Trump enters the stage

Elevate form over function to get at less easily articulable truths.

Re: Trump enters the stage

Postby Guide » Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:45 pm

“Now the judge is no longer God but the people.”


Sloterdijk/Zizek is shallow, and has no cosmic sense. The discussion of myself, Socrates, Plato, Nietzsche and Heidegger, is another region. They say many things that are correct, but gibt keine Denken, gibt keine Wirklichkeit. Reality and thought are the same. Shallow people never feel this. only shallowness calls such a cosmic sense “idealism”, as though it were half of a “theory”.

God is “überflüssig”, but only because the most spiritual will to power, der geistigste, is living, i.e., open and not perfectible.

The mystical individualism of post-Borgia Christendom, makes the text into an idol, to replace the Pope. No “truth in interpretation” is to be found, even amidst the positive appropriative act of be the “flesh of human weakness”, the un-ziel in toto announces itself as irreconcilable.


Kriemhild, divine virtue, under a fragrance of blood and breath. Never the malignancy of a “meno” , frustrated politically, in infinitely intense resentment. Ergo: Heidegger sagt: Philosophy is Over. It will not be reborn. The ground of decision is prior to speech, nothing can be deliberative. weigh well, with respect to “value”.

Ergo: amusement, relief, openness, lightness of spirit,


--

Ergo: such geist as “Liberté, Égalité, Fragilité”, such geist which is more than gesellshaft, more than mere public agreement, “equality of outcome” has no GOD, ergo, is untaken decision of unconsciousness. Ergo, it is willed by the will, and not time.

thumos is only a talk of the politically ambitious, but the rest of the mind, soul, or Platonic psychology is equally in play. Since Schmitt the notion of politics has lost any gravity and become vague since all-comprehensive.

the meaning of demos goes back to Linear B, and remains profoundly misted, adding -arcy creeps into the range of the confussin which for idiots like Meno is undecptavly known in the imbecile unconsciousness of the everyday.
Guide
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Trump enters the stage

Postby Guide » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:09 am

NOTE: Sadly, meno is still practicing her crude political propaganda.
Guide
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am

Re: Trump enters the stage

Postby Meno_ » Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:34 pm

Sloterdijk/Zizek is shallow, and has no cosmic sense. The discussion of myself, Socrates, Plato, Nietzsche and Heidegger, is another region. They say many things that are correct, but gibt keine Denken, gibt keine Wirklichkeit. Reality and thought are the same. Shallow people never feel this. only shallowness calls such a cosmic sense “idealism”, as though it were half of a “theory”.

God is “überflüssig”, but only because the most spiritual will to power, der geistigste, is living, i.e., open and not perfectible.

The mystical individualism of post-Borgia Christendom, makes the text into an idol, to replace the Pope. No “truth in interpretation” is to be found, even amidst the positive appropriative act of be the “flesh of human weakness”, the un-ziel in toto announces itself as irreconcilable.


Kriemhild, divine virtue, under a fragrance of blood and breath. Never the malignancy of a “meno” , frustrated politically, in infinitely intense resentment. Ergo: Heidegger sagt: Philosophy is Over. It will not be reborn. The ground of decision is prior to speech, nothing can be deliberative. weigh well, with respect to “value”.

Ergo: amusement, relief, openness, lightness of spirit,


--

Ergo: such geist as “Liberté, Égalité, Fragilité”, such geist which is more than gesellshaft, more than mere public agreement, “equality of outcome” has no GOD, ergo, is untaken decision of unconsciousness. Ergo, it is willed by the will, and not time.

thumos is only a talk of the politically ambitious, but the rest of the mind, soul, or Platonic psychology is equally in play. Since Schmitt the notion of politics has lost any gravity and become vague since all-comprehensive.

the meaning of demos goes back to Linear B, and remains profoundly misted, adding -arcy creeps into the range of the confussin which for idiots like Meno is undecptavly known in the imbecile unconsciousness of the everyday.

---- ---- -----

The veritable is absolute. Semantic identification is incomplete out of context, and your observation. In prioritizing meaning and action appears correct insofar as the invalidation of the priority of the word can be demonstrated as such.

The most elemental organic life has been shown to choose over one to a more advantageous position, is the primal argument for that interpretation.

How that differs in kind from verbal distinction, of the origin of signs can also poatscribed the post modern philosophical notion of signaling.

But how does that process demonstrate a disunity between the original meaning to the modern - post modern anthropic notion?

Unless it can justify a semiotic functional derivative , as your German references exercise, the invariable sign s cannot totally explain the use of language to fill inn the transition between archaic and modern usage of language.

We can't simply take language as a given in-situ, and change meanings to adapt to current situations. Therefore Therefore . your interpretation is correct in situ, but not as a transcendental foundation , if I understand you .

That directly relates to the notion of foundation as relating to it to it'self.
That such is necessary, even as you describe the topical understanding of the ideal, not to mention, the ideas which are the their derivative, functional analysis becomes impossible, and the opium pdntje people becomes a necessary adhesive of what god represents to them. And for them UNITY serves am absolute purpose in existence, weather they be the worship of totum, or an Anthropomorphic IDEA. Its roots, pervade and Nietzsche did not really kill god.

This strict religious identity is more formative then nationalism , or any other group-set theory which can border sets of members. In this sense religion transcends the identity of national bounderies or ethnic characteristically, although that linkage is ever unserstood, correctly.

So I do agree that actions come before communicative signaling for most practical purposes, because of this unawareness of inter-relative linkage, it does not prove that they are .
This collusion of semantic arguments with the postscripted actions makes the difference , since the original in-situ actions were not. Meaning sneaks in like a thief in the night , to capture which ever unknown variable comes in to take up the slack . A very slight shift over the course of generations can create a solid foundation , albeit only by deference to lower meaning structures

Ergo: zizek at. al are realistic and shallow purposely, so as to be able not to be accused of insignificance and trivially mundane. I can't believe otherwise, and that goes even for Heidegger, Hegel and Nietzsche.





