|
computer parts posted:Why is the former not evidence of the latter? The Dixiecrats leaving was definitely a leftward shift for the Democratic Party. Strike out "genuine" and add "among the legislators still in office"; same point.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
I don't think the GOP is going anywhere but I do think that they're going to start having the sort of chaotic clusterfuck of confused lack of central leadership that the Democrats had in the last couple of decades. Between the campaign financing decisions, meddling billionaires, and so forth, I think there will just be an implosion of any actual ability to do things in an organized manner. You're already seeing this in the House. Now, those billionaires will certainly help, and there is the large chunk of the country who would vote for Satan and his boyfriend Hitler if they had an (R) next to their names. But the Democrats in their turn seem to be gaining, if not a "good" organizational system, something resembling organization. This would (in principle) let Democrats benefit from prevailing situations in a way that Republicans cannot, because the Republicans appear to have no actual leaders. The Democrats are also relatively free of people who are working everything as a grift. I'm sure there is corruption and lobbyist sweetheart deals and so on, but Hillary, even if you think she's a reptilian space creature whose heart is black and whose soul is determined by political expedience, isn't doing it to sell books. So my prediction is that the Republicans lose internal coherence in the screaming and the Democrats claw out gridlock and perhaps some degree of governance along the way. In twelve or twenty years the GOP may smarten up or rebrand itself, but twenty years ago Bill Clinton was still president, so who can predict that far in advance? Maybe we'll all be cyborgs. Or dead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Early Trump showed that there exists a path for republicans if they were actual True Believers (social conservatism, fiscal liberalism, attract effete liberals interested in selling out their disadvantaged minority allies for a safety net). The problem is that neither party wants to be fiscally liberal (or, at least, are constrained by their interests, lobbyists, and donors). Dixiecrats getting booted out by tea partiers & ilk was a shift towards the left, but it's arguable that the PR reaction to conservative narratives at the height of popular support and party leader recognition suggests that there's still plenty of conservatives in the dem party, they're just of the global definition of conservative, and know how to keep their mouths shut and check which way the wind is blowing. Since the Overton Window was brought up, I feel like it's important to realize exactly what needs to be changed and removed from the dem party to help push the discussion leftwards. No leftist should ever entertain the idea of a "Balanced Budget" nor a "Fiscal Cliff" for a state that could take on trillions of dollars worth of debt and not-even-sweat keeping up with debt payments. That this kind of narrative was allowed to be adopted with virtually no opposition to the very concept is a shining example of how dems-intentionally or incompetently-have allowed public opinion to shift rightwards while simultaneously injecting a fresh batch of apathy into leftist supporters. The public support, want, and love leftist policies, but uncontested garbage like this digs away at the back of their skull, instills fears and doubt, and eventually a firm belief that it's simply not possible to say, take care of all of america's healthcare problems for free, because of worthless phrases like BalancedBudgetFiscalCliffAustereSociety. Also, an important question to ask is not "will the republican party collapse?", it's "will the republican party collapsing be a good thing for America?". The answer to that, from a minority group that knows full well the impact of being taken for granted as a voting bloc for the Democratic Party, is a resounding "No".
