politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s VP pick – the latest betting
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s VP pick – the latest betting
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
Comments
-
First first?0
-
Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.0
-
Obviously this is interesting because whoever he picks, assuming he wins, stands a decent chance of becoming President midway through his term.
In terms of betting, I’m going nowhere near it. Trying to read American politics is a bit like trying to read tea leaves. Although I did make a fiver on Trump.
Even my american contacts, who are centre ground, don’t have any opinions or gut feelings on this. They see them, as the late Wedgie Benn would have said, as weather vanes rather than signposts. No real distinguishing features between them.
I’m leaving well alone.2 -
-
Not sure LibDems have the best material to select from.StuartDickson said:Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.
Davey has all the attraction of a second hand retread. Competent, good as a minister but he can't mention the highlight of his political ascendancy. A comprimised choice.
Moran inspires as much confidence as the average pansexual jelly fish. Just not cut out to chime with 92% of the voting public.
They need a better choice to thrive on the challenging ground between Stamer and Johnson.0 -
-
Is there fertile ground between those two? I think it is either side of themphiliph said:
Not sure LibDems have the best material to select from.StuartDickson said:Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.
Davey has all the attraction of a second hand retread. Competent, good as a minister but he can't mention the highlight of his political ascendancy. A comprimised choice.
Moran inspires as much confidence as the average pansexual jelly fish. Just not cut out to chime with 92% of the voting public.
They need a better choice to thrive on the challenging ground between Stamer and Johnson.0 -
No, it is challenging ground between them, and may be baron to the sides.isam said:
Is there fertile ground between those two? I think it is either side of themphiliph said:
Not sure LibDems have the best material to select from.StuartDickson said:Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.
Davey has all the attraction of a second hand retread. Competent, good as a minister but he can't mention the highlight of his political ascendancy. A comprimised choice.
Moran inspires as much confidence as the average pansexual jelly fish. Just not cut out to chime with 92% of the voting public.
They need a better choice to thrive on the challenging ground between Stamer and Johnson.
0 -
North of them.isam said:
Is there fertile ground between those two? I think it is either side of themphiliph said:
Not sure LibDems have the best material to select from.StuartDickson said:Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.
Davey has all the attraction of a second hand retread. Competent, good as a minister but he can't mention the highlight of his political ascendancy. A comprimised choice.
Moran inspires as much confidence as the average pansexual jelly fish. Just not cut out to chime with 92% of the voting public.
They need a better choice to thrive on the challenging ground between Stamer and Johnson.0 -
Stay classy.CarlottaVance said:
The legal action is being funded by Unite. I wonder how many workers feel that's an appropriate use of their dues.1 -
In other betting news: Ladbrokes are in a spot of bother with HMRC.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/hmrc-investigation-ladbrokes-gvc-shares-turkey0 -
-
"I don't know the situation with Prince Andrew. Not aware of it."CarlottaVance said:
https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/12841916769914060800 -
Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.Nigelb said:0 -
Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?EPG said:
Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.Nigelb said:
It seems hard to believe that (especially if this was after Trump had lost the election) that the Democrats wouldn't filibuster this to death.0 -
O/T
Looks like Southwark tube station has reopened. Not sure exactly when it first starting operating again. (Don't live in London, I'm a fan of the Tube network).0 -
Presumably if Biden wins and RBG makes it to January Merrick Garland will finally get on the bench?0
-
No.Philip_Thompson said:
Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?EPG said:
Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.Nigelb said:
It seems hard to believe that (especially if this was after Trump had lost the election) that the Democrats wouldn't filibuster this to death.
0 -
Yes, it’s quite possible that they’d try and fail to appoint Trump’s nominee. That they’re even contemplating it is bad enough.EPG said:
Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.Nigelb said:
0 -
The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.Philip_Thompson said:
Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?EPG said:
Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.Nigelb said:
It seems hard to believe that (especially if this was after Trump had lost the election) that the Democrats wouldn't filibuster this to death.1 -
Maybe if the Republicans lose no Senate seats on net. Not likely if the Democrats are on 50 or even 49. I don't mean the person in question but an analogous centrist.dodrade said:Presumably if Biden wins and RBG makes it to January Merrick Garland will finally get on the bench?