Now one way to argue against the above is simply do what you accuse me of doing, vis. painting clouds in the sky, but that would be too easy and shallow In It's Self. That mode of categorical dismissal would imply a total exclusion of a view , which way of arguing defeats the purpose with the newly -sementically formed foundation. Negation by absolute does not defeat the conception of total disengagement in a relative sense.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage

Postby Meno_ » Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:13 pm

Meno_ wrote:Sloterdijk/Zizek is shallow, and has no cosmic sense. The discussion of myself, Socrates, Plato, Nietzsche and Heidegger, is another region. They say many things that are correct, but gibt keine Denken, gibt keine Wirklichkeit. Reality and thought are the same. Shallow people never feel this. only shallowness calls such a cosmic sense “idealism”, as though it were half of a “theory”.

God is “überflüssig”, but only because the most spiritual will to power, der geistigste, is living, i.e., open and not perfectible.

The mystical individualism of post-Borgia Christendom, makes the text into an idol, to replace the Pope. No “truth in interpretation” is to be found, even amidst the positive appropriative act of be the “flesh of human weakness”, the un-ziel in toto announces itself as irreconcilable.


Kriemhild, divine virtue, under a fragrance of blood and breath. Never the malignancy of a “meno” , frustrated politically, in infinitely intense resentment. Ergo: Heidegger sagt: Philosophy is Over. It will not be reborn. The ground of decision is prior to speech, nothing can be deliberative. weigh well, with respect to “value”.

Ergo: amusement, relief, openness, lightness of spirit,


--

Ergo: such geist as “Liberté, Égalité, Fragilité”, such geist which is more than gesellshaft, more than mere public agreement, “equality of outcome” has no GOD, ergo, is untaken decision of unconsciousness. Ergo, it is willed by the will, and not time.

thumos is only a talk of the politically ambitious, but the rest of the mind, soul, or Platonic psychology is equally in play. Since Schmitt the notion of politics has lost any gravity and become vague since all-comprehensive.

the meaning of demos goes back to Linear B, and remains profoundly misted, adding -arcy creeps into the range of the confussin which for idiots like Meno is undecptavly known in the imbecile unconsciousness of the everyday.

---- ---- -----

The veritable is absolute. Semantic identification is incomplete out of context, and your observation. In prioritizing meaning and action appears correct insofar as the invalidation of the priority of the word can be demonstrated as such.

The most elemental organic life has been shown to choose over one to a more advantageous position, is the primal argument for that interpretation.

How that differs in kind from verbal distinction, of the origin of signs can also postscripted the post modern philosophical notion of signaling.

But how does that process demonstrate a disunity between the original meaning to the modern - post modern anthropic notion?

Unless it can justify a semiotic functional derivative , as your German references exercise, the invariable sign s cannot totally explain the use of language to fill inn the transition between archaic and modern usage of language.

We can't simply take language as a given in-situ, and change meanings to adapt to current situations. Therefore Therefore . your interpretation is correct in situ, but not as a transcendental foundation , if I understand you .

That directly relates to the notion of foundation as relating to it to it'self.
That such is necessary, even as you describe the topical understanding of the ideal, not to mention, the ideas which are the their derivative, functional analysis becomes impossible, and the opium pdntje people becomes a necessary adhesive of what god represents to them. And for them UNITY serves am absolute purpose in existence, weather they be the worship of totum, or an Anthropomorphic IDEA. Its roots, pervade and Nietzsche did not really kill god.

This strict religious identity is more formative then nationalism , or any other group-set theory which can border sets of members. In this sense religion transcends the identity of national bounderies or ethnic characteristically, although that linkage is ever unserstood, correctly.

So I do agree that actions come before communicative signaling for most practical purposes, because of this unawareness of inter-relative linkage, it does not prove that they are .
This collusion of semantic arguments with the postscripted actions makes the difference , since the original in-situ actions were not. Meaning sneaks in like a thief in the night , to capture which ever unknown variable comes in to take up the slack . A very slight shift over the course of generations can create a solid foundation , albeit only by deference to lower meaning structures

Ergo: zizek at. al are realistic and shallow purposely, so as to be able not to be accused of insignificance and trivially mundane. I can't believe otherwise, and that goes even for Heidegger, Hegel and Nietzsche.





Now one way to argue against the above is simply do what you accuse me of doing, vis. painting clouds in the sky, but that would be too easy and shallow In It's Self. That mode of categorical dismissal would imply a total exclusion of a view , which way of arguing defeats the purpose with the newly -sementically formed foundation. Negation by absolute does not defeat the conception of total disengagement in a relative sense.
-and noe the latest:






Don't tell former FBI general counsel James Baker that those now-infamous discussions about secretly recording President Donald Trump and using the tapes to remove him from office were a joke.

He apparently doesn't believe it. And he held quite the vantage point - he was on the inside of the bureau's leadership in May 2017, when the discussions occurred.

Baker told Congress last week that his boss - then-Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe - was dead serious about the idea of surreptitiously recording the 45th president and using the evidence to make the case that Trump should be removed from office, according to my sources.

Baker told lawmakers he wasn't in the meeting that McCabe had with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in which the subject came up. But he did have firsthand conversations with McCabe and the FBI lawyer assigned to McCabe, Lisa Page, about the issue.

"As far as Baker was concerned, this was a real plan being discussed," said a source directly familiar with the congressional investigation. "It was no laughing matter for the FBI."

Word of Baker's testimony surfaces just days before Rosenstein is set to be interviewed in private on Thursday by House Judiciary Committee lawmakers.