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
uncle wrinkles posted:At this point in time back in 2011, Cain lead in the polls. Gingrich didn't pull ahead until later on in November. While the analogy is imperfect in some regards (Trump's been leading for longer than Cain), it adequately illustrates how trying to form grandiose conclusions about the direction or health of an American political party based on polls a year before the election is tremendously stupid. I agree that assuming the GOP are going to be dead come election day 2016, based on what's happening literally a year in advance, would be a terrible idea. That said, this thread isn't necessarily "hahaha Hillary wins." The major point is that while yes, the non-establishment frontrunner at this point is hardly likely to win the nomination, there are elements at work during this cycle (and outside of the presidential campaign) that show significance for the GOP. From Eric Cantor being primary-ed out by a Tea Partier (although this is more about how much of an assuming arsehole Cantor was) to the self-immolation of Boehner over the debt ceiling / staving off the House Freedom Caucus, there seems to be an instability in the GOP between the power of the establishment and the volatility of the base. The presidential campaign itself is not indicative via its candidates, but in the base's reaction to the candidates. While Romney wasn't riding a wave of enthusiasm to his nomination, nor was he frontrunner consistently, he wasn't receiving the same level of vitriol given to Jeb! - but again, I'm well aware this does not mean the end of the establishment and the premiership of Trump. The most interesting thing to take from this campaign is the inability of the RNC to control things, as evidenced by them being cut out of the debate negotiations, as well as the inability of the Fox News Hate Machine to turn public opinion against Trump as they have with other targets. The dichotomy between Fox and Talk Radio is nothing new, but usually Rush & co. rail against Fox, and Fox mostly does its own thing, but it almost feels like Fox is starting to be more influenced by Talk Radio than before. So bringing it back to the thread title - I don't think the GOP will 'die' this time and felt that was overly sensationalised for what's happening. I guess the thing to wonder is if this is closer to the post-Reagan environment of 1994 when Moon Base Gingrich took the speakership. Of course, that wasn't a presidential election year, merely a mid-term, and ended up aiding Clinton's second term over the polarising tactics they used. But, it was certainly a watershed moment for the GOP and one from which they recovered pretty well, so that by the time Bush stole office he was back under a united GOP. So I suppose the question is, for people who followed politics during that period, is this situation similar or different?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
uncle wrinkles posted:At this point in time back in 2011, Cain lead in the polls. Gingrich didn't pull ahead until later on in November. While the analogy is imperfect in some regards (Trump's been leading for longer than Cain), it adequately illustrates how trying to form grandiose conclusions about the direction or health of an American political party based on polls a year before the election is tremendously stupid. you're a literal retard, HTH point of return posted:Strike out "genuine" and add "among the legislators still in office"; same point. Okay, so now answer the question and say why it is somehow illegitimate? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
uncle wrinkles posted:*drops comically-oversized manilla folder full of opinion poll results from the first week of November 2011 on desk* Folks, the Herman Cain juggernaut looks unstoppable. Can you believe it. The establishment candidates like Romney are completely marginalized. The inmates are running the asylum and, imho, the GOP establishment is probably all like "whaaaa... dafaq?". *chuckles* Might as well stick a fork in those dusty white buttholes (the bad sort of white - unlike the other skin colors, the white skin color comes in two different varieties of person). uncle wrinkles posted:Just got the poll results back and it seems Wesley Clark is going to be the 2004 Democratic nominee. Here's my 600-word essay on why the Democratic Party is inevitably heading towards a military junta. Feel free to discuss but anyone who debates must think gay people are incapable of being trusted around children. This is a really bad thread, but these posts are pretty good. icantfindaname posted:you're a literal retard, HTH You're adorable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, so now answer the question and say why it is somehow illegitimate? I didn't mean to say that the leftward shift being due to the Blue Dogs dying out was illegitimate, but it is different from one in which the leftmost members of Congress become more left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
I dunno, I kind of want to make comparisons to the '12 primary where every freak led the polls for at least a week while Romney sat there looking perturbed with his hands folded, waiting. But who is The Romney this time? Jeb! (lol)? Rubio?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:I dunno, I kind of want to make comparisons to the '12 primary where every freak led the polls for at least a week while Romney sat there looking perturbed with his hands folded, waiting. Trump. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:I dunno, I kind of want to make comparisons to the '12 primary where every freak led the polls for at least a week while Romney sat there looking perturbed with his hands folded, waiting. I think it has to be Rubio this time around, but I don't think we can count out the possibility that Trump just won't flame out the way others have in previous cycles. He's a gently caress of a lot more competent than any of the flavours-of-the-week from last time around (or this time around, for that matter).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Carson will decline, and then Rubio enters his scrutiny phase, and I'm not confident he'll hold up. After Rubio declines, then the establishment has uh...Kasich? The do not have control over the party anymore. The blood-dimmed tide is loosed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
baw posted:Carson will decline, and then Rubio enters his scrutiny phase, and I'm not confident he'll hold up. Why will Rubio decline under scrutiny? I strongly disagree with his ideas on taxes, and his foreign policy (especially related to Cuba) but I don't think the GOP base will see those as negatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
He wants to have a beer with Malala, an underage muslim socialist. If that's the kind of answer he gives to softball questions then he is in for some trouble when the spotlight shines on him. And he's the establishment's last hope edit: his decline his not a sure thing, and i still think he has the best chance at the nomination, but we'll see how it plays out baw fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
baw posted:Carson will decline, and then Rubio enters his scrutiny phase, and I'm not confident he'll hold up. If Carson crashes, Cruz will pick those up points and be ultimately quashed by having literally no political allies anywhere, but he'll still hang out in the primary proper, like Gingrich did in 2012. Huckabee might also hang on and be this season's Santorum. Trump is the new Paul. Rubio will be the nominee. Time is a flat circle. Death is certain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Because Democrats have no ideology and only want power (most charitably: to keep it away from the Republicans), they constantly misunderstand modern Republicans - whose ideologies are always repugnant and frequently in conflict with each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Trent posted:This was a good post, but this ending was a bit off-putting. Which minority group are you apparently the spokesperson for? Yeah, should have phrased that "as a part of a minority group" (LGBQT).
