Sign in to follow this  
prisonchaplain

Trump 2024?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sure. Being a state is not some God-given right. States are admitted because they are beneficial to the Union, not because the Democrats will gain short-term political advantage.

Of course, Mormondom has lots of stories about members being “assigned” by their bishops to the Republican or Democratic parties as Utah neared statehood; because Republican congresscritters were afraid that Utah would be a solidly Democratic state and opposed Utah’s admission partly for that reason . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
29 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sure. Being a state is not some God-given right. States are admitted because they are beneficial to the Union,

That might be a reason, but I was asking for a legal or Constitutional reason.  Can you point me to which law or section of the Constitution you are referring to?

Quote

not because the Democrats will gain short-term political advantage.

I agree 100%.

Here are the questions that should be asked concerning a territory becoming a state:

Does the territory want to become a state and did they vote to become a state?

Does the territory meet the requirements of statehood as outlined in the law and Constitution?

Here are the questions that should not be asked:

Will the people vote the way I want them to?

What is the average income of the people in the territory?

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throughout history, humankind has sought to better ourselves through making whatever group we're a part of stronger/richer/better.  We fight internal wars over immigration, and external wars over land and influence.

Perhaps enough of us have enough long term memory to recognize this summary of things: A while ago, much of Europe thought they'd be better unified as the EU.  Greece almost didn't make it, because of their economic weakness and lack of spine when it came to the govt telling it's people no.  A bit later, folks wanted to kick Greece out, there were numerous calls to kick Greece out of the union.  (They called it Grexit).   Later, The UK sought, fought over, and finally went through with getting themselves out of the Union.  (Brexit.  It finally went through in January.)

I can certainly understand, even support, the notion that when someone wants to join the US in some way, we ask ourselves "how do we benefit from this"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Scott said:

That might be a reason, but I was asking for a legal or Constitutional reason.  Can you point me to which law or section of the Constitution you are referring to?

Sorry, but I think you have reversed our roles. You are the one arguing that PR "should" be a state. What is your justification for that? How do you think that PR has some sort of inherent right to statehood? Do you think that merely being a territory gives people a legitimate claim to statehood? Please cite your Constitutional sources for those opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Godless said:

You mean Puerto Rico? DC residents don't have Congressional representation, but they still vote for President. And giving Statehood to Guam would be a foreign policy nightmare. I don't see it happening anytime soon.

They have also talked about splitting California into 5 separate states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Because their culture is different.  We may as well offer statehood to Cuba and Haiti.  I’m sure lots of Cubans and Haitians would be happy to profess loyalty to the US and even do a stint in the US military, if it meant they could claim VA benefits and move to New York and demand “diversity preference” at a state-funded university and elect congresscritters who will promise them federal money in perpetuity if they will but stay on the Democrat plantation.

We should have granted Puerto Rico its independence, long ago. 

yeah, independence is a better idea. Stop the welfare state there and free the people from Washington DC tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

They have also talked about splitting California into 5 separate states.

I mostly see conservatives bringing that up, and I've already shared my thoughts on that. If the Dems wanted to split up a state for votes, the smart target would be Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We should have granted Puerto Rico its independence, long ago. 

 

I agree.  Puerto Rico should be its own sovereign country in my opinion.

Edit:  They would not ever petition to be a sovereign nation though unless things got really bad in the United States.

Edited by Still_Small_Voice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
3 hours ago, Vort said:

Sorry, but I think you have reversed our roles. You are the one arguing that PR "should" be a state. What is your justification for that?  How do you think that PR has some sort of inherent right to statehood?

They shouldn't automatically become a state.  They should be given the opportunity to go through the process if that's what they and most Americans welcome (and it seems that it is).
 

Quote

Please cite your Constitutional sources for those opinions.

Of course.  Here is the process that a territory takes to become a state.

A territory votes on statehood by referendum.  At this time Puerto Rico has done this.  The territory then can organize a state constitutional convention to write a state constitution. Right now they have a commonwealth constitution that would qualify as a state contitution if they are given a chance at statehood.

Congress is then supposed to vote on statehood.  They have not yet.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 says the following:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So it could be rightly pointed out that Congress isn't obligated to grant statehood.  It says that new states may be admitted, not will be admitted. Back in the 1800's, Congress declined the State of Deseret (it was given territorial status first) and the Indian Territory as being a state, supposedly on the grounds that their constitution didn't meet the criteria.  But congress is supposed to vote on it and have a good reason for voting not in favor of doing so.

