rigging the primaries in her favor. That made Sanders supporters angry. All these things were directly under Hillary's control. Hillary lost the election by taking the election for granted, in the bag, that she didn't have to work at all in an attempt to be elected.

Blame it on Russia if you must, but it was Hillary's actions, inactions, her decisions that even allowed this race to become close. It shouldn't have been. Hillary lost it herself, Trump didn't win it. Hillary gave it to him.

It's hard to say it's "not Russia" though. All of these things combined. I doubt the precise effect of social media echo-chambers passing around disinformation propaganda that is anti-Clinton could be properly measured or extrapolated, when all these other factors went into the pot. I don't see how anyone can conclude the Russian campaign definitely did not affect the result, perhaps even that it definitely did not fix the result.

The bottom line is, they went in for Trump in a close election. It didn't have to be a close election, but yes, all sorts of things were bad with regard to Clinton and her campaign. So it was close. The closer the campaign, the more a disinformation campaign can matter. How much it matters....well..... that's down to all sorts of polling and modeling and a bit of guesstimation.

(There is the separate question of whether the propaganda had a stronger effect when aimed at the people who would become Trump's base during the GOP primary phase).





The other bottom line is: no matter what "meddling" or even specifically "election meddling" we've done, it is very bad to have someone else meddling in our elections. National security trumps charges of hypocrisy in my book.
 
You're dreaming the White Privilege fantasy. You've got two years tops to enjoy your fantasy. Then again, what would it matter to somebody living in the "mountains of Panana" or quite possibly St Petersburg! You know...the one that is not in Florida or even in this hemisphere.

And you are dreaming your everyone gets to dominate white people solely because they were born white dream... that's just, well, nuts, bro. Anti MLK, jr, anti American.

You see, in America, everyone is to be treated equally, that is what our side is for...

You right there just showed us your exposed ass ...and what your side is actually for. Americans, all real and true Americans of all races, creeds, colors, ethnicities, religions and note religious understand that.

But you don't. Ever even wonder why?

And you lefties seem terribly upset at my freedom as an American to go out and create my own style utopia anywhere in the world I so choose...

Just why is that? Jealous? You should be, my life is absolutely wonderful. Oh, and please learn to spell my country of chosen residence properly, please... its not like its hard to do.
 
And you are dreaming your everyone gets to dominate white people solely because they were born white dream... that's just, well, nuts, bro. Anti MLK, jr, anti American.

You see, in America, everyone is to be treated equally, that is what our side is for...

You right there just showed us your exposed ass ...and what your side is actually for. Americans, all real and true Americans of all races, creeds, colors, ethnicities, religions and note religious understand that.

But you don't. Ever even wonder why?

And you lefties seem terribly upset at my freedom as an American to go out and create my own style utopia anywhere in the world I so choose...

Just why is that? Jealous? You should be, my life is absolutely wonderful. Oh, and please learn to spell my country of chosen residence properly, please... its not like its hard to do.

I am for the continuation of a Constitutional Republic in America.

I am against lawlessness and oppression in and by America.

The "other side" as you say is not for any of that, in the main choosing white privilege instead. You are going to find that even a significant number of White Americas are not with you. Plus I fail to understand why we should give a rats behind what you think. YOU LEFT US or you were never one of us in the first place!
 
Blame it on Russia if you must, but it was Hillary's actions, inactions, her decisions that even allowed this race to become close.

It's not about blame. That's not the issue. The issue is that Trump is beholden to a foreign adversary. We already know that Russia knew that he lied to the American people about his Moscow tower deal. That meant they had and probably still have leverage over him.

It's worth investigating whether Trump has more business relationships with Russia that he's been hiding.
 
How stupid does one have to be to still believe Trump was chosen by Putin to do his bidding? Review what's actually occurred since January, 2017; Trump has been tough on Russia, while routinely rewarding Israel with privileges unmatched by any other American President in recent memory.