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Yeah, should have phrased that "as a part of a minority group" (LGBQT). As a member of that same group I have no idea what you're getting at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:As a member of that same group I have no idea what you're getting at. Even with a supermajority we got the most meager of lipservice, removal of military laws that were about to be challenged, and an irrational fear of expending "political capital". Gay Marriage was federally recognized because of a bipartisan group of LGBQT members taking Prop 8 to court, not because of anything involving dems looking to rebrand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Even with a supermajority we got the most meager of lipservice, removal of military laws that were about to be challenged, and an irrational fear of expending "political capital". Gay Marriage was federally recognized because of a bipartisan group of LGBQT members taking Prop 8 to court, not because of anything involving dems looking to rebrand. They made it an official party platform in 2012. The courts were just the fastest way to get it done. I do see your point of view but I never felt like it was lip service, just the limitations of American democracy in slowing progress. Of course, where I live (Massachusetts) can very much be tainting my perception of democrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Even with a supermajority we got the most meager of lipservice, removal of military laws that were about to be challenged, and an irrational fear of expending "political capital". Gay Marriage was federally recognized because of a bipartisan group of LGBQT members taking Prop 8 to court, not because of anything involving dems looking to rebrand. None of the gay marriage cases would have gone as far as they did, as fast as they did, without democratic attorney generals and Governors throwing the weight of their states behind them, not to mention the Justice Department. And my democratic Governor's very first executive order banned discrimination in state employment on the basis of sexual orientation. I'm not sure what you expect, given you complain about political capital, but without electing the correct officials, an enormous number of strides would not have been made in the past eight years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I agree that assuming the GOP are going to be dead come election day 2016, based on what's happening literally a year in advance, would be a terrible idea. That said, this thread isn't necessarily "hahaha Hillary wins." See, this is what a Good Post looks like. Thank you, Tesseraction! But enough back-slapping, I'll address your question. I'll also bring the caveat of being only 22, so all of my knowledge of the 1994 "Revolution" is drawn from my own analysis of the situation. First off, I'd hesitate to call it a real "revolution" - if anything, Gingrich was merely the first guy to take advantage of the 24-hour news cycle. The coverage the Contract for America received from CNN and the like was a big boost was a nifty little piece of propaganda that struck a chord with a wide variety of people who were fairly unhappy about a number of things. Those things just so happened to add up to hating the poo poo out of Bill Clinton, which worked out wonderfully for the GOP. Basically, it was a lot of people clutching their pearls over Bill's various foibles, with varying levels of sincerity. It all coincided to swing some *very* shallow democratic seats that were probably going to shift sooner rather than later; all it was going to take was someone of mild persuasive ability, and that ended up being Moonbase Newt. I would most succinctly label the 1994 wave election as more of a re-establishment of the old, southern order in American politics - these were more or less aristocrats that were forced out of office-holding power when the northern, urban Democrats sold out their interests in the 60s. Obviously, Republicans got to picking up those pieces mighty quick, but it didn't bare itself out on a federal level until that point in time - this is the point when the Republicans from Ohio, New York, and California lost complete control. Now we're seeing the complete cessation of ANY control, as one would imagine it would follow, logically. Why this is different is that we're seeing different factions of the GOP experiencing vastly different levels of enthusiasm. Additionally, this is an ideological fight being fought bitterly over what is supposed to be the nomination for the most powerful office in the entire world, and it's being won by a bunch of underqualified clowns. And that's not underqualified in the sense that Obama might have been, in terms of a lack of executive experience in government - Donald Trump would be the biggest diplomatic disaster in the history of western politics. Now, how does Jeb's failure fit into all of this? Think about his family history: Prescott Bush and George H.W. Bush were as Connecticut blue-blood as can be. Prescott made it very easy for H.W. to move to Texas, where he quickly ingratiated himself with the oil industry. But as you might imagine, old habits die hard. Dubya is culturally a Texan, but he's prone to Daddy's bouts of awkwardness. Whereas Jeb is most definitely Daddy's Boy - and he's a nerdy little poo poo as a result. As such, Jeb can't convince the culturally southern wing of the party that he's legitimate. Carson is the very essence of the sort of soft-spoken bible thumping that got Jimmy Carter into the Oval Office - he's a Nice Christian Boy, as they say. Add in the fact he's not a "career politician", and he's a big deflector for racist