We can look at how the other states were admitted and represented.  For example, in the Northwest Ordinance:

And, whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand.

In 2012, the Republican Platform said the following:

The Republican Party asserts that it "supports the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine,..define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to gain permanent non-territorial status, and said that, while Puerto Rico's status should be supported by a referendum sponsored by the U.S. government.

I can't think of a legal or constitional reason why Puerto Rico shouln't be allowed to be a state as long as they choose to and that's what the majority of the country wants.

The only territories denied or postponed statehood (Utah was not a territory when the State of Deseret was proposed) were Indian Territory and Hawaii, and Hawaii's was because of WWII.  

Before denying Puerto Rico statehood, we should be asking if they meet the constitutional and legal requirements to be a state.  Is that what they want?  Are they loyal to the US?  Will they have a state Constitution?   

Here is what is happening:

Democrats (at least some of them) are supporting statehood because as you said it gives them short term political advantage.

Republicans (at least some of them) are opposing statehood because they don't want Puerto Rico to have Congressional representation if they vote democrat.  

Neither of the above two reasons is a good one for or against statehood.  It's sad that these are reasons being used.

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scott said:
Quote

Please cite your Constitutional sources for those opinions.

Of course.  Here is the process that a territory takes to become a state.

I didn't request a recounting of the process. I requested that you cite your Constitutional sources that support your opinion about PR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
1 hour ago, Vort said:

I didn't request a recounting of the process. I requested that you cite your Constitutional sources that support your opinion about PR.

The Constitution doesn't dictate how Congress should vote; it only provides the process that should take place when voting on the matter.

The Constitution doesn't say that PR should become a state.  I wanted to see if anyone knew of a legal or constitutional reason that PR shouldn't have the opportunity to be a state.

My opinion on PR isn't whether or not it should become a state, but only that the people should decide and that Congress should take this in account. 

If Puerto Ricans and most Americans are against statehood or if they don't meet the qualifications and/or don't go through the process then PR shouldn't be given statehood.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

The Constitution doesn't dictate how Congress should vote; it only provides the process that should take place when voting on the matter.

The Constitution doesn't say that PR should become a state.  I wanted to see if anyone knew of a legal or constitutional reason that PR shouldn't have the opportunity to be a state.

My opinion on PR isn't whether or not it should become a state, but only that the people should decide and that Congress should take this in account. 

If Puerto Ricans and most Americans are against statehood or if they don't meet the qualifications and/or don't go through the process then PR shouldn't be given statehood.

Then we are in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scott said:

[1] They shouldn't automatically become a state.  They should be given the opportunity to go through the process if that's what they and most Americans welcome (and it seems that it is).

[2]  Of course.  Here is the process that a territory takes to become a state.

A territory votes on statehood by referendum.  At this time Puerto Rico has done this.  The territory then can organize a state constitutional convention to write a state constitution. Right now they have a commonwealth constitution that would qualify as a state contitution if they are given a chance at statehood.

Congress is then supposed to vote on statehood.  They have not yet.

[3]  Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 says the following:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So it could be rightly pointed out that Congress isn't obligated to grant statehood.  It says that new states may be admitted, not will be admitted. Back in the 1800's, Congress declined the State of Deseret (it was given territorial status first) and the Indian Territory as being a state, supposedly on the grounds that their constitution didn't meet the criteria.  But congress is supposed to vote on it and have a good reason for voting not in favor of doing so.

[4] We can look at how the other states were admitted and represented.  For example, in the Northwest Ordinance:

And, whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand.

[5]  In 2012, the Republican Platform said the following:

The Republican Party asserts that it "supports the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine,..define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to gain permanent non-territorial status, and said that, while Puerto Rico's status should be supported by a referendum sponsored by the U.S. government.

[6] I can't think of a legal or constitional reason why Puerto Rico shouln't be allowed to be a state as long as they choose to and that's what the majority of the country wants.

The only territories denied or postponed statehood (Utah was not a territory when the State of Deseret was proposed) were Indian Territory and Hawaii, and Hawaii's was because of WWII.  

Before denying Puerto Rico statehood, we should be asking if they meet the constitutional and legal requirements to be a state.  Is that what they want?  Are they loyal to the US?  Will they have a state Constitution?   