How stupid do you have to be to believe Trump has been tough on Putin? Do you remember Trump praising Putin? Has Trump ever criticized Putin? Do you remember Trump asking that Russia be allowed back in the G8?

 
Last edited:
I am for the continuation of a Constitutional Republic in America.

I am against lawlessness and oppression in and by America.

The "other side" as you say is not for any of that, in the main choosing white privilege instead. You are going to find that even a significant number of White Americas are not with you. Plus I fail to understand why we should give a rats behind what you think. YOU LEFT US or you were never one of us in the first place!
Pffffttttt...

Bro, you were just caught with your pants down trying to poop exclusively on white people. Good thing your posts are always so similarly constipated.

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Pffffttttt...

Bro, you were just caught with your pants down trying to poop exclusively on white people. Good thing your posts are always so similarly constipated.

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

You don't have any idea what or who I am and opposing White Preference employed as a political and governmental tool is not "pooping on white people", not exclusively or in any other way. A good many if not most white people IN THIS COUNTRY do not support White Preference used as a political or governmental or even societal tool as they understand what diversity has actually meant to this country. But you wouldn't know that, WOULD YOU?
 
How stupid do you have to be to believe Trump has been tough on Putin? Do you remember Trump praising Putin? Has Trump ever criticized Putin? Do you remember Trump asking that Russia be allowed back in the G8?



I'm talking about what he's actually done, not the 8 second sound bites the media loves to play because it helps them sell soap commercials. Even liberal NPR admitted that what I'm saying has validity-

"There's never been a president as tough on Russia as I have been," Trump told reporters on Wednesday.

That might sound like hyperbole, but in this case, there's actually some basis for the president's boast.

"When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era," said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Take military spending: Trump sought to add $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2018 to the European Deterrence Initiative — a military effort to deter Russian aggression that was initially known as the European Reassurance Initiative. That's a 41 percent increase from the last year of the Obama administration. The president also agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine — a step that Obama resisted. And Trump gave U.S. forces in Syria more leeway to engage with Russian troops.

"Those loosened rules of engagement have resulted in direct military clashes with Russian militants and mercenaries on the ground, actually resulting in one incident in hundreds of casualties on the Russian side," Vajdich said.

The administration has also imposed sanctions on dozens of Russian oligarchs and government officials. And Trump has aggressively promoted U.S. energy exports, although so far that hasn't created much competition for Russia's oil and gas.

"Russian gas sales to Europe last year were at record levels," said Ed Chow, who studies energy and national security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Russians will always have a cost advantage. And if they want to protect market share, all they have to do is lower the price."

"There's a real disconnect between the president's words and the underlying policy," said Richard Fontaine, president of the Center for a New American Security."


https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630659379/is-trump-the-toughest-ever-on-russia
 
I'm talking about what he's actually done, not the 8 second sound bites the media loves to play because it helps them sell soap commercials. Even liberal NPR admitted that what I'm saying has validity-

""There's never been a president as tough on Russia as I have been," Trump told reporters on Wednesday.

That might sound like hyperbole, but in this case, there's actually some basis for the president's boast.

"When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era," said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Take military spending: Trump sought to add $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2018 to the European Deterrence Initiative — a military effort to deter Russian aggression that was initially known as the European Reassurance Initiative. That's a 41 percent increase from the last year of the Obama administration. The president also agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine — a step that Obama resisted. And Trump gave U.S. forces in Syria more leeway to engage with Russian troops.

"Those loosened rules of engagement have resulted in direct military clashes with Russian militants and mercenaries on the ground, actually resulting in one incident in hundreds of casualties on the Russian side," Vajdich said.

The administration has also imposed sanctions on dozens of Russian oligarchs and government officials. And Trump has aggressively promoted U.S. energy exports, although so far that hasn't created much competition for Russia's oil and gas.

"Russian gas sales to Europe last year were at record levels," said Ed Chow, who studies energy and national security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Russians will always have a cost advantage. And if they want to protect market share, all they have to do is lower the price."