accusations, he's got a lot going for him in the southern wing. I think Trump's base of support is novel, as he gets a formerly disconnected part of the Republican party energized into primary politics - greasy shithead goombahs who live in greatest concentrations in the outer boroughs of NYC and southern Jersey, and every other metropolitan/suburban area for that matter. While not necessarily as motivated towards political engagement as those southern culture warriors are, they'll sure as hell vote for Donald Trump if given the opportunity. It remains to be seen if they'll actually turn out to the polls, though, but I believe they pose an interesting problem for pollsters, simply because they aren't a traditional bloc of primary voters. I personally know many NYC Republicans who are either earnestly excited for the prospect of Trump - these people are usually painfully stupid/"blue collar". However, there is a group of people who are cynically boosting Trump's candidacy because they actively think the other guys physically cannot do a worse job, and so they consider Trump voting an act of contrarian defiance of the highest order. These people are dangerous, because they're acting without consideration of their actions, save for their desire to spite the populace at large. Now, because Jeb is such a particularly lame politician, the GOP establishment is forced to go a direction that they've never had to go before, which is the Marco Rubio youth movement. The issue there is that Rubio is also pretty lame - because he's honestly not that conservative. Now, a good politician should be able to stand up for himself, and articulate why he has those positions; but we all know that the GOP is not that place, nor does Rubio possess the requisite ethos or pathos do to so. However, if the establishment is truly going to pivot behind him, it could all work out. But even then, they'll still have to contend with the billionaire donors who hitched themselves to duds like Santorum and Gingrich last cycle...last I heard, Sheldon Adelson just met with Trump. So, what does that boil down to? We've got the financial establishment in complete disarray, and outsiders pushing out the diligent old folks who used to boost the establishment candiates. Again, as I alluded to earlier in the thread, this has enabled two very dangerous strains within and around the GOP - one which could theoretically empower Ted Cruz (the Nixonian far-right), and one which could do the same for Donald Trump (literally a democratic mob like Plato warned us about). In either case, they won't win the presidency, because neither Clinton or Sanders are clowns. They'll have full leave to obliterate either one of them, because they won't have to worry about alienating the sort of Very Serious People who feel very threatened by Trump/Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
http://robertreich.org/quote:The other night I phoned a former Republican member of Congress with whom I’d worked in the 1990s on various pieces of legislation. I consider him a friend. I wanted his take on the Republican candidates because I felt I needed a reality check. Was I becoming excessively crotchety and partisan, or are these people really as weird as they seem? We got right into it:
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
I'm crying and laughing at the same time. :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
MODS CURE JOKES posted:See, this is what a Good Post looks like. Thank you, Tesseraction! Hah, thanks! MODS CURE JOKES posted:First off, I'd hesitate to call it a real "revolution" - if anything, Gingrich was merely the first guy to take advantage of the 24-hour news cycle. It's true that the situation in 1994 was by no means a revolution, but it was certainly a shake-up. Something unexpected and ultimately wrestling control from the back-room leaders of the GOP. The interesting thing to take away is that Moon Base eventually became beholden to those back-roomers as they showed him where the money comes from. As for the aristocrats, I've always felt that for quite a while now they tend to buy politicians rather than get into power, and the populist waves of the GOP are actually counter to their interests. While Gingrich was bought out, others aren't always that convenient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
I tried watching the GOP debate. I felt like my brain had been hit repeatedly with a baseball bat after watching it. Just this fascinating mix of dumb, and terrifying ideas being discussed by these people. I can recall my dad claiming he voted against Carter in 1980 because he was fearful that he'd "Wind up drafted and fighting a war in Iran". gently caress if I don't feel the same way right now. I'm honestly terrified of any of these men having access to nuclear launch codes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I tried watching the GOP debate. To be fair, Rubio, Bush, and Kasich aren't gonna nuke anyone for insulting America. Bush just wants to serve his corporate interests, Rubio seems like he's a true believer in his platforms (for better or for worse), and Kasich is just...there. Anyone else I'm a little dodgy on. Rand Paul probably won't, he'd be too concerned about loving up America domestically to launch the nukes. Also, this thread has served it's purpose, the OP got his manifesto out. Does it really still need to be open?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:To be fair, Rubio, Bush, and Kasich aren't gonna nuke anyone for insulting America. Bush just wants to serve his corporate interests, Rubio seems like he's a true believer in his platforms (for better or for worse), and Kasich is just...there. Bush #3 has put together a team of advisers that's basically the gang who talked the last Bush administration into invading Iraq. They still think it was a good idea. To them, war IS business, they make bank off of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:If Carson crashes, Cruz will pick those up points and be ultimately quashed by having literally no political allies anywhere, but he'll still hang out in the primary proper, like Gingrich did in 2012. Huckabee might also hang on and be this season's Santorum. Trump is the new Paul. Rubio will be the nominee. Time is a flat circle. Death is certain. That's not true. Cruz has Mike Lee. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
So with Ted Cruz rapidly rising in the polls, he's looking to be positioned against Christie, who is obviously making a lot of noise in New Hampshire. This really hilights the GOP fissure I'm so enthralled by - Iowa and New Hampshire might as well be different universes right now. This gap is getting bigger and bigger, imho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
You know, a month and a half after writing the OP, I can't help but feel like the pundit class is catching up to me: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-david-brock-attack-ted-cruz-216694 David Brock is already starting to get his ducks in a row vis a vis a prospective Cruz nomination, pretty much echoing the points I raised at the end of October: Infrastructure, ideology, and positioning relative to Carson and Trump. Now that Carson has more or less faded away, Cruz just needs for the Trump blood tide to ebb, which it is almost guaranteed to do by March 1st. http://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2015/12/how_ted_cruz_will_get_to_cleveland_to_accept_the_nomination_ted_cruz_in_the_news.html According to an aggregation of press reports put together by Stephen Koff, Cruz has been solidifying his ground game in the southern states he can expect with reasonable certainty to do well in, absent Carson's presence. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/opinion/the-ted-cruz-establishment.html?_r=0 And here we see David Brooks cannnily outlining the structures of power that are present beneath the surface of the GOP's official leadership - he puts a spotlight on the fact that Ted Cruz has been setting himself up for this presidential race since at least the 2nd Bush administration. A quote from that article which really stands out to me comes from Eliana Johnson of the National Review - "The man who boasts of his ideological purity is perhaps the most obviously tactical candidate.” So, there you have it. All the tea leaves are starting to point towards Cruzmaggeddon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Except for the ones where Trump is horribly crushing all the other GOP contenders in the polls?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
MODS CURE JOKES posted:Cruz just needs for the Trump blood tide to ebb, which it is almost guaranteed to do by March 1st. ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. how are people still insisting he's going to collapse any minute now? the mechanism for his not getting the nom has always been a brokered convention, it's been clear his poll numbers aren't going to drop for literal months. Cruz getting the nom will happen if and only if the convention is unable to nominate Rubio and chooses Cruz over Trump. that's it
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 10:20
|
|
|
Looks like Hillary's campaign is starting to feel the bern. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/us/politics/hillary-clinton-regrets-not-attacking-bernie-sanders-earlier-her-allies-say.html If they're sweating now, I'd hate to see them when faced with a real wildcard like Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
That's nice but this is a thread to discuss whether the GOP are eating themselves rather than whether or not the old dude from Vermont is beating Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Except for the ones where Trump is horribly crushing all the other GOP contenders in the polls? Republicans could hold the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, and every single state house except NY and CA and we'll still have a steady stream of articles from morons about how the GOP is in permanent decline and the election results don't mean anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
If Trump does get the Nom I am 100% sure he will get approached by all of the old GOP guard in hopes of making another Reagan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the poll numbers when the second and third stringers start dropping out en masse. Most of their votes would go to Cruz or Rubio.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:If Trump does get the Nom I am 100% sure he will get approached by all of the old GOP guard in hopes of making another Reagan. There's already been hints at it, not least of all because they'd want to reign in the more bombastic of his policies for fear of it upsetting their gravy trains. But that's not what's particularly interesting, I think it's the electrifying effect Trump has had on a base that's spent so many years having to put up with duffchumps like Mittens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 05:56 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:There's already been hints at it, not least of all because they'd want to reign in the more bombastic of his policies for fear of it upsetting their gravy trains. A significant portion of the base despises Trump. It's part of the reason why he polls so poorly against Bernie and Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 13:52
|
|