0 -
And under them, given the quantity of manure Johnson produces.StuartDickson said:
North of them.isam said:
Is there fertile ground between those two? I think it is either side of themphiliph said:
Not sure LibDems have the best material to select from.StuartDickson said:Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.
Davey has all the attraction of a second hand retread. Competent, good as a minister but he can't mention the highlight of his political ascendancy. A comprimised choice.
Moran inspires as much confidence as the average pansexual jelly fish. Just not cut out to chime with 92% of the voting public.
They need a better choice to thrive on the challenging ground between Stamer and Johnson.0 -
Or [though it would require the Democrats winning both Senate and Presidency] if the GOP do that the Democrats can threaten that incoming President Biden would nominate 4 new Justices to the Supreme Court.EPG said:
The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.Philip_Thompson said:
Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?EPG said:
Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.Nigelb said:
It seems hard to believe that (especially if this was after Trump had lost the election) that the Democrats wouldn't filibuster this to death.
Changing the size of the Court has been done before.0 -
Thanks, I was aware of the 2013 rule change but not the Gorsuch one.EPG said:
The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.Philip_Thompson said:
Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?EPG said:
Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.Nigelb said:
It seems hard to believe that (especially if this was after Trump had lost the election) that the Democrats wouldn't filibuster this to death.
The Democrats can't complain about the Gorsuch one to be fair when they implemented the nuclear option themselves first. That's why it was called the nuclear option, you weren't supposed to use it!0 -
Last American President to die in office of natural causes = Franklin D. Roosevelt, just months into his 4th term.OysterOctopus said:Obviously this is interesting because whoever he picks, assuming he wins, stands a decent chance of becoming President midway through his term.
In terms of betting, I’m going nowhere near it. Trying to read American politics is a bit like trying to read tea leaves. Although I did make a fiver on Trump.
Even my american contacts, who are centre ground, don’t have any opinions or gut feelings on this. They see them, as the late Wedgie Benn would have said, as weather vanes rather than signposts. No real distinguishing features between them.
I’m leaving well alone.
So what do you mean by "decent chance"? Greater likelihood Biden will serve TWO terms, than he will not make it through one.0 -
Looking at the lists of Senators:
The Judiciary Committe would probably arrange a name to go to the whole Senate.
Romney or Manchin would probably support a compatible nominee, e.g. one who also owns a coal mine if it comes to that.
If this plan is intended to finish after the first week of November, in a world where Biden wins, there are likely to be a few defeated Republican senators, who could join with Murkowski and Collins (who TBH would probably be on the way out herself in this scenario), to cause problems for a nominee conservative enough to make the plan worthwhile.
Before the first week of November, it is a huge gamble that Trump has not chosen another very controversial appointee who gets kicked upward at unseemly speed without political scrutiny and before the stories get off the front page. You are trusting Trump to appoint someone less controversial than the last guy. Good luck!
But a lot of this is east-of-Atlantic wishful thinking: the reality is that any July vacancy will probably be filled, and even as late as September, because any Republican who holds it up gets massacred by the party even if Biden loses.0 -
Were I advising a President about Supreme Court nominees, I would filter for 42-year old triathletes with centenarian grandparents.2
-
Under US Senate rules, a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee is NOT banned. Instead, it only takes 51 votes - simple majority of all 100 senators - to institute cloture thus ending debate.
My guess is that, if Trumpsky loses, there will NOT be 51 votes to end filibuster against confirming his nominee.
Plus methinks that RBG is a TOUGH old bird - sheer will power will keep her going long enough to frustrate Trumpsky/GOP knavish tricks.0 -
IF Mansion was such a push-over, he'd already have been pushed. As for Romney, who knows, but doubt he'd want to go down in history kissing Trumpsky's big fat ass.EPG said:Looking at the lists of Senators:
The Judiciary Committe would probably arrange a name to go to the whole Senate.
Romney or Manchin would probably support a compatible nominee, e.g. one who also owns a coal mine if it comes to that.
If this plan is intended to finish after the first week of November, in a world where Biden wins, there are likely to be a few defeated Republican senators, who could join with Murkowski and Collins (who TBH would probably be on the way out herself in this scenario), to cause problems for a nominee conservative enough to make the plan worthwhile.