Since The New York Times first reported the allegations, Rosenstein, the No. 2 Department of Justice (DOJ) official, has tried to downplay his role in them. His office has suggested that he thought the discussions were a joke, that Rosenstein never gave an order to carry out such a plot, and that he does not believe Trump should be removed from office.

But making those statements through a spokesperson is a bit different than having Rosenstein himself face Congress and answer the questions under penalty of felony if lawmakers think he is lying.

Baker's account to lawmakers this month clearly complicates an already complicated picture for Rosenstein before Congress, assuming he shows up for Thursday's interview.

But even more so, Baker's story lays bare an extraordinary conversation in which at least some senior FBI officials thought it within their purview to try to capture the president on tape and then go to the president's own Cabinet secretaries, hoping to persuade the senior leaders of the administration to remove the president from power.

Even more extraordinary is the timing of such discussions: They occurred, according to Baker's account, in the window around FBI Director James Comey's firing. Could it be that the leaders of a wounded, stunned FBI were seeking retribution for their boss' firing with a secret recording operation?

I doubt this is the power that Congress intended to be exercised when it created the FBI a century ago, or the circumstances in which the authors of the 25th Amendment imagined a president's removal could be engineered.

This wasn't a president who was incapacitated at the time. He was fully exercising his powers - but in a way the FBI leadership did not like.

And that makes the FBI's involvement in the tape-record-then-dump-Trump conversations overtly political - even if Rosenstein believed the whole idea was farcical.

Keep in mind, this is the same FBI that, a few months earlier during the 2016 election, had its top counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok talking to Page - his lover and the top lawyer to McCabe - about using their official powers to "stop" Trump in the election and having an "insurance policy" against the GOP nominee. That insurance policy increasingly looks like an unverified dossier created by British intelligence operative Christopher Steele - a Trump hater himself - that was bought and paid for by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's campaign through their mutual law firm.

"You walk away from the Baker interview with little doubt that the FBI leadership in that 2016-17 time-frame saw itself as far more than a neutral investigative agency but actually as a force to stop Trump's election before it happened and then maybe reversing it after the election was over," said a source directly familiar with the congressional investigation.

Baker provided some other valuable insights in his congressional interview. As I reported last week, he revealed that he accepted information in the Russia investigation from a lawyer for the Democratic National Committee.

And my sources also confirm Baker admitted he received a version of Steele's dossier from left-leaning reporter David Corn of Mother Jones magazine, and then forwarded it to Strzok's team. Corn says that occurred in November 2016, right after the election.

That transaction is significant for two reasons. First, at the time Steele had just been fired from the FBI probe for leaking to the media and he wasn't supposed to be further assisting the probe. So Corn essentially acted as a back door to allow information to continue to flow.

Secondly, the FBI was using the news media as an investigative source outside the normal chain of evidence.

Whatever you think of Rosenstein or the Russia probe, the statements Baker made to Congress have implications for all Americans.

The FBI was created to investigate crimes and stop foreign intelligence and terrorism threats. It was never designed to be a broker in the political process of elections or the execution of the 25th Amendment.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill's executive vice president for video.


Now , another revelation.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: what about resistance

Postby Meno_ » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:38 pm

The Resistance stance coincides in substance what IKE -Dwight Eisenhower warned about 60 years ago warning about the military industrial complex.

This has been mentioned before, but has been used by the resistance in a format less in the evolving context of the situation as it stands today.

According to script Trump is acting out these previous warnings : The corporate world elite, has am agenda specifically targeting the so called U.S. hegemony and nationalism, in fact what they want is opposite to what Trump says.

But Trump is like a bugle boy, and as all presidents his p.r. is carefully crafted to am identifying middle man, to sell the goods to the highest bidder.

The five always are plentiful: no taxes to the elite, who are major corporate leaders of international scope.

They are symptomatic of gutting the middle and lower classes out of their substantial identity by doubling down on the lower economic tier by turning consumerism into an ideological aim.

And they are getting better at it. The astronomical figures of accumulated wealth , contrast starkly in the amount of corporate taxes levied : in IKE'' era of surpassed 90%, and today it has been cut to practically to 0%. The desperation for the continuation of the American Empire has a noteworthy feature that the 1% can not fathom in an era of short term corporate profits, which are trying to be in some fiscal rhythm-to negate Marx's prediction of diminishing returns at the point where certain limits in value are reached.

Marx did predict the fall of Capitalism, and this desperation. , well known in the construction of tea similar mood in America- McCarthyism, which was seen at that early time as significant and a wake up call.

The demonizing of.Russia , served the industry of divestiture in armaments, to a.spectacular degree, and this business isn't he only absolute guaranty for big time profits.

The out to get us propaganda has snow balled since.the break up of.the Soviet Union, and I feel at this point guilty at this thought since the Soviet Brutality has noteworthy horrors of the killing of very young Hungarian patriots.

However, the adhesive politics is not always tacitly obvious and semantics can now, as it did before , whitewash any residual and easily forgotten minor skirmish.

The elitists have poured hundreds of billions into fracting oil, so they could establish the primacy of.the U.S., as the number one oil producer in the world, at a great loss.

That is what the power of.propaganda can do, at a tremendous price, which obviously is affordable to them on the same premise as deconstructing the structure of.any institution, be it the media, the political system and progressive institution of judicial, representative and social artifacts


To those dispossessed, time is a matter of saynto day struggle for jobs, health care etc.; but to those holding astronomical and some fortunes , already computerized with more and more certainty of profit taking, losses will be rewarded by inside knowledge of when to buy puts on investments


As fortunate this appears to such people and institutions , it amounts to a gutting out of social values.

Now the ability to do this hinges on victimization of certain people, and the easiest mark is the powerless immigrant, the racially excluded and others, who are getting less and less able to exercise what has been basis basis of political power.

The costly wars of the Greeks is a.precedent where empires sank, and Britain's loss of.the Pound as the major leading international currency marked Her for the fall. The signification was her conflict with Nasser over the Suez Canal.