"There's a real disconnect between the president's words and the underlying policy," said Richard Fontaine, president of the Center for a New American Security."

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/20/630659379/is-trump-the-toughest-ever-on-russia


In Red: Nope, considering that the Soviet Union was a bunch of satellite states controlled controlled from the Kremlin, Ronald Reagan was much tougher on Russia. Not even close.

Blue: Sanctions imposed by the Congress and resisted by Trump for as long as he could resist them.

in Green: Then if that is true Trump should stop whining about Germany buying from Russia. We have not been able to meet Russia's price ever nor even get close. So Trump should stop flapping his lips. As usual he is only moving hot air.

Purple: That was the result of an insane, suicidal attack mission on US forces by Mercenaries hired by Russia. Do you really think Putin cares what happens to a few hundred Mercenaries if there is a geopolitical angle in it for him?

Rose: Wonderful except Putin does not have designs on military conquest of Western Europe. He wants to recreate the old Soviet Union and he wants sea ports on or near the Persian gulf.
 
Last edited:
You're dreaming the White Privilege fantasy. You've got two years tops to enjoy your fantasy.

And what an amazing privilege it is, to provide a country of superior living standards to minorities who brag about our coming minority status, and the 'revenge' they're going to wreak on us. What was that bull**** you said about white people recognizing that diversity is our strength?
 
And what an amazing privilege it is, to provide a country of superior living standards to minorities who brag about our coming minority status, and the 'revenge' they're going to wreak on us. What was that bull**** you said about white people recognizing that diversity is our strength?

In fact I have no fear of this so called "revenge" nonsense that must be coming from the silo bound Right. I have no reason to believe any of that revenge nonsense. But I can well believe their are other Whites people in this country that do. In fact, there are those that have stoked that fear among themselves forever, since slavery.
 
You don't have any idea what or who I am and opposing White Preference employed as a political and governmental tool is not "pooping on white people", not exclusively or in any other way. A good many if not most white people IN THIS COUNTRY do not support White Preference used as a political or governmental or even societal tool as they understand what diversity has actually meant to this country. But you wouldn't know that, WOULD YOU?
You folks use the word "Diversity" simply as a bludgeon tool... you have no real desire for that. We know, you know it, everyone now knows it.

We on this side choose to use the Dr. MLK, jr I have a Dream Creed. Look it up, it just might astound you.
 
In fact I have no fear of this so called "revenge" nonsense that must be coming from the silo bound Right.

You didn't chose to disclose your location for fellow board members to see either. So I'm likely to assume you're another brave proponent of multiculturalism living in a non-diverse area, as so many others are who share your opinions.

I have no reason to believe any of that revenge nonsense.
But I can well believe their are other Whites people in this country that do. In fact, there are those that have stoked that fear among themselves forever, since slavery.

You aren't versed in the subject you're speaking of then. Minorities have talked about getting revenge for decades, and not a week goes by without some SJW at Slate or HuffPo uploading an article about the declining birthrates of whites, coupled with the latest 'science' which says having children is a bad idea.
 
You didn't chose to disclose your location for fellow board members to see either. So I'm likely to assume you're another brave proponent of multiculturalism living in a non-diverse area, as so many others are who share your opinions.



You aren't versed in the subject you're speaking of then. Minorities have talked about getting revenge for decades, and not a week goes by without some SJW at Slate or HuffPo uploading an article about the declining birthrates of whites, coupled with the latest 'science' which says having children is a bad idea.

Wrong...though the Russian IRA spits that venom constantly. You either are them or are listening to them.
 
It's less the number of stops, and more the fact that she just about ignored a few key swing states that went for Obama assuming they'd go for her too. She lost by 20-50k votes or so in those few states if memory serves. Would've flipped the election if she had poured energy in. I remember reading reports about despairing ground operations in those states that were just about making it up as they went along. The campaign didn't devote resources to them.