[7] Here is what is happening:

Democrats (at least some of them) are supporting statehood because as you said it gives them short term political advantage.

Republicans (at least some of them) are opposing statehood because they don't want Puerto Rico to have Congressional representation if they vote democrat.  

Neither of the above two reasons is a good one for or against statehood.  It's sad that these are reasons being used.
 

1.  Sure, so long as "the process" isn't some extraconstitutional, ahistorical claptrap specifically invented with the goal of getting Puerto Rico admitted.  

2.  There is nothing "constitutional" or "legal" about that.  The Constitution is silent on the issue; it doesn't establish a formal progression from unorganized territory to organized territory to state.  The statutes are not universally applicable; they were tailored for the needs and conditions within the various territories to which they applied.  

3.  Your assertion that "But congress is supposed to vote on it and have a good reason for voting not in favor of doing so" is incorrect.  There is no requirement that Congress decide on statehood through an actual vote.  In fact, Congress decides a lot of things by choosing *not* to bring the issue to a vote.  The Constitution offers no guidance on what is or isn't a good reason; and enabling acts like the Northwest Ordinance were drafted with the presumption that certain cultural conditions already existed in the areas where states were being set up.  

4.  That verbiage, "free inhabitants", is interesting.  Slaves didn't count.  Native Americans didn't count.  Why?  Because, as I've already pointed out in an earlier quotation from the actual Northwest Ordinance, the act was intended to give Congressional representation to people who embraced a certain set of cultural values, which slaves and native Americans (allegedly) did not. 

Statehood isn't just about us governing them.  It's about them governing us; so you'd darned well better chose your "them" carefully.

5.  . . . And?

6.  First off, your choice of words is a little artful here.  The fact that there's no express constitutional or statutory reason why they shouldn't be a state, doesn't suggest that there's a constitutional or statutory reason that they should.  Nor does it mean that Congress is barred from considering factors not explicitly mentioned in law or constitution.  Factors like culture, values, economy and self-sufficiency, past track record of self-governance, reaction of the international community, defensibility, and--yes--how it would tip the balance of power in Congress (Missouri Compromise, anyone?).  You still haven't given me a reason, under your preferred paradigm, as to why the US shouldn't have granted statehood England in 1800--or China today--if those people had, in a deliberate attempt to subvert traditional American values, jumped through the hoops you propose and demanded statehood and congressional representation.  

And second, let us reiterate:  there are no constitutional or legal "requirements" for Puerto Rico to become a state.  None.  There has never been a universal procedure for any region desiring statehood.  All there has been, is what Congress has deemed appropriate under the particularized set of circumstances of each would-be state at the time the application was made.  To suggest that there is a standard process that all other states have gone through, and that Puerto Rico should be allowed to go through, that allowed and allows prospective states to disregard political realities and bypass any scrutiny of their own political and cultural and economic dysfunction, is a historical fairly tale; and at a certain point, repeating that fairy tale only reveals an underlying political agenda.

7.  The fact that a significant portion of Americans embrace of Puerto Rico's political corruption, bureaucratic incompetence, and apparent disregard for individual liberty and personal property; speaks to a larger issue of American cultural and ideological decay.  If this is about political parties, then it's because one political party has chosen wholesale to embrace that decay and foist it upon the rest of the country.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Godless said:

 

It would certainly create an intersting economic dynamic if the agricultural centers of CA were to split from the industrial/commerce centers. I'm not saying that the agricultural areas don't have value or that they wouldn't survive without the metro areas, but well over half of California's GDP comes from the very blue parts of Southern and Central CA. Are these new states prepared to fund themselves without the support of the current state's economic powerhouses?

Aside from the potential economic vacuum it would create in the rural states, as outlined above, I just don't think the solution to the divisions in our country is more division. Your proposal essentially eliminates any incentive for Dem politicians to try to gain influence in rural areas, and eliminates incentive for GOP politicians to try to build influence in urban/metro areas. As things currently stand, both parties have a lot of work to do to reach across the aisle and bridge the gap between city and rural voters. I don't think blowing up bridges is going to fix anything in this country. You'll just end up with politicians in DC who don't even pretend to care about half of the country's population because they have no electoral incentive to. Heck, that's already happening in some states, and how's that working out? We've got impossibly high cost of living in some of the bluest states and abysmal educational systems and widespread poverty in some of the reddest ones.

Part of the problem and WHY there is resistance to places like Puerto Rico becoming a State is that there is NO benefit to Conservatives in this bargain or deal currently.  Many Liberals actually don't care about Puerto Rico, only the political aspects of getting several more electoral votes and Senate Representatives to turn the tide in the Senate (in fact, that is the hot topic currently in regards to making Puerto Rico a State, getting more electoral votes and Senate seats). 

There HAS to be benefits to BOTH sides.  With the current talking points that the more liberal (it's not even the entire Democrat party, it's more the far left side of the party) Democrats are pushing regarding making Puerto Rico and other territories states, they have NO incentives for Conservatives to even consider the possibility.  It's a one sided issue.  Unless we LOVE the politics that Trump had, where one sided issues are pushed through (this actually was ALSO a problem under Obama and one reason why the ACA has had such a tumultous time, you NEED both parties if you want legislation to be supported in the long term and more support from ALL Americans, rather than just a  subset of Americans which hate all the others and vice-versa), you NEED bipartisan legislature, which means something is for BOTH sides (Democrat and Republican).

Right now the effort is being pushed by ONE side, and not even the entire side, it's only the very LIBERAL side (despite what some Conservatives push, the Democrats do have various political aspects of their party with some being more liberal than others.  Biden is actually pretty conservative in regards to the Democrat party, he is more of a moderate than others such as AOC).  Most of the arguments I've seen are NOT considering how it may best help Puerto Rico (for example, allowing Puerto Rico in as a state to allow it more access to funds to help repair it's infrastructure which has been in tatters for a few years due to natural disasters, and various other aspects), but more from a political slant of getting more seats and political clout.  That's NOT how you win over the opposition among Republicans OR among independents. 

They need to present a picture where there is FAR more benefit to the country (meaning anyone besides just Liberal Democrats, which would mean a benefit to Republicans, Independents, and even Puerto Rico itself with it's infrastructure, economy, and various other items).

 

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

The federal Constitution would require that a state legislature agree to its own partition; and neither Sacramento, nor Salem, nor Olympia would ever give up their strangleholds on their eastern territories.  Not as autonomous regions, and certainly not as sister states.  Opponents of Puerto Rican statehood, at least, are willing to cut the island loose and let it govern itself.  But the colonials in the backwoods of California, Oregon, and Washington will just have to learn their place.    

It needs a vote of approval from it's current state government.  With politics, and compromise, a state government might be able to get in line with it (or they could do a Virginia act, though that would require the areas which wish to secede from their states to create a new government and in doing so argue that the California government is invalid...a VERY controversial act even today on how legal constitutionally it was...and that was during a time when the actual Virginia had declared secession itself) in regards to a plausible housing arrangement (Democrats as a whole gain more seats in the house, and a partial percentage in the Senate as new seats arise from PR and the new Western State), which benefits the party as a whole, even if the politicians in California suffer. 

The BIGGEST problem I see is that the Cities KNOW they depend on the rural areas for water in California, or for other resources in Washington and Oregon and are unwilling to try for a situation where they actually have to cooperate.  Currently, the big problems in those areas is that they go for majority elections (rather than representational like the Federal level of elections go) with the states, which makes for the tyranny of the majority.  It's probably the entire reason many of the Rural areas are very unhappy with the current status quo.  The Cities get all the say and the Rural areas basically have to do whatever they are told with no input.  It's a variation of the taxation without representation which caused unrest many centuries ago at the beginning of the Nation itself. 

You are right, the State Governments with NO incentives currently will NEVER let the independence movements of those states go, but if we incorporate national politics into it and try to come up with a Missouri Compromise situation with their cooperation, where they have something that is the bait or motivator (and what that is, I don't know currently), they might go along with it. 

Without a major push when the Democrats own both parts of Congress and the Executive branch, and then force the issue without any bipartisan support, I don't see Puerto Rico becoming a State simply because it's a one sided issue at this point.  There is no benefit to anyone (and perhaps not even Puerto Ricans from how the plan is being pushed by the Far Left) to make Puerto Rico a state at this point (much less DC which brings in constitutional issues far more than breaking up California) except for some Democrats at this point, and unless that changes...there will be a massive resistance to statehood for anyone else.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Godless said:

I mostly see conservatives bringing that up, and I've already shared my thoughts on that. If the Dems wanted to split up a state for votes, the smart target would be Texas.

It's the Californians (and Eastern Washington and Oregon) that want independence though.  Right NOW (and this could actually change, one reason the areas are conservative or Republican are because the people in control of California, Oregon, and Washington currently are Democrats) for the most part these areas ARE Conservative and  lean Republican. 

The Rural areas have NO SAY in what happens to their areas on a State level currently.  They are outvoted in their congresses and thus it is a variation on the idea of taxation without representation.  Sure, they have representation, but due to how the legislatures are voted and the numbers, their areas are outvoted every single time.  They want more water for their agriculture and themselves...too bad...San Franciso and Los Angeles need it more according to the state dictates.  Even though the water is Rural, and in their lands, the cities get it instead and deplete it against the wishes of the rest of the state.

They want to be off the grid of California and establish their own electrical company and systems because the one the States have are causing too many wildfires in their opinion...too bad...they must do what the State dictates.

They want to have more control over what type of fuel and emissions their tractors have so they can have better profits...too bad...they must follow the emission standard set by the cities.

They want control over how much they are taxed...too bad...they must pay taxes in regards to those set by the state with the wages made in cities in mind.

And it goes on and on.  Our forefathers rebelled in the revolution for less than what those in the Eastern portions of California, Oregon, and Washington have imposed upon them from their Urban centers of their states.

Texas thus far hasn't had this type of controversy among their voters and residents from what I've seen, thus isn't a hot topic or issue.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Scott said:

They shouldn't automatically become a state.  They should be given the opportunity to go through the process if that's what they and most Americans welcome (and it seems that it is).
 

Of course.  Here is the process that a territory takes to become a state.

A territory votes on statehood by referendum.  At this time Puerto Rico has done this.  The territory then can organize a state constitutional convention to write a state constitution. Right now they have a commonwealth constitution that would qualify as a state contitution if they are given a chance at statehood.

Congress is then supposed to vote on statehood.  They have not yet.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 says the following:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So it could be rightly pointed out that Congress isn't obligated to grant statehood.  It says that new states may be admitted, not will be admitted. Back in the 1800's, Congress declined the State of Deseret (it was given territorial status first) and the Indian Territory as being a state, supposedly on the grounds that their constitution didn't meet the criteria.  But congress is supposed to vote on it and have a good reason for voting not in favor of doing so.

We can look at how the other states were admitted and represented.  For example, in the Northwest Ordinance:

And, whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand.

In 2012, the Republican Platform said the following:

The Republican Party asserts that it "supports the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state if they freely so determine,..define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to gain permanent non-territorial status, and said that, while Puerto Rico's status should be supported by a referendum sponsored by the U.S. government.

I can't think of a legal or constitional reason why Puerto Rico shouln't be allowed to be a state as long as they choose to and that's what the majority of the country wants.

The only territories denied or postponed statehood (Utah was not a territory when the State of Deseret was proposed) were Indian Territory and Hawaii, and Hawaii's was because of WWII.  

Before denying Puerto Rico statehood, we should be asking if they meet the constitutional and legal requirements to be a state.  Is that what they want?  Are they loyal to the US?  Will they have a state Constitution?   

Here is what is happening:

Democrats (at least some of them) are supporting statehood because as you said it gives them short term political advantage.

Republicans (at least some of them) are opposing statehood because they don't want Puerto Rico to have Congressional representation if they vote democrat.  

Neither of the above two reasons is a good one for or against statehood.  It's sad that these are reasons being used.

 

Politics have played a heavy hand before in admission for states, though most intensely before the Civil War.  The questions of whether they will vote for one party or the other or sway the balance of power has been a highly contested item in the halls of Congress.

This has led to many compromises and agreements in order for states to be allowed into the Union. 

That this is not happening or even being considered today could be seen as a statement regarding how united or divided we are, even in relation to those times in the past prior to the Civil war and it's divisions.  We are so divided that we cannot even agree to the degree that they agreed upon when they were divided on issues prior to the Civil War!?  This does not speak well of our current political situation.

The problem concerning much of this right now is that many are not wanting to compromise anymore, it's more of a my way or the highway approach.  Americans are more divided today than in many times in the past, and probably far more than any time in the past 50 years, and unfortunately that shows in how our government is working as well.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this