Incidentally, there is linkage there with international indecision over saving the Hungarian Revolution's 1956-7 patriots, sorely it was just a.skirmish.

Other precedents was when the still fixed and sustains Brit Empire refused to help the imprisoned Tzar, his own close relative

Now the big question of.determination and policy grew a tune ever stronger.to allow those who kind of intuited the real signs in yet a progressive era, and how and when a reversal would commence.

The reversal started around the 1960's when the social programs started to be financed with increasing borrowing, and the mostly financed by U.S. printed bonds, imdentified by politically and militarily pressures inn the Chinese. The Chinese.grabbed the offer, since at that.time the Sino-Soviet alliance was at its lowest ebb in unifying ideology in terms of.the Communist.Internationale.

However, if China would cash those securities at this time, it would shorten the time when the U.S. monetary collapse would take place.

At this extremely tense time, they constructed the very fitting presidential actor-clown, who can fulfill the dual functions of.tragedy and comedy.

This brings the ideological basis.to what is.really happening in the control world.

The U.S. has been reduced-gutted of.social philosophy onto the use of semantic and contradictory hype, as if, the promises of a Kantian-synthetically bridges.sense.could work, amid a.failed Leibnitz type functionally actionable process, by the use of a mirrored gloss of naive realism of the type which were invented as a defensive tactic of the future use of seminal revision of basic textual authority.

The issue underlying this whole scenario of the reduced seminal use of contradiction as the basis of a new order, is, whether the very basic pragmatic concept can survive such elemental distortions, or if anyone can survive the coming realization of wjat really is going on.

That.depends on the further compressor of technology with art, and the.Mercedes.has been severely attacked by the number one auto producer in the world today: Alan Musk. Can that huge symbol become the sign of a Eurozone failure? Is that why MUsk has been so demonized.of late?

Probably


An earlier prediction still stands, probably, that a cap. total of individual wealth of 1 trillion dollars, inflation and interest rates factored in, may be a bench mark limit.( This is merely gut level)

Owner of Amazon is nearing 200 billion dollars.

After that, if it ever gets there., the bubble will burst.


But will it?



Departing U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Tuesday morning lauded White House senior adviser Jared Kushner as a "hidden genius" of the Trump administration.

Haley made the remark from the Oval Office as she announced her resignation at the end of the year.

"I can't say enough good things about Jared and Ivanka [Trump]," she said. "Jared is such a hidden genius that no one understands."

Haley gave Kushner credit for renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) deal last week.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Disequilibrium

Postby Meno_ » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:29 pm

Capital the hidden ideal as envisioned by Atlas Shrugged, has a very simple premise for its undoing.

Capital and Democracy are not natural co-ordinates,jointly and directly proportional, to the same forces caused by internal and external factors; the momentum of their move ment and their vectors separate
At times the separation is minimal and re-constructanle, of certain limits to su h allow enough depth to the evolving margin, so as to enable sufficient corrections to modify the unwanted effects of total marginal corruptibility.

Corruption is used in a hyper relative sense, that is topographic and open to analysis of symptomatic signs of stealing, collusion , and baseless manipulation.

But corruption in the widest sense also considers the probable curvature of what Marcuse used to call devolvement of structural depth unto one dimensional linerality.

Actions by impulse and insufficiently based criteria, will insubstantiate.

The fact may be hiding on the universal grasp on denial of historical artifact.

Building the U.S. great again is an example of adopting contradictory messages to the world stage. Most of Eurasia labors in a world historicism of long established boundaries, whereas U.S. apostasy, is structured on denying those boundaries. The political reactivism contrasts strongly with boundaries per-se, because the figurative basis clashes with its substantive construct.

Its like a newly rich but very crass person moving next to an established and ancient respected one, for whom it would appear de-class to consider their substantial wealth as opposed to their standing and lineage.

The abstract firms of ideology are superior to the ones which have merely a wide range of applications of advantage and utility, merely using market mechanisms to buy opportunity, such as those involved in hostile take-over, - creating the widest interpretation of opportunism.

It has been shown that internal competition may work on this level within national boundaries, and schools of thought have shown that if kept in those bounds, will minimize national boundaries within the constraint of separate and almost equal competitors on that stage of a reduced theater.

However an international stage, may not fathom an unbounded ergo unfounded theater-which can transform a seemingly harmless war over trade, into one where such war can create a real theater of real war.

This has precedent, and Trumpism at this moment may be unable the certain leakage between borders.


Here are a series of articles which brings these possibilities into the open:












WORLD WAR 3: Russian minister warns nuclear treaties under threat as relations plunge
Nuclear missile

Russian nuclear missile cruiser submarine Yuri Dolgoruky launches a Bulava missile (Image: GETTY)
SKY-HIGH tensions between the US and Russia are putting critical treaties designed to prevent a nuclear arms race in jeopardy as relations sink to an all-time low, a senior Russian official has warned.
By SIMON OSBORNE


Moscow’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov described Western governments as "adversaries, not friends" and said a “complete malfunction of the American system” meant longstanding weapons agreements could be binned, leaving nuclear powers without constraint in the event of a future conflict.

He said: “We could lose several elements on arms control infrastructure. The building is shaky.”

Mr Rybakov warned another round of sanctions intruded by Donald Trump in the summer were “dangerous” and getting in the way of negotiations over renewing the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty "New START" which saw both sides agree to reduce their deployed nuclear arms by half but is set to expire in 2021.

He said: “If there is no progress then risk of a real backfire grows.



RELATED ARTICLES

Russia WARNING: ‘Do not underestimate Kremlin’ after GRU blunders

World War 3: Romania warning as Russia steps up Black Sea operations


“I don’t think we can easily say the future of New START is bright.

“We truly do not see any desire on the US side at this point to engage in discussions on an extension ion the treaty which we have proposed.”

Mr Ryabkov was speaking as negotiators from the two countries met in Geneva to discuss a Cold War era treaty that was supposed to keep expansion of long-range nuclear-capable missiles in check.

Moscow and Washington have repeatedly accused each other of breaching the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a 1987 pact which bans firing land-based missiles with a range of up to 5,500km.

Tupolev Tu-22M3M supersonic strike bomber

A new Tupolev Tu-22M3M supersonic strike bomber is unveiled in Kazan, Russia (Image: GETTY)
The US ambassador to NATO warned Moscow against developing a new cruise missile that could be armed with nuclear warheads, arguing that it was in breach of the INF and could be used against members of the Western military alliance.

Kay Bailey Hutchison said: “Counter measures by the United States would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in violation of the treaty. They are on notice.”

The US government took a more aggressive line against Russia this year, when Mr Trump unveiled a new nuclear strategy that revolved around countering Russia and called for the development of small tactical nuclear weapons that were cheaper to maintain and could be used in more realistic scenarios.

Washington has also accelerated long-running US military plans to develop new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and nuclear-capable cruise missiles and has just confirmed hypersonic weapons testing is well underway.


RELATED ARTICLES

HYPERSONIC ARMS RACE: US military chiefs vow to beat Russia and China

World War 3: US steps up arms race with new hypersonic missile tests
The sabre-rattling comes against a grim backdrop of mistrust with over the crisis in Ukraine, the conflict in Syria, allegations of Russian meddling in US elections and the Kremlin’s role in the attempt to assassinate former intelligence agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury.

Mr Ryabkov said: “We have a situation that is much, much worse than even during the most heated moments, or rather the coldest moments, of the past.”

He said Moscow would not be swayed by Dutch, British and US claims its agents had also sought to hack into the computer network of The Hague-based Office for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons as it investigated the attack on Mr Skripal.

He said: ”If some believe that this makes an impression on Russia and somehow causes Russia to hesitate, then that is a very wrong conclusion.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov (Image: GETTY)
“On the contrary, a consolidated effort to pressurise Russia only diminishes chances of any real engagement towards resolution.

He said Moscow was not concerned about the growingly negative rhetoric coming from the West because it viewed Western governments as “adversaries, not friends”.

He said: “We do not believe that the broader West are friends with us. Rather, we see the West as an adversary that acts to undermine Russia’s positions and Russia's perspective for normal development.

“So why should we care so much about our standing among adversaries?”

RELATED ARTICLES
Russia reveals hypersonic missile able to reach US in MINUTES
Putin aims to CRANK UP his armed forces with FUTURISTIC weapons
Russia's Su-57 fighter jets to be equipped with SUPERSONIC MISSILES
ADVERTISEMENT



NEXT ARTICLE
EU news Yanis Varoufakis Italy Matteo Salvini Jean Claude Juncker Europe disintegrate
Doomed EU? Varoufakis claims Salvini's Italy pushing Brussels closer to 'DISINTEGRATION'


And now Clinton hits back:






HILLARY CLINTON
Clinton strikes back at Trump for saying she colluded with Russia
The president has been making his former rival an issue on the midterms campaign trail.
by Adam Edelman / Oct.12.2018 / 6:07 PM GMT

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Oxford University on Oct. 9, 2018.Neil Hall / EPA
SHARE THIS —
Hillary Clinton is hitting back at President Donald Trump for having claimed at a recent rally — without providing any evidence — that she was the one who colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential contest.

At a rally on Wednesday night in Erie, Pennsylvania, Trump directly accused Clinton of engaging in a conspiracy with Moscow to influence the race for the White House.


"There was collusion between Hillary, the Democrats and Russia," Trump said, just after his supporters had chanted "lock her up" about Clinton. "There was a lot of collusion with them and Russia and lots of other people."


Trump has discussed that theory publicly and on Twitter, but the charge amounted to a direct allegation that Clinton herself conspired with the Russian government to influence the election. He offered no evidence of his claim.

The idea prompted a swift Clinton comeback.

"Seriously, you asked Russia to hack me on national television," she tweeted Thursday afternoon.


The tweet was apparently in reference to a July 2016 press conference in which Trump invited the Russians to "find" thousands of missing emails from a personal server Clinton had used when she was secretary of state.


"I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said then.

Minutes after Clinton tweeted Thursday, Donald Trump Jr. fired back, claiming that Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee had spent millions of dollars "working with foreign agents" to create a "fake dossier with them."

"You should really sit this one out," he told Clinton, adding that "every time you talk, we win."


Trump Jr.’s tweet was referring to the fact that a law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC helped fund opposition research that eventually became a controversial dossier, known as the Steele dossier, on then-candidate Trump.


The back-and-forth comes as special counsel Robert Mueller continues to investigate whether Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia or obstructed justice afterward.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage

Postby Meno_ » Sat Oct 13, 2018 7:21 pm

Investigation and political procedure :
The extended period for Mueller to convey his findings on the Russian collusion and consequential obstruction of justice suggests imploding the national security issue.


NATIONAL SECURITY
The Russia Investigations: Unanswered Questions In The Eye Of The Storm


Special counsel Robert Mueller is required to submit a confidential report when his work is done, but the publication and circulation of whatever he files is not a sure thing.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
This week in the Russia investigations: New reports set the table for the resumption of action if the special counsel's office is waiting until after the midterm elections.

The eye of the storm
If Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller isn't observing a de jure "quiet period" ahead of the Nov. 6 election, he is observing one de facto. Notwithstanding a lot of noise about the prospect of more indictments or other action, Mueller so far hasn't delivered.

That suggests that Washington, D.C., may be passing through the eye of the Russia imbroglio and will continue to experience a comparative calm until the arrival of the opposite inner wall of the storm, possibly after Election Day in less than a month.

If so — what happens then?

More charges, maybe. And it has become axiomatic within the capital to anticipate that Mueller plans to issue some kind of report about his findings — possibly a major Sept. 11 Commission-style printed book.

Mueller is required to submit a confidential report to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein when his work is done, but the publication and circulation of whatever he files are not a sure thing.

Article continues after sponsorship

What then? It all depends on what's in the paperwork. If Mueller's report says, "Resume your lives, citizens — all that can be known about the Russian attack on the 2016 election is known," that is significant, and great news besides for the White House.

If Mueller writes, "Dear Congress, my investigation suggests the president of the United States is a foreign agent," that might complicate matters.

President Trump's team does not seem that concerned about the latter scenario.

Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani has said in a few TV appearances that the president's legal team intends simply to rebut whatever Mueller files and suggests that the Russia imbroglio could end just like the beginning and middle of 2018: with dueling documents just like the memos and all the others.

But that kind of finality feels a ways off. There are so many questions that remain unanswered, both small and big, that the special counsel's office would need to resolve either between now and then or within some big notional report that capped off its work.

The take-home exam
The next milestone in this saga could be the submission of written answers by Trump's lawyers to questions by Mueller's office, CNN reports. The questionnaire is said to focus on the alleged collusion track of this imbroglio, as opposed to the alleged obstruction-of-justice storyline.

But the document, if it does go to Mueller soon, would not be the last word between him and Trump. The president continues to hold open the possibility that he might sit down for an interview at some point — against the advice of his attorneys — although the negotiations have worn on for so long that it isn't clear whether Trump's position is real or just for public relations purposes.

Don't be surprised if the written answers, or an account about what they say, find their way into The New York Times.

Trump World has used the newspaper to condition much of the public perception about its negotiations with Mueller. The Times reported on the list of questions that Mueller's office wanted to ask, per the Trump team.

And the Times also obtained the Trump team's broad positions on the Russia matter, including its argument that Trump not only cannot obstruct justice by virtue of his presidential powers, but also that he effectively cannot break the law while in office because he can pardon himself.

That is not a consensus position in Washington.

The Smith matter
Many other questions remain unanswered. One of them was raised again last week by The Wall Street Journal, which established that former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn had struck up a business relationship with a now-deceased Republican fundraiser named Peter Smith as far back as 2015.


A Wall Street Journal story has established that former national security adviser Michael Flynn had a relationship with a Russian fundraiser that predated the Trump campaign and that may have just predated the long flirtation between Flynn and the Russian government.
Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images
Meaning what? Smith was on the outer periphery of the Trump 2016 campaign, and he led an effort to try to get, and possibly to then verify that he had obtained, Hillary Clinton's emails.

Smith told a cyber-researcher and others in 2016 that he had been contacted by someone on "the Dark Web" who claimed to have emails stolen from the private server Clinton used when she was secretary of state. He wanted as much help and money as he could get to obtain the material and then exploit it somehow.

Smith was found dead last year in what authorities ruled a suicide. There hasn't been any public indication that he ever got Clinton's emails. And the FBI has said it had no evidence that Clinton's server was ever compromised, suggesting the Russians never had the electronic messages in the first place.

So why is this important?

Because what The Journal's story established is that Smith and Flynn had a relationship that predated the Trump campaign and that may have just predated the long flirtation between Flynn and the Russian government.

So they had known each other for awhile. How much did Flynn know about Smith's project in 2016 and how much did Flynn tell Trump? Did Trump encourage Smith directly or via Flynn?

If Smith was telling the truth about the overtures he was receiving, he was yet another in a parallel series of what appear to have been pilot wells the Russians were drilling in the Trump campaign, trying to find a reliable way through.

Rob Goldstone On His Infamous Russia Email: 'I Had No Idea What I Was Talking About'
NATIONAL SECURITY
Rob Goldstone On His Infamous Russia Email: 'I Had No Idea What I Was Talking About'
These also included the outreach to junior aide George Papadopoulos in London, to then-Sen. Jeff Sessions via the National Rifle Association and, most famously, through singer Emin Agalarov's publicist to Donald Trump Jr.

At least one milestone already has been established on the other side of the eyewall that might clear up some of this: Flynn, who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in exchange for his cooperation, is scheduled to be sentenced in mid-December.

The way that chapter ends might reveal more about Flynn's ties not only with Smith and Trump, but also with the Russians who apparently began cultivating Flynn after his defenestration from the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The pings
Another big unresolved plotline in the Russia saga is over a putative Internet link between the Trump camp and Russia's Alpha Bank.

The New Yorker concluded last week, based on some obtuse and highly technical reportage, that it might have been connected to some kind of clandestine communications link. But the story was so hedged and couched that it's difficult to know what to make of it all.

This is one of those back alleys in this imbroglio that very few people can illuminate properly, and nearly all of those who can probably work for the National Security Agency.

The near-omniscience that the intelligence agency can exercise over the Internet — flashes of which come through in the work product of the special counsel's office — means that if anyone understands the Alpha Bank server pinging, it's those within the NSA.

But that also suggests that the public might not learn definitively what it means until Mueller elucidates it — if he ever does.

At this stage 'collusion' may be too strong and worn thin and tarnished word. An example of changing meaning through negative > positive shift in rhetoric.

The failure of a positive-nominal application through political discourse.










Now what if, a report does come out from Miller, once and for all, and what of, at last, some truthful description of what went on is finally realizes to all levels of society, and government?

Unlike the Warren Commission's huge volume which by many is considered a whitewash full of credible and noteworthy errors?

What if the Mueller finding will be right on point by point, a doubtless record at least by preponderance?

Wjat of Trump was compelled with a sort of sword of Democles forcing his hand? If so , would that have a solid basis to absolve and eifjten the situation through public sentiment?

We do love in an age of conflict and polarity, and am atmosphere of near vengeance hangs inn the balance, where the packing of the supreme court toward support, of it isnevw needed is one sign , which may be a give away. Not that this is not common practice among presidents , burn the veracity and anxiety of the fanfare accompanying this last nomination certainly suggest the expected need for favorable adjudication.

Mueller may have an ear for this, and the question. Is, is he astute enough to overcome this type ofnemd of the roadnsxenario and settle comfortably with it, without the binding question of it haunting him for the rest of his life, or, will be fact or this in as a further showung of deception? How much Trump knew, is a key factor, even if he didn't initiate an approval , and that will be the issue par excellamce upon which further legal movement either will proceede or shy away from.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage

Postby Meno_ » Sun Oct 14, 2018 11:15 pm

Read more news from CNN
VIEW IN APP

Live TV
CNN Poll: More see Trump win likely as Biden leads crowded Democratic field
By Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director
Updated 11:27 AM EDT, Sun October 14, 2018


WASHINGTON (CNN) Americans are becoming more likely to think President Donald Trump will win a second term in office, while Joe Biden stands atop a crowded field of Democrats perhaps looking to replace him, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS.

View this interactive content on CNN.com
The public is split over whether they think the President will win a second term -- 46% say he will and 47% say he won't. But that's a steep improvement for him since March, when 54% of adults said they thought he'd lose his bid for a second term. The share seeing a second Trump win in the offing has risen across party lines. The increase is a bit sharper among men (up 8 points), independents (from 39% in March to 47% now) and those who are enthusiastic about voting in this year's midterms (from 37% in March to 46% now).

The President's partisans are just as likely to want him renominated now as they were in March: Seventy-four percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say he should be the party's nominee in 2020, and 21% would rather see someone else at the top of the ticket.

In the race for the Democratic nomination to face Trump, former Vice President Biden leads a massive potential field. The poll asked Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents to choose their preferred presidential nominee among 16 possible candidates. Biden tops the list with 33% support, followed by independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the 2016 runner-up, at 13%. Sen. Kamala Harris of California follows at 9%, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 8%. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry garnered 5% support.

View this interactive content on CNN.com
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who recently became a registered Democrat and spoke in New Hampshire on Saturday night, stands at 4% in the poll. Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas, currently running against Sen. Ted Cruz, also lands at 4%. Less than 1% said they back Rep. John Delaney of Maryland, the only declared candidate in the field, and just 1% choose attorney Michael Avenatti, who has been visiting early primary and caucus states.

The 2020 tap dance is on!
Sanders continues to prompt some of the same divisions he did in 2016, garnering lower support among self-identified Democrats and older voters. Among those who consider themselves Democrats, 34% back Biden, 11% Harris, 9% Sanders and 8% Warren. Among independents who say they lean to the Democratic Party, however, Sanders stands in second place, with 21% (Biden has 31%, Warren 8% and Harris 7%).

Harris appears to be the biggest beneficiary of Sanders' challenges among Democratic partisans. Among those self-identified Democrats who consider themselves liberal, Harris' support spikes to 19%, still behind Biden at 27% but well ahead of Sanders, who earns just 7% support among that group.

When you add Democratic-leaning independents back to the mix, liberals are more evenly split, with 28% behind Biden, 15% Harris, 13% Sanders and 11% Warren. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaners who consider themselves more moderate or conservative, Biden stands well above the rest: 38% Biden, 14% Sanders and all the rest in single digits.

There is also still an age gap in the party over Sanders and Biden, with younger voters more apt to back Sanders than older voters (21% among those under age 45 versus 8% among older Democrats) and Biden's numbers far higher among those over 45 (39% in the older group back Biden versus 26% among younger Democrats). No other candidates receive significantly different support across age groups.

There is little gap in Biden's support between men (35%) and women (32%), suggesting the review of his role in Clarence Thomas' 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings during Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation process has not caused notable harm to the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage

Postby Meno_ » Tue Oct 16, 2018 4:06 pm

A look at the fracturing relationship between Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Donald Trump

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday lit into federal judges for what he called a dramatic uptick in "outrageous" decisions threatening to interfere with the separation of powers by exposing internal White House deliberations.


In a fiery speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, Sessions warned that "once we go down this road in American government, there is no turning back." He vowed to take "these discovery fights to the Supreme Court in emergency postures. ... We intend to fight this, and we intend to win."


Sessions specifically singled out New York district court judge Jesse M. Furman, who ruled that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross could be questioned in an ongoing lawsuit concerning the legality of the Trump administration's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

Furman's decision, Sessions said, contradicts longstanding statutory provisions that protect certain executive branch discussions from disclosure, in order to encourage free and open deliberations by executive branch officials. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including several liberal states, are arguing in part that the White House added the citizenship question for political reasons.

The judge wants "to hold a trial over the inner workings of a Cabinet secretary’s mind," and inappropriately allow inquiry into the motivations for the Trump administration's decisions, Sessions said.


Furman's order, which was upheld by a New York federal appellate court, has been stayed by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The full Supreme Court is expected to decide the issue soon.

"Once we go down this road in American government, there is no turning back."

— Attorney General Jeff Sessions
The pending court challenges against the Trump administration's decision to add a citizenship question, legal experts tell Fox News, face an uphill battle not only because conservatives now command a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court, but also because traditionally it's been the White House's prerogative to decide whether to inquire about citizenship on the census.

Former President Barack Obama's administration didn't ask the question in the 2010 census amid fears it would unconstitutionally intimidate illegal immigrants into avoiding answering their census questions -- and thus not count toward population totals used to determine the number of seats each state receives in the House of Representatives. (The citizenship question was last asked on the census in 1950, but beginning in 1970, a citizenship question was asked in a long-form questionnaire sent to a relatively small number of households, alongside the main census. In 2010, there was no long-form questionnaire.)

Democrats would lose out because the citizenship question would affect predominately liberal districts, but that's not a legally sufficient objection, legal analysts say.

TRUMP CENSUS BUREAU NOMINEE QUIZZED BY SENATORS ON CITIZENSHIP QUESTION

"There is no credible argument to be made that asking about citizenship subverts the Constitution and federal law," Chapman University law professor and constitutional law expert John Eastman told Fox News. "The recent move is simply to restore what had long been the case."

Eastman also told Fox News it would be legally permissible for the government to only count citizens for purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives. However, other legal experts have contested that view, saying the Constitution demands that all "persons" be tallied -- not all citizens.

Judge orders that the DACA program be restartedVideo
Nevertheless, Sessions said Monday, liberal states and nonprofits have continued to push even longshot legal challenges in order to dig around in executive branch deliberations.

"This is not the first time we’ve had to seek emergency appellate intervention to stop outrageous discovery," Sessions said. Last year, the government filed a successful emergency motion to stop a district court's ruling that permitted plaintiffs to question a Department of Homeland Security counselor about advice relating to the contentious Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Sessions called that lower court ruling a "blatant violation of deliberative process and attorney-client privileges" and warned that it would have a "chilling effect" on deliberations in the White House.

He added, "Too many judges believe it is their right, their duty, to act upon their sympathies and policy preferences."

The attorney general blamed Obama for encouraging that approach. "One argument for activism was advocated openly by President Obama when he declared his judicial nominees must judge with 'empathy.' It is a seductive argument. But whatever empathy is, it’s more akin to emotion, bias, and politics than law," Sessions said.

"In the recent DACA litigation, for example, a judge last year told one of our DOJ litigators, 'You can’t come into court to espouse a position that is heartless,'" Sessions continued. "Not illegal. Not unlawful. Heartless. And later, after I responded in a speech that it isn’t a judge’s job to decide whether a policy is 'heartless,' the judge again scolded the DOJ lawyer by stating that I 'seem to think the courts cannot have an opinion.'"

Judge Nicholas Garaufis denied the government's motion to dismiss a DACA lawsuit, citing President Trump's "bigoted" comments.
Judge Nicholas Garaufis denied the government's motion to dismiss a DACA lawsuit, citing President Trump's "bigoted" comments. (Reuters, FIle)

That judge, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis, was appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton. He ruled in March that a lawsuit seeking to preserve the federal DACA program can continue -- citing candidate Donald Trump's "racial slurs" and "epithets."

“One might reasonably infer,” Garaufis said in his politically charged ruling, “that a candidate who makes overtly bigoted statements on the campaign trail might be more likely to engage in similarly bigoted action in office.”

Separately, Sessions also said the 27 nationwide federal injunctions issued by individual judges during the Trump administration so far -- which brought temporary halts to high-profile policies like his ban on travel from Muslim-majority nations -- constitute an unprecedented "judicial encroachment."

"It is emphatically not the duty of the courts to manage the government or to pass judgment on every policy action the Executive branch takes," Sessions said. "In the first 175 years of this Republic, not a single judge issued one of these orders."

In his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court in September, then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh was asked by Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy about the constitutionality of individual federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential action, a recent phenomenon. Kavanaugh demurred, saying he could not discuss potential pending issues before the Supreme Court.

Sessions noted that Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who concurred in the high court's decision earlier this year to reinstate Trump's travel ban, wrote that such injunctions “take a toll on the federal court system—preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the executive branch.”

He added: "Executive branch officers do not work for the judiciary. We work for the president of the United States. Respect runs both ways."

The ambiguity of the contradiction is being overtly displayed now. The upcoming election has everyone in the crosshairs biting the bullet.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Trump enters the stage

Postby Meno_ » Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:10 pm

Fox News

POLITICSPublished October 17, 2018
Mueller ready to deliver core findings on Trump probe after midterms: report
By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News

Continue Reading Below


Special Counsel Robert Mueller is set to issue findings of some of the core aspects of his investigation into the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia shortly after the November midterm elections, Bloomberg reported.

The outlet, citing two anonymous U.S. officials, reported that Mueller is finalizing the conclusions related to the questions on whether President Trump’s campaign cooperated with Russia and whether he took any actions that could constitute obstruction of justice.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News.

It’s possible that Mueller’s finding won’t be made public if he doesn’t secure unsealed indictments, according to Bloomberg. The findings will be provided to his boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.


Continue Reading Below


The Mueller team is currently facing increased scrutiny from both sides, with calls to either shut down the investigation or produce more indictments.

Rosenstein reportedly indicated he wants to end the probe as soon as possible, while president Trump is a frequent critic of the investigation, calling it a “witch hunt.”

Many speculate that if the probe continues any longer it may only lead to Trump shutting the investigation down himself.


Trump has recently floated the idea of replacing both Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, two men who hold positions that can influence the Mueller probe.

The president hasn’t yet spoken with Mueller concerning the potential collusion Russia. The Mueller team reportedly submitted written questions to the president, but the negotiations are still ongoing.

But it appears that the delivery of the findings won’t be the end of Mueller and the probe will continue in some form, according to Bloomberg.

The Mueller team is yet to finish the dealings with Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. He will be sentenced on Dec. 18.


COHEN SPOKE WITH MUELLER TEAM ABOUT TRUMP AND HIS BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA: REPORT

Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer, who pleaded guilty to tax evasion, violations of campaign finance laws and bank fraud, reportedly spoke with the Mueller team concerning Trump and his business dealings in Russia.

Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, has also struck a plea deal that includes cooperation with Mueller amid his conviction of bank fraud and false tax returns, among other charges.

Lukas Mikelionis is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter @LukasMikelionis.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Previous

Return to Creative Writing



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users