Before the first week of November, it is a huge gamble that Trump has not chosen another very controversial appointee who gets kicked upward at unseemly speed without political scrutiny and before the stories get off the front page. You are trusting Trump to appoint someone less controversial than the last guy. Good luck!
But a lot of this is east-of-Atlantic wishful thinking: the reality is that any July vacancy will probably be filled, and even as late as September, because any Republican who holds it up gets massacred by the party even if Biden loses.0 -
It's intriguing that Justice Gorsuch was such (sorry) a controversial appointment yet issues awkward rulings like a ban against trans employment discrimination, and native title over half of Oklahoma, whereas Justice Alito who was appointed quietly may well be the most orthodox conservative judge of all time, or at least closer to A Scalia than C Thomas in reliability.0
-
Last time a president tried to do as you suggest, it did NOT turn out well = FDR's attempted "court packing" in 1937 = major self-inflicted political wound.Philip_Thompson said:
Or [though it would require the Democrats winning both Senate and Presidency] if the GOP do that the Democrats can threaten that incoming President Biden would nominate 4 new Justices to the Supreme Court.EPG said:
The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.Philip_Thompson said:
Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?EPG said:
Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.Nigelb said:
It seems hard to believe that (especially if this was after Trump had lost the election) that the Democrats wouldn't filibuster this to death.
Changing the size of the Court has been done before.
Though arguably it DID help SCOTUS moderate its rulings. BUT that process would likely have happened anyway, as court absorbed the message of FDR's 1936 re-election landslide AND as vacancies gave the President plenty of new justices appointed by him without court enlargement.0 -
Thanks. For us over here, easier to think that the filibuster is effectively gone. Not having the quite arcane situation in which a majority vote means a supermajority should be interpreted as a simple majority by the Clerk or the President pro tem or Whomever.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Under US Senate rules, a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee is NOT banned. Instead, it only takes 51 votes - simple majority of all 100 senators - to institute cloture thus ending debate.
My guess is that, if Trumpsky loses, there will NOT be 51 votes to end filibuster against confirming his nominee.0 -
Gosuch was NOT all that controversial. In part because he was (by legal standards) super-qualified. Which was why Trumpsky was advised to pick him.EPG said:It's intriguing that Justice Gorsuch was such (sorry) a controversial appointment yet issues awkward rulings like a ban against trans employment discrimination, and native title over half of Oklahoma, whereas Justice Alito who was appointed quietly may well be the most orthodox conservative judge of all time, or at least closer to A Scalia than C Thomas in reliability.
Liberals pretty much held their fire, and kept their powder dry for another day.0 -
NOT a matter of interpretation, a matter of rule.EPG said:
Thanks. For us over here, easier to think that the filibuster is effectively gone. Not having the quite arcane situation in which a majority vote means a supermajority should be interpreted as a simple majority by the Clerk or the President pro tem or Whomever.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Under US Senate rules, a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee is NOT banned. Instead, it only takes 51 votes - simple majority of all 100 senators - to institute cloture thus ending debate.
My guess is that, if Trumpsky loses, there will NOT be 51 votes to end filibuster against confirming his nominee.
Traditionally US Senate had unlimited debate. Filibusters were possible, but none actually happened until 1837. Cloture via 2/3 vote of members voting, not instituted by Senate rules until 1917, when it was created to curb anti-war senators.
In 1949 rule was changed to require 2/3 of the entire body to invoke cloture; was changed back to 2/3 of members voting in 1959. (Both these changes were in response to civil rights legislation).
After that, gets complicated. BUT I repeat, it is NOT a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of # of recorded votes yea or nay on motion of cloture.0 -
Longer a SCOTUS justice lives, the greater the likelihood she or he will seriously disappoint the president and party that gave them the life appointment.EPG said:Were I advising a President about Supreme Court nominees, I would filter for 42-year old triathletes with centenarian grandparents.
Prime example - Earl Warren, long-serving Republican governor of CA and 1948 GOP candidate for Vice President (with Tom Dewey), appointed by Ike.0 -
The Democrats don't need to do it just threaten to do it. If they threaten 4 new Justices if the GOP lame ducks force someone through that would likely scare off the GOP and make them hold fire.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Last time a president tried to do as you suggest, it did NOT turn out well = FDR's attempted "court packing" in 1937 = major self-inflicted political wound.Philip_Thompson said:
Or [though it would require the Democrats winning both Senate and Presidency] if the GOP do that the Democrats can threaten that incoming President Biden would nominate 4 new Justices to the Supreme Court.EPG said:
The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.Philip_Thompson said:
Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?EPG said:
Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.Nigelb said:
It seems hard to believe that (especially if this was after Trump had lost the election) that the Democrats wouldn't filibuster this to death.
Changing the size of the Court has been done before.
Though arguably it DID help SCOTUS moderate its rulings. BUT that process would likely have happened anyway, as court absorbed the message of FDR's 1936 re-election landslide AND as vacancies gave the President plenty of new justices appointed by him without court enlargement.0 -
The nuclear option is the interpretation arcane procedure. A trick to change the rules outside the actual procedure to change them.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
NOT a matter of interpretation, a matter of rule.EPG said:
Thanks. For us over here, easier to think that the filibuster is effectively gone. Not having the quite arcane situation in which a majority vote means a supermajority should be interpreted as a simple majority by the Clerk or the President pro tem or Whomever.SeaShantyIrish2 said:Under US Senate rules, a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee is NOT banned. Instead, it only takes 51 votes - simple majority of all 100 senators - to institute cloture thus ending debate.
My guess is that, if Trumpsky loses, there will NOT be 51 votes to end filibuster against confirming his nominee.
Traditionally US Senate had unlimited debate. Filibusters were possible, but none actually happened until 1837. Cloture via 2/3 vote of members voting, not instituted by Senate rules until 1917, when it was created to curb anti-war senators.
In 1949 rule was changed to require 2/3 of the entire body to invoke cloture; was changed back to 2/3 of members voting in 1959. (Both these changes were in response to civil rights legislation).
After that, gets complicated. BUT I repeat, it is NOT a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of # of recorded votes yea or nay on motion of cloture.0 -
Maybe. BUT risk of alienating large swath of independent & swing voters - and many Democrats - in the way that FDR did, is too great IMHO.Philip_Thompson said:
The Democrats don't need to do it just threaten to do it. If they threaten 4 new Justices if the GOP lame ducks force someone through that would likely scare off the GOP and make them hold fire.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Last time a president tried to do as you suggest, it did NOT turn out well = FDR's attempted "court packing" in 1937 = major self-inflicted political wound.Philip_Thompson said:
Or [though it would require the Democrats winning both Senate and Presidency] if the GOP do that the Democrats can threaten that incoming President Biden would nominate 4 new Justices to the Supreme Court.EPG said:
The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.Philip_Thompson said:
Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?EPG said:
Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.Nigelb said:
It seems hard to believe that (especially if this was after Trump had lost the election) that the Democrats wouldn't filibuster this to death.
Changing the size of the Court has been done before.
Though arguably it DID help SCOTUS moderate its rulings. BUT that process would likely have happened anyway, as court absorbed the message of FDR's 1936 re-election landslide AND as vacancies gave the President plenty of new justices appointed by him without court enlargement.
Far better for Dems to keep pointing out that another Trumpsky term would mean end of Roe v Wade. Which is VERY good argument pro-choice college-educated Republicans. And without the pitfalls of "court packing".0 -
Good tail on the comet tonight.1
-
They held him up and as you say, he was so qualified, that I think it really ruined the Kavanaugh business for them. It was so clearly political.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Gosuch was NOT all that controversial. In part because he was (by legal standards) super-qualified. Which was why Trumpsky was advised to pick him.EPG said:It's intriguing that Justice Gorsuch was such (sorry) a controversial appointment yet issues awkward rulings like a ban against trans employment discrimination, and native title over half of Oklahoma, whereas Justice Alito who was appointed quietly may well be the most orthodox conservative judge of all time, or at least closer to A Scalia than C Thomas in reliability.
Liberals pretty much held their fire, and kept their powder dry for another day.0 -
I've always found it strange in a republic with regular elections and term limits for many positions that Supreme Court Justices are effectively appointed for life and in practice unaccountable to anyone once in office. Surely a single non-renewable term of say, twelve years would be more appropriate?SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Longer a SCOTUS justice lives, the greater the likelihood she or he will seriously disappoint the president and party that gave them the life appointment.EPG said:Were I advising a President about Supreme Court nominees, I would filter for 42-year old triathletes with centenarian grandparents.
Prime example - Earl Warren, long-serving Republican governor of CA and 1948 GOP candidate for Vice President (with Tom Dewey), appointed by Ike.1 -
Kavanaugh was and remains a political hack. His appoint was totally political. Until he proves different, he's just part of the peanut gallery along with Thomas - represents millions of Americans who are shithead fratboys (or visa versa)EPG said:
They held him up and as you say, he was so qualified, that I think it really ruined the Kavanaugh business for them. It was so clearly political.SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Gosuch was NOT all that controversial. In part because he was (by legal standards) super-qualified. Which was why Trumpsky was advised to pick him.EPG said:It's intriguing that Justice Gorsuch was such (sorry) a controversial appointment yet issues awkward rulings like a ban against trans employment discrimination, and native title over half of Oklahoma, whereas Justice Alito who was appointed quietly may well be the most orthodox conservative judge of all time, or at least closer to A Scalia than C Thomas in reliability.
Liberals pretty much held their fire, and kept their powder dry for another day.0 -
You may have a point. Suggest you take it up with ghosts of Madison, Hamilton & Jay. Cause think a successful seance is MORE likely than changing the this clause in the Constitution.dodrade said:
I've always found it strange in a republic with regular elections and term limits for many positions that Supreme Court Justices are effectively appointed for life and in practice unaccountable to anyone once in office. Surely a single non-renewable term of say, twelve years would be more appropriate?SeaShantyIrish2 said:
Longer a SCOTUS justice lives, the greater the likelihood she or he will seriously disappoint the president and party that gave them the life appointment.EPG said:Were I advising a President about Supreme Court nominees, I would filter for 42-year old triathletes with centenarian grandparents.
Prime example - Earl Warren, long-serving Republican governor of CA and 1948 GOP candidate for Vice President (with Tom Dewey), appointed by Ike.0 -
How can this be explained?
"Young people see covid-19 as a bigger threat than their elders do
Millennials are more pessimistic about surviving the pandemic, though they are least at risk" (£)
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/21/young-people-see-covid-19-as-a-bigger-threat-than-their-elders-do0 -
US term limit - the only FEDERAL office with term limits is President. None for Vice President, US Senator or US Representative.
STATES are free to impose term limits for state office, as provided - or not - in their state constitutions. Wide variety of approaches from state to state, and from one era to another.
In the 1990s, term limits for state executive office, esp. governor, were far more common than state legislative term limits. However, during 20th century the trend was for states to drop their limits on gubernatorial terms, until just one state - Virginia - limits its governor to just one. And in 1990s Republicans pushed legislative term limits as a political base builder & electoral tool in many states.
Here in WA State, term limits for Congress, Governor & other state office were proposed and enacted by initiative. However, the term limit law was challenged in cases decided by state supreme court.
> Term limits for Congress overturned on grounds state law cannot overturn US Constitutional provisions.
> Term limits for state offices overturned on grounds that limits could NOT be imposed by legislation (by the legislature or initiative) but ONLY by amending the state constitution. The court's ruling also pointed out that, in the debate over the drafting of the WA constitution in 1889, delegates had considered term limits BUT had rejected them when push came to shove - clear proof of original intent.
Note that under WA constitution, amendment to the const. must first pass both houses of legislature with 2/3 supermajority before being submitted for ratification by majority of state voters at next general election. Which in case of legislative term limits is UNLIKELY to say the least.
As for Governor, well, you'd be surprised how many legislators look into their mirrors each morning and see potential governors.0 -
OT - think the REAL betting challenge for PBers is NOT Biden's pick, but instead Trumpsky's choice.
Think it may come down to a very hard choice: Kanye West or Johnny Depp?
Both would surpass Pence in electoral utility this year. AND would each lend much-needed stability to the Republican ticket.1 -
IF you were La Maxwell, and Trumpsky goes out of his way to "wish her well" would this make you MORE freaked out than you already are?0
-
You need one of these LED light tube maps whose LEDs light up based on tube train movements. It talks to TfL's api over your wifi.Andy_JS said:O/T
Looks like Southwark tube station has reopened. Not sure exactly when it first starting operating again. (Don't live in London, I'm a fan of the Tube network).
https://www.traintrackr.co.uk/0 -
This discussion has been closed.