I found it blindingly foolish behavior for a Clinton campaign.





It's hard to say it's "not Russia" though. All of these things combined. I doubt the precise effect of social media echo-chambers passing around disinformation propaganda that is anti-Clinton could be properly measured or extrapolated, when all these other factors went into the pot. I don't see how anyone can conclude the Russian campaign definitely did not affect the result, perhaps even that it definitely did not fix the result.

The bottom line is, they went in for Trump in a close election. It didn't have to be a close election, but yes, all sorts of things were bad with regard to Clinton and her campaign. So it was close. The closer the campaign, the more a disinformation campaign can matter. How much it matters....well..... that's down to all sorts of polling and modeling and a bit of guesstimation.

(There is the separate question of whether the propaganda had a stronger effect when aimed at the people who would become Trump's base during the GOP primary phase).





The other bottom line is: no matter what "meddling" or even specifically "election meddling" we've done, it is very bad to have someone else meddling in our elections. National security trumps charges of hypocrisy in my book.

I don't discount Russia, by no means. It's just that Hillary had so many things under her control, she couldn't control Russia, but seemed lackadaisical towards them. Shall I say, lacking the fire in the belly. Bill tried to tell Hillary about a week before the election about how she might lose Michigan. His advice, pull out of Iowa, she wasn't going to win there and devote those assets to Michigan. Hillary refused. You're correct there.

For Trump to win everything had to go perfect. The moon, the sun, the planets, the stars all had to align perfectly and they did. I went to bed around 10PM on election night knowing Hillary would be our next president. I wonder how many others did the same thing. I couldn't see how she could lose.

There's another aspect to her loss. Sanders supporters who were peeved at the DNC and Democratic state party leaders for jury rigging the primaries in Hillary's favor. Who knows how many stayed home? What we do know is Sanders supporters who went to the polls voted for her by a 75-12 margin over Trump with 15% voting third party. Compare that to the Democratic base who went to Hillary 89-8 with 3% voting third party. I think Newsweek summed up Sanders supporters nicely.

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

Her loss was over a lot of things she had control over, some she didn't. It was a combination of a lot of things from Sanders supporters, to ignoring the so called blue wall states, a ho hum, inept campaign, trying to win more electoral votes than Obama did by devoting a lot of time, energy, money into Georgia, Utah and Arizona. Then too Russia plus a lot of other things.

And yes, we have meddled in a lot of other countries elections. It's just at times, some days, not others, that I get so tired of everyone blaming Hillary's loss on Russia and Russia alone. Hillary with a little gumption and perhaps listening to her political savvy husband would have made anything Russia did irrelevant to the outcome.

2016 will be one of those elections historians and political pundits will be forever trying to figure out Hillary lost.
 
You didn't chose to disclose your location for fellow board members to see either. So I'm likely to assume you're another brave proponent of multiculturalism living in a non-diverse area, as so many others are who share your opinions.



You aren't versed in the subject you're speaking of then. Minorities have talked about getting revenge for decades, and not a week goes by without some SJW at Slate or HuffPo uploading an article about the declining birthrates of whites, coupled with the latest 'science' which says having children is a bad idea.

Your avatar is this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldiers_of_Odin
 
Wrong...though the Russian IRA spits that venom constantly. You either are them or are listening to them.

Prior to the election of 2016, being a 'Stormfronter' was the favorite accusation of liberals against those they couldn't brow beat into marching to the their beat of cultural suicide. Now I'm accused of being a Russian operative. In another time and place you'd have accused me of being bourgeoisie and reported me to the proper authorities!
 
I don't discount Russia, by no means. It's just that Hillary had so many things under her control, she couldn't control Russia, but seemed lackadaisical towards them. Shall I say, lacking the fire in the belly. Bill tried to tell Hillary about a week before the election about how she might lose Michigan. His advice, pull out of Iowa, she wasn't going to win there and devote those assets to Michigan. Hillary refused. You're correct there.

For Trump to win everything had to go perfect. The moon, the sun, the planets, the stars all had to align perfectly and they did. I went to bed around 10PM on election night knowing Hillary would be our next president. I wonder how many others did the same thing. I couldn't see how she could lose.

There's another aspect to her loss. Sanders supporters who were peeved at the DNC and Democratic state party leaders for jury rigging the primaries in Hillary's favor. Who knows how many stayed home? What we do know is Sanders supporters who went to the polls voted for her by a 75-12 margin over Trump with 15% voting third party. Compare that to the Democratic base who went to Hillary 89-8 with 3% voting third party. I think Newsweek summed up Sanders supporters nicely.

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

Her loss was over a lot of things she had control over, some she didn't. It was a combination of a lot of things from Sanders supporters, to ignoring the so called blue wall states, a ho hum, inept campaign, trying to win more electoral votes than Obama did by devoting a lot of time, energy, money into Georgia, Utah and Arizona. Then too Russia plus a lot of other things.

And yes, we have meddled in a lot of other countries elections. It's just at times, some days, not others, that I get so tired of everyone blaming Hillary's loss on Russia and Russia alone. Hillary with a little gumption and perhaps listening to her political savvy husband would have made anything Russia did irrelevant to the outcome.

2016 will be one of those elections historians and political pundits will be forever trying to figure out Hillary lost.

I definitely know some that did stay home. I almost stayed home myself - but not because I liked Sanders. And on that subject, I am quite bitter about people who either sat at home or protest-voted for Trump because of the Sanders debacle, then started complaining about Trump. To them I say: Principles cost money; don't complain about the price you chose to pay.


At any rate, I think we need to seriously watch and counter Russia. They seem to want a second but softer Cold War, where we're fighting for influence not global domination. And I'm wary of anything that appears to potentially downplay the threat. At the same time, a WWIII scenario with Russia is also out of the question ....not unless they try taking Europe or some such.


The reference to the last bottom line I mentioned didn't come from anything you said, but more from other things said about the issue generally. Namely, that since we have certainly meddled in other countries in many ways, we don't really have standing to complain about Russia doing it to us.

Romney said they were our "greatest geopolitical foe" in 2012. I'm not sure "greatest" is entirely accurate but they're definitely up there, and now we have evidence they've been meddling in a number of elections, also in other countries. We know who Putin is. I doubt they want a direct hot confrontation. They certainly won't invade or do anything like that. On the other hand, it would be an unspeakable nightmare for anyone to yet again attempt to invade Russia. So they're pretty secure militarily. They're still in a position where they can be aggressive in some ways, but not others. Their leaders certainly seem to want to cause some level of destabilization or other difficulty here. If we don't want to respond hotly, we should definitely pay close and serious attention to how they managed it, then fight it (within the limits of free speech, etc., of course).



I'm quite wary of Russia now - more than previously - but I'm also quite bitter about the way things have played out. Suddenly we've got a bunch of people on the left saying "[hey, Russia is trying to screw us and maybe we should stop that]" while a bunch of people on the right suddenly started saying things like "[oh, look who are the warmongers now! Russia's not a threat. The only reason you're mad is that Hillary lost!]"

I'm not saying you said that sort of thing, but it a thing that is happening that I do not like...
 
Prior to the election of 2016, being a 'Stormfronter' was the favorite accusation of liberals against those they couldn't brow beat into marching to the their beat of cultural suicide. Now I'm accused of being a Russian operative. In another time and place you'd have accused me of being bourgeoisie and reported me to the proper authorities!

Wrong again. I said you either are them or are listening to them. Hardly matters which because YOU ARE WRONG!
 
It's not about blame. That's not the issue. The issue is that Trump is beholden to a foreign adversary. We already know that Russia knew that he lied to the American people about his Moscow tower deal. That meant they had and probably still have leverage over him.

It's worth investigating whether Trump has more business relationships with Russia that he's been hiding.

Whom I made that reply to was putting all the blame for Hillary's loss on Russia. Yes, certain investigations are warranted. I read the other day where the new Democratically controlled house is planning around 30 different investigation into Trump. I'd be very careful about those, all those investigations may very well end up looking like a political vendetta against Trump. It's here Pelosi will have her hands full. She needs to determine which investigations are warranted and which are not. Proceed only with those with merit. If not, up pops the political vendetta card which might in the end make Trump look like a victim, gain sympathy from the public.

I know, Trump is one hard man to like. He is very easy to dislike. Him coming across as a victim probably sounds far fetched. Yet, it could happen. Independents are finicky, their perspective on politics and happenings in Washington isn't all R or D. It isn't being pro or anti Trump. Although a majority of independents dislike Trump today, they were for him on election day, at least a plurality was. That could change. Just a word of advise. The Democrats have a strong hand, just don't overplay it.
 
I definitely know some that did stay home. I almost stayed home myself - but not because I liked Sanders. And on that subject, I am quite bitter about people who either sat at home or protest-voted for Trump because of the Sanders debacle, then started complaining about Trump. To them I say: Principles cost money; don't complain about the price you chose to pay.


At any rate, I think we need to seriously watch and counter Russia. They seem to want a second but softer Cold War, where we're fighting for influence not global domination. And I'm wary of anything that appears to potentially downplay the threat. At the same time, a WWIII scenario with Russia is also out of the question ....not unless they try taking Europe or some such.


The reference to the last bottom line I mentioned didn't come from anything you said, but more from other things said about the issue generally. Namely, that since we have certainly meddled in other countries in many ways, we don't really have standing to complain about Russia doing it to us.

Romney said they were our "greatest geopolitical foe" in 2012. I'm not sure "greatest" is entirely accurate but they're definitely up there, and now we have evidence they've been meddling in a number of elections, also in other countries. We know who Putin is. I doubt they want a direct hot confrontation. They certainly won't invade or do anything like that. On the other hand, it would be an unspeakable nightmare for anyone to yet again attempt to invade Russia. So they're pretty secure militarily. They're still in a position where they can be aggressive in some ways, but not others. Their leaders certainly seem to want to cause some level of destabilization or other difficulty here. If we don't want to respond hotly, we should definitely pay close and serious attention to how they managed it, then fight it (within the limits of free speech, etc., of course).



I'm quite wary of Russia now - more than previously - but I'm also quite bitter about the way things have played out. Suddenly we've got a bunch of people on the left saying "[hey, Russia is trying to screw us and maybe we should stop that]" while a bunch of people on the right suddenly started saying things like "[oh, look who are the warmongers now! Russia's not a threat. The only reason you're mad is that Hillary lost!]"

I'm not saying you said that sort of thing, but it a thing that is happening that I do not like...

I had a grand daughter going to Kennesaw State who was a big Sanders supporters. She refused to vote. I think her words was she couldn't vote for Wall Street Hillary or the racist Trump. I tried like heck to get her to vote third party to no avail. To officially register her vote against both like I did. At that time I personally didn't give a hoot who won between Clinton and Trump, I detested both of them and voted that way. Me and some 9 million others who registered officially our disdain for the choices provided by the two major parties.

I think I have more worries about China than Russia. Putin is ex-KGB and as such is what I expected. Any divisions he can create in the U.S. works to his advantage and that includes political. We really have become quite divided, that works well for both Russia and China. There was a time when it was said, politics ends at the waters edge. We stayed pretty much united during the cold war. External threat there. Perhaps we don't recognize the external threats anymore as we are too engrossed on our internal politics, the R vs. the D. Our politics has changed greatly over the last 20 or so years. It seems to me we have entered an era of political party first, country further down the line. I know, it's a cliche. The thing is I didn't have that feeling 15 to 20 years ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom