Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2014, 09:41:41 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  Nader to announce on Meet the Press
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: Nader to announce on Meet the Press  (Read 5275 times)
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2004, 01:07:56 am »
Ignore

The most he got was 10% in Alaska...
Apart from Oregon and Minnesota, he got goodish results only where everybody knew it wouldn't hurt.
I'd be surprised if he polled above 1%. Then again, I'd be surprised to see Roy Moore poll above 1,5% either.
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26552


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: February 21, 2004, 05:38:45 am »
Ignore

The most he got was 10% in Alaska...
Apart from Oregon and Minnesota, he got goodish results only where everybody knew it wouldn't hurt.
I'd be surprised if he polled above 1%. Then again, I'd be surprised to see Roy Moore poll above 1,5% either.

If Moore's 1.5% is concentrated in Alabama it could still hurt a lot...GOPman, I think you're way off, why on earth would Nader do better than he did in 2000? That's highly unlikely, he'll do much worse, and the MN effect was probably b/c his running mate, Winona LaDuke was from MN.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26552


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: February 21, 2004, 05:39:27 am »
Ignore

The most he got was 10% in Alaska...
Apart from Oregon and Minnesota, he got goodish results only where everybody knew it wouldn't hurt.
I'd be surprised if he polled above 1%. Then again, I'd be surprised to see Roy Moore poll above 1,5% either.

What about Florida and New Hampshire? Or you don't regard these results ad good?
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4219


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2004, 05:56:18 am »
Ignore

No way will Nader get 5% nationally... many liberals voted for Nader because they saw Gore as too moderate and little different to the ostensibly centrist Bush... Gore minimised the damage caused by Nader's by moving slightly to the left during the election (which he first did to defeat Bradley in the primaries)... the great desire within the democratic party simply to win will massively reduce the effect of a Nader run added to this Nader has no party structure and will have to get him slef on the ballot in all fifty states by himself... I would be surprised if Nader got 1/2 what he got last time and most Democrats and liberals who voted for Nader in 2000 will vote for the Dem nominee...

Lewis Nader did not only get goodish results where if would not hurt in Florida and New Hampshire he held the balance had he not run and only 1/3 of his votes gone to Gore… Gore would have won both states… Wisconsin, Minnesota (as you say that’s largely the La Duke factor), Oregon and Washington where all made much closer than they ever should have been by Naders run and in the dying days of the campaign he made last minute drives in marginal states across the country including Florida and New Hampshire… sometime I really doubt that this guy is not a republican plant… I really do….  


GOPman I’m afraid that Kerry has a very good record on the environment and why would those to whom the environment is the most important issue in this election allow Bush to win?

If he runs I'd say he'll got on the ballot in about 30 states... and will get a little over 1% nationwide ... If Roy Moore runs (assuming an alliance of sorts between the Constitution and Reform Party's and no DOMA) then I imagine he'll get around 2.5-3% nation wide however I would imagine that will be concentrated in the south, but I would imagine in close states such as OH and NH even if he garners only a little under 1% that could be important...        
Logged

.Britain’s Mayor.
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2004, 06:40:28 am »
Ignore

No way will Nader get 5% nationally... many liberals voted for Nader because they saw Gore as too moderate and little different to the ostensibly centrist Bush... Gore minimised the damage caused by Nader's by moving slightly to the left during the election (which he first did to defeat Bradley in the primaries)... the great desire within the democratic party simply to win will massively reduce the effect of a Nader run added to this Nader has no party structure and will have to get him slef on the ballot in all fifty states by himself... I would be surprised if Nader got 1/2 what he got last time and most Democrats and liberals who voted for Nader in 2000 will vote for the Dem nominee...

Lewis Nader did not only get goodish results where if would not hurt in Florida and New Hampshire he held the balance had he not run and only 1/3 of his votes gone to Gore… Gore would have won both states… Wisconsin, Minnesota (as you say that’s largely the La Duke factor), Oregon and Washington where all made much closer than they ever should have been by Naders run and in the dying days of the campaign he made last minute drives in marginal states across the country including Florida and New Hampshire… sometime I really doubt that this guy is not a republican plant… I really do….  


GOPman I’m afraid that Kerry has a very good record on the environment and why would those to whom the environment is the most important issue in this election allow Bush to win?

If he runs I'd say he'll got on the ballot in about 30 states... and will get a little over 1% nationwide ... If Roy Moore runs (assuming an alliance of sorts between the Constitution and Reform Party's and no DOMA) then I imagine he'll get around 2.5-3% nation wide however I would imagine that will be concentrated in the south, but I would imagine in close states such as OH and NH even if he garners only a little under 1% that could be important...        


Nader got 1,6% in Florida, after having polled there as high as 7% at one point (sorry, I don't have that poll, I've read that figure somehwere.) That's not a good result. It was indeed enough to easily take Gore over the top, but then there's lots of other factors you could blame just as easily.
Wherever the election was close he got much less than what polls had proclaimed. Yes, he still got 5,2% in Minnesota, 5% in Oregon, 4,1% in Washington, 3,9% in New Hampshire, 3,6% each in New Mexico amd Wisconsin. (I've looked 'em up before writing this post...)
These are results above his national average of 2,7%. The other 19 states and equivalents with over average Nader results are safe states. Note that there are a number of states where Nader was only a write-in candidate or not even that, so the average for ballot status states is higher. (Then again, he got 2,5% as a write-in candidate in Idaho).
The point is: The vast majority of potential Nader voters bottled out and returned to the "minor evil" Democrats even before the elections. Expect more of the same in close states, expect the Green vote to hold up slightly better where you can really use your ballot to send a message, because it won't hurt.
PS While clearly above the national average, the NH result is still Nader's worst in New England
Vermont 6,9
Massachusetts 6,4
Rhode Island 6,1
Maine 5,7
Connecticut 4,4
New Hampshire 3,9
And Connecticut was considered not safe by many pundits.
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26552


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: February 21, 2004, 07:48:27 am »
Ignore

No way will Nader get 5% nationally... many liberals voted for Nader because they saw Gore as too moderate and little different to the ostensibly centrist Bush... Gore minimised the damage caused by Nader's by moving slightly to the left during the election (which he first did to defeat Bradley in the primaries)... the great desire within the democratic party simply to win will massively reduce the effect of a Nader run added to this Nader has no party structure and will have to get him slef on the ballot in all fifty states by himself... I would be surprised if Nader got 1/2 what he got last time and most Democrats and liberals who voted for Nader in 2000 will vote for the Dem nominee...

Lewis Nader did not only get goodish results where if would not hurt in Florida and New Hampshire he held the balance had he not run and only 1/3 of his votes gone to Gore… Gore would have won both states… Wisconsin, Minnesota (as you say that’s largely the La Duke factor), Oregon and Washington where all made much closer than they ever should have been by Naders run and in the dying days of the campaign he made last minute drives in marginal states across the country including Florida and New Hampshire… sometime I really doubt that this guy is not a republican plant… I really do….  


GOPman I’m afraid that Kerry has a very good record on the environment and why would those to whom the environment is the most important issue in this election allow Bush to win?

If he runs I'd say he'll got on the ballot in about 30 states... and will get a little over 1% nationwide ... If Roy Moore runs (assuming an alliance of sorts between the Constitution and Reform Party's and no DOMA) then I imagine he'll get around 2.5-3% nation wide however I would imagine that will be concentrated in the south, but I would imagine in close states such as OH and NH even if he garners only a little under 1% that could be important...        


Nader got 1,6% in Florida, after having polled there as high as 7% at one point (sorry, I don't have that poll, I've read that figure somehwere.) That's not a good result. It was indeed enough to easily take Gore over the top, but then there's lots of other factors you could blame just as easily.
Wherever the election was close he got much less than what polls had proclaimed. Yes, he still got 5,2% in Minnesota, 5% in Oregon, 4,1% in Washington, 3,9% in New Hampshire, 3,6% each in New Mexico amd Wisconsin. (I've looked 'em up before writing this post...)
These are results above his national average of 2,7%. The other 19 states and equivalents with over average Nader results are safe states. Note that there are a number of states where Nader was only a write-in candidate or not even that, so the average for ballot status states is higher. (Then again, he got 2,5% as a write-in candidate in Idaho).
The point is: The vast majority of potential Nader voters bottled out and returned to the "minor evil" Democrats even before the elections. Expect more of the same in close states, expect the Green vote to hold up slightly better where you can really use your ballot to send a message, because it won't hurt.
PS While clearly above the national average, the NH result is still Nader's worst in New England
Vermont 6,9
Massachusetts 6,4
Rhode Island 6,1
Maine 5,7
Connecticut 4,4
New Hampshire 3,9
And Connecticut was considered not safe by many pundits.


You seem to indicate that the 2.73% Nader got nationally in 2000 was some kind of minimum, but 3rd party candidates usually don't get a lot of votes. Ballot-status is also important. More to the point, we most likely won't have exactly the same battlegrounds this time around, I'd expect New Hampshire and Florida to both be safer for Bush this time around. And I think people are more anti-Bush now than they were in 2000.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2004, 08:54:46 am »
Ignore

Not exactly a "minimum", but it was less than had long been expected. The Green Party were quite confident until a few weeks before the elections that they'd get the 5% nationally they needed to get federal matching funds. (Don't ask me how that works exactly in the US.) When Nader started campaigning in battleground states again, it was mostly because they realised they would definitely not get their 5% otherwise. And 1,6% is bad compared to 2,7% nationally, just like 40% is bad for a Democrat compared to 50% nationally.
If the election had been considered in the bag for either gore or Bush some weeks before the election, I guess Nader would have polled about 5-6%. However, that was last time around. He won't poll that much again, we're quite agreed on that one.
Basically what I'm prickly about is the assertion that it's all Nader's fault Gore lost the election. Lots of factors contributed to that.
-The Democrats wrote off Ohio as lost two weeks before the election and stopped campaigning there
-Gore campaigned somewhat too much in the center and chose a less-than-perfect running mate
-people on the left were angry at Clinton's selloutish second term, not that that's really Clinton's fault
-there's the Florida election issue, which I won't rehash here
-whoever but Al Gore in the garment that least suits him for the debates? And who coached him?
-etc etc
-And Bush made mistakes too of course. He too might have won more clearly with a perfect campaign
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26552


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2004, 10:51:49 am »
Ignore

Not exactly a "minimum", but it was less than had long been expected. The Green Party were quite confident until a few weeks before the elections that they'd get the 5% nationally they needed to get federal matching funds. (Don't ask me how that works exactly in the US.) When Nader started campaigning in battleground states again, it was mostly because they realised they would definitely not get their 5% otherwise. And 1,6% is bad compared to 2,7% nationally, just like 40% is bad for a Democrat compared to 50% nationally.
If the election had been considered in the bag for either gore or Bush some weeks before the election, I guess Nader would have polled about 5-6%. However, that was last time around. He won't poll that much again, we're quite agreed on that one.
Basically what I'm prickly about is the assertion that it's all Nader's fault Gore lost the election. Lots of factors contributed to that.
-The Democrats wrote off Ohio as lost two weeks before the election and stopped campaigning there
-Gore campaigned somewhat too much in the center and chose a less-than-perfect running mate
-people on the left were angry at Clinton's selloutish second term, not that that's really Clinton's fault
-there's the Florida election issue, which I won't rehash here
-whoever but Al Gore in the garment that least suits him for the debates? And who coached him?
-etc etc
-And Bush made mistakes too of course. He too might have won more clearly with a perfect campaign

A perfect campaign is always nice, but hard to achieve...there were a number of factors combining to create the 2000 result, of course, but Nader is a rather clear one. All other things equal, Nader lost Gore Florida, and thus the election.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
zachman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2102


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2004, 03:13:36 pm »
Ignore

The 20,000+ Nader votes in NH will go nearly entirely to Kerry. New Hampshire is probably the most likely pickup for the democrats. Its a shame Bush wasn't opposed here, he would have won by a slim margin, and Kerry wouldn't be as successful as he is now.
Logged

I'm a proud NH Primary voter for 2008.

Harry Reid 08'

"As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred."
emergingDmajority1
Full Member
***
Posts: 245


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2004, 04:06:22 pm »
Ignore

Nader is just testing the waters, his top donors will likely be republicans.

there is no enthusiasm for him, he won't be on the ballot in every state and will likely drop out before the election due to lack of interest in his run.
Logged

Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35357
United States
View Profile
« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2004, 04:10:19 pm »
Ignore

EMERGING D MAJORITY, GO AND VOTE IN THE FANTASY ELECTION NOW.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26552


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2004, 04:18:07 pm »
Ignore

EMERGING D MAJORITY, GO AND VOTE IN THE FANTASY ELECTION NOW.

Holy sh*t, EmergingDmajority turned up! Shocked

Btw, I just saw the Simpsons episode where Ralph Nader attends the Republican meeting...it's really cool. Smiley
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15237
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2004, 04:36:39 pm »
Ignore

Why are you writing off Nader's ~5% in MN as the 'LaDuke' factor?  Even though MN has been drifting right (or more to the center, shall I say Tongue ), there are still quite a few liberals here.  Since we have good natural resources, Minnesotans tend to be more liberal environmentally.  I went to a Nader rally; it was thrilling!

Also, why so quick to blame Bush being elected on Nader?  You could aso blame it on the Libertarians, the Write In voters... the list goes on and on Wink
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
SeattleSquirrel
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2004, 04:37:48 pm »
Ignore

My initial reaction was that this was bad news for Democrats, but then after thinking about it for a short time I decided his decision was immaterial.  He doesn't have the resources to mount a major campaign, and he wouldn't have even affected the election last time around had Gore not been such a weak candidate.  Kerry and Edwards are both stronger than Gore was, and many fringe Democrats will likely ignore Nader this time  because of what happened in 2004.  He doesn't worry me much - his credibility is gone.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26552


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2004, 04:56:39 pm »
Ignore

Why are you writing off Nader's ~5% in MN as the 'LaDuke' factor?  Even though MN has been drifting right (or more to the center, shall I say Tongue ), there are still quite a few liberals here.  Since we have good natural resources, Minnesotans tend to be more liberal environmentally.  I went to a Nader rally; it was thrilling!

Also, why so quick to blame Bush being elected on Nader?  You could aso blame it on the Libertarians, the Write In voters... the list goes on and on Wink

B/c I see no other good reason... Wink

Actually, the only GOPer from MN in this forum is an environmentalist, so there might be something to your theory...
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
I am stabbed by grace and slinging blood
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 70961
Sweden


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: February 22, 2004, 01:42:10 am »
Ignore

most of the people who i know who voted for Nader did so because they didn't expect Minnesota to be so close. I think the happened in Oregon.

Anyway, he'll be lucky to break 2%, or even 1.5%
Logged

Famous True Leftists:

opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47647


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: February 22, 2004, 08:34:32 am »
Ignore

most of the people who i know who voted for Nader did so because they didn't expect Minnesota to be so close. I think the happened in Oregon.

Anyway, he'll be lucky to break 2%, or even 1.5%

Every little bit helps..  I hope some Republicans are donating to this creep's campaign.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Nation
of_thisnation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5587
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.06, S: 1.14

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: February 22, 2004, 09:19:30 am »
Ignore

Republicans WILL be the only donators to his campaign. . . most likely in swing states, too.
Logged

i dont know, but i've been told
that a yankee politician ain't got no soul
M
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2496


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: February 22, 2004, 11:25:23 am »
Ignore

What if polls and pundits indicate the Dems will lose, by whatever margin, in the 2 weeks before the electtion? A lot of these wackies might just go vote for whoever (Kucinich-I, Camejo-G, Kucinich-NL).
Logged

Recently moved to Jackson, Mississippi.
Nation
of_thisnation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5587
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.06, S: 1.14

View Profile
« Reply #44 on: February 22, 2004, 12:07:45 pm »
Ignore

I stand by my belief that in this election, anyone who actually does go and vote for said liberal third party candidate would NOT have voted for the Democrat anyway, especially since the "ABB" crowd is becoming larger.

I saw Nader on Meet the Press, and he does make very good points about the two major parties. With the dramatic increase in polarization between Republicans and Democrats, something (probably negative) will eventually happen and we'll see the rise of a more moderate third party. It's too bad Ralph probably won't be around to see it.
Logged

i dont know, but i've been told
that a yankee politician ain't got no soul
SeattleSquirrel
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: February 22, 2004, 03:17:30 pm »
Ignore

I stand by my belief that in this election, anyone who actually does go and vote for said liberal third party candidate would NOT have voted for the Democrat anyway, especially since the "ABB" crowd is becoming larger.

I saw Nader on Meet the Press, and he does make very good points about the two major parties. With the dramatic increase in polarization between Republicans and Democrats, something (probably negative) will eventually happen and we'll see the rise of a more moderate third party. It's too bad Ralph probably won't be around to see it.

I have to say that after watching Nader on Meet The Press (I wonder how many here actually watched it?) I still think he will make no impact - however, I must qualify my statement that his credibility is gone.  He gets a lot of bad press regarding his so-called "jupiter-sized ego" but when you listen to him speak, it is clear that he has very strong beliefs and that it is these beliefs which drive him.  It reminded me of the reason I voted for him in 1996.  (At the time it was clear that Clinton would win re-election, so I wasn't worried about that.  I voted for him to send a message about my dissatisfaction with both major parties and the two-party system in general.)

In 2000, I voted for Gore to help prevent the type of scenario that occurred in Florida and New Hampshire; HOWEVER I did take part in the "Nader Trader" system.  I'm sure the same system will be available this year.  You log on to "Nadertrader.org" -- I'm assuming this will be the same -- and trade your vote via e-mail with someone from another state.  It's perfectly legal and confidential.  Basically, if you're in a state where one party is assured of a victory - be it Democratic or Republican - you agree to vote for Ralph Nader in your state.  In exchange, the other person agrees to vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate in their state which is a "swing" state.  In that way, you can have your cake and eat it too, so to speak, and so can the other person.

For example, let's say I would prefer a Democratic president this year (which I would), but still want to support Nader in his crusade.  A person in another state which is overwhelmingly Democratic, would agree to vote for Nader in exchange for me voting for the Democratic candidate.  Or let's say someone's in an overwhelmingly Republican state; their Democratic vote is next to meaningless, therefore they agree to vote for Nader instead while I vote Democratic.  

It can work the same way for dissatisfied Republicans.  If their state is overwhelmingly Republican, they agree to vote for Nader while someone in a swing state votes for Bush.  Or if their state is overwhelmingly Democratic, they'll do the same thing.

It's a great system and I do believe that Nader is correct to continue his fight against the corporate culture in Washington, and against the two-party system which creates nearly insurmountable obstacles to third-party candidates (both in the general election and in local and state elections).

It's also a great feeling when you go to the polls and vote for your candidate, knowing that somewhere, someone's also voting for your first alternate (or first choice).  Smiley  While I realize that Washington can usually be counted on to vote Democratic, there's just enough uncertainty to make me consider it a swing state.
Logged
SeattleSquirrel
Newbie
*
Posts: 6


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: February 22, 2004, 03:40:22 pm »
Ignore

Whoops.. looks like the corporate-owned parties don't much care for vote trading.  They've shut down nadertrader.org, but here's one that's still up and running:

http://www.votetrader.org/

It also shows the impact that vote trading had on the 2000 election.  Of course the system is not perfect, as you have to count on the honesty of the person on the other end -- however, as long as you don't vote for Nader in a swing state (or one which has any chance at all of going contrary to history) you should be ok.
Logged
Reaganfan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12176
United States


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: February 22, 2004, 04:16:34 pm »
Ignore

Nader helped Bush in 2000, will he this time around, and will he be in the debates? Will Laduke be his running mate?
Logged

zachman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2102


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: February 22, 2004, 04:25:17 pm »
Ignore

It would be foolish to let him be in the debates. They could let him make a 1 minute statement at the beginning to be fair though.
Logged

I'm a proud NH Primary voter for 2008.

Harry Reid 08'

"As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred."
Nation
of_thisnation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5587
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.06, S: 1.14

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: February 22, 2004, 10:23:29 pm »
Ignore

They won't let him in the debates because he'd absolutely kill both Kerry and Bush, presuming these are the candidates. Also, since the commission for debates or whatever it's called is controlled by the two major parties, there is no hope of any third party (unless the support is equal or greater than perot's, not likely) getting on them.
Logged

i dont know, but i've been told
that a yankee politician ain't got no soul
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines