Jump to content

The Democratic Party needs to re-invent itself


Craig234

Recommended Posts

The historic Democratic Party has been as 'one of the two major parties' in the US, where it and the Republican Party each represent a large part of the population, each sometimes winning control in Congress and the presidency, sometimes all the branches.

Each is seen as representing a large part of the population.

 

Since the 1960's, the Democratic Party has largely been seen as the party of more government programs benefiting the poor, and for more civil rights, and more egalitarianism. They've had a total of three presidents since the 1960's, while the country has about 2/3 of its states and all federal branches governed by Republicans.

 

This is now an obsolete definition of the party as it needs to be.

 

The Republican Party is now entirely beholden to a very small group in the country - made of about 200 very wealth activist donors and an infrastructure around them. That's who they actually serve.

 

But they pander to various groups to get their support, inflating their numbers, from abortion foes to evangelicals to gun owners to people wanting limits on rights for non-caucasians and immigrants and a 'strong' foreign policy and many others. All of the other issues are quietly subservient to the core issue of their advocacy of plutocracy.

 

The American people people being split this way into two large groups, where the Republicans are competitive as a party, is allowing plutocracy to hold power.

 

The Democratic Party needs to reinvent itself simply as being 'the party of the people', with a core issue of representing the people against plutocracy.

 

Other than that, the party should include the approach of, 'give the people what they want'. Win elections. In every district of the country, the Democrats should be the clear choice of the people, by representing the majority of voters against the few who advocate policies causing plutocracy.

 

Democrats should hold perpetual super-majorities.

 

The way to do this is to recognize the diversity of voter views nationally, and have candidates local to each district who represent the people in that district. The constant issue for every Democratic official would be representing the people against plutocracy in the district.

 

I'm a progressive. I want a progressive country, with progressive politicians elected by progressive voters. But we aren't there. And the alternative that's good for progressives isn't to get it by demanding we run progressives in every election and watching Republicans run the country.

 

If a district wants someone with non-progressive views on other issues, give it to them, in a Democratic candidate who will oppose plutocracy.

 

This will create a much more diverse Democratic Party in the opinions held. There will be Democrats fighting for and against abortion, for and against various gun policies, for and against various foreign policies, for and against various drug policies, and so on.

 

But they'll be Democrats, and they will not be serving the billionaire, and funded by their money as the Republicans are.

 

And it'll be great for progressives to fight for a more progressive country. But we'll do it not by trying to make the Democratic Party a progressive-only party that is in the minority, we'll do it by trying to win over more and more voters to elect more progressive Democrats. If we do it, great, we have a progressive majority. If we don't, we at least have a government for the people, not plutocracy.

 

There is no excuse for 200 people to be half or more of the country's political power. The very essence of the United States' political system is to prevent that, by giving everyone one equal vote. That's supposed to translate into the people having political power - currently, it does not.

 

It can be done. The Democratic super-majorities that passed Social Security and created the SEC to reign in Wall Street, that passed Medicare and the Civil Rights Acts, contained the south who were at war with civil rights for black people, yet it still worked. We can have people we disagree with on many important issues in our party, the key being that they do not serve the billionaires.

 

That's democracy. And we want to keep improving it, just as Social Security, Medicare, and Civil Rights are now broadly accepted, moving the country to a more progressive direction. And to do that, we need to take it back from the billionaires, by ending their ability to win half or more of the elections by giving the people what they want while Democrats refuse to do so.

 

Instead, there will be factions within the Democratic Party trying to get more and more support - fighting for civil rights and other issues, for progressive policies.


The Democratic Party needs to redefine itself as the party of the people, all of the people who are not the plutocrats - and count on those with worse views being small enough in number not to get their policies passed, just as civil rights passed over the objections of opponents.

 

And the Democratic Party should market the party on this issue, plutocracy, just as FDR spoke out against the 'economic royals' who were his bitter enemies and made the elections about the people against those interests.


This should make the Republican Party either unelectable, or at least force radical change on it to reduce its support for plutocracy to compete, either of which is good for the country.

 

We should restore 'one person, one vote' to mean the people can rule the country, not the few most wealthy, as the vote was intended to do. And that means fighting the political tactic of allowing 'wedge issues' to split off voters from the party so that employees of the billionaires can win the elections and serve their interest instead of the voters.

 

This is how we stop approving Supreme Court Justices who change our constitution to let money rule the nation. This is how we stop redistributing all wealth to the few at the top, always reducing their taxes and cutting investments in the American people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Nothing like a crusade to get people motivated.  As it stands now, American Democracy has been made a sham by the rule of a small handful of Plutocrats.  There would be no more worthy a crusade than the cause of putting power in the hands of the the voters. 

 

There appears to be a growing awareness of the problem.  We have a an exhibitionist plutocrat in the White House who is breaking unpopularity records.  Democrats are running and winning on an anti-plutocrat platform.  Conor Lamb is a recent example.  And he won in a deep red state, heavily gerrymandered to defeat Democrats.

 

One of the main values at the outset of the US was equality ....   "All men are created equal".  Gradually that expanded as we freed the slaves, women got the vote and senators came to be elected directly. 

 

But in the last 35 years, regressive forces have staged a resurgence and pushed politics far to the right.   To popularize an anti-plutocratic movement so that it doesn't just depend on a backlash against the most bizarre and unfit president of all time, would take resources deep enough to defeat the nearly bottomless pockets of the plutocracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bludog said:

We have a an exhibitionist plutocrat in the White House who is breaking unpopularity records.  Democrats are running and winning on an anti-plutocrat platform.

 

Democrats are running and winning because we have a an exhibitionist plutocrat in the White House who is breaking unpopularity records.

 

The problem is that Republicans have identified a group with which they can win: the stupid. The bottom 35% of the normal curve of voters are dumb as rocks, and perpetually angry because being stupid, they don't do well in jobs. Also, being stupid, they'll believe what a demagogue tells them.

 

The hope that Democrats have is that the actions of the demagogue are so repulsive that the rest of the population is repelled before too much damage is done.

 

But until Democrats can find a way to appeal to both intelligent people and dimwits at the same time, they'll lose 35% to the party that can.

 

Trump had his road eased by Republican encouragement of the Tea Party, and he took full advantage if it. Still does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

Hopefully his parents will disable his internet access.  :P  

 

If he and all his soks keep coming back like this, after each 5 day suspension, I'm tempted to ban he and his soks permanently ...  This must be about the fifth time.  Technically, I'm supposed to use the permanent ban only on commercial solicitors;  But this guy is getting to be a pain in my royal red A$$.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bludog said:

 

If he all his soks keep coming back like this, after each 5 day suspension, I'm tempted to ban he and his soks permanently ...  This must be about the fifth time.  Technically, I'm supposed to use the permanent ban only on commercial solicitors;  But this guy is getting to be a pain in my royal red A$$.

You could always argue he's soliciting Trumpian/Russian propaganda.  :P   

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, laripu said:

But until Democrats can find a way to appeal to both intelligent people and dimwits at the same time, they'll lose 35% to the party that can.

 

This is the Democrat's perennial dilemma, isn't it:  How to attract the naive, the gullible and the dimwitted, without resorting to false narratives and deceptive promises which are the hallmark of the Republican Party.  Barring the fortunate emergence of a universally charismatic candidate with coat tails, it seems almost impossible to gain the votes of natural born suckers without using conspiracy theories, scapegoats and appeals to every other manner of foolishness.

 

Unlike the Republicans, who, to cloak their real agenda, need to invent false narratives and build coalitions based on hate, the Democratic Party has a genuine message of justice, fairness, equality and economic balance.  But when given the choice between efforts at realistic progress and a good lie, dullards embrace the lie in droves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bludog said:

 

This is the Democrat's perennial dilemma, isn't it:  How to attract the naive, the gullible and the dimwitted, without resorting to false narratives and deceptive promises which are the hallmark of the Republican Party.  Barring the fortunate emergence of a universally charismatic candidate with coat tails, it seems almost impossible to gain the votes of natural born suckers without using conspiracy theories, scapegoats and appeals to every other manner of foolishness.

 

Unlike the Republicans, who, to cloak their real agenda, need to invent false narratives and build coalitions based on hate, the Democratic Party has a genuine message of justice, fairness, equality and economic balance.  But when given the choice between efforts at realistic progress and a good lie, dullards embrace the lie in droves.

 

I agree with every word, and I also like how you wrote it.

 

I'm going to steal your phrase "natural born suckers". :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bludog said:

the gullible and the dimwitted

 

It just occurred to me that the words they use "the deep state" really means "the collection of very smart civil servants that prevent ignorant politicians from making really bad mistakes".

 

No wonder that ill-intentioned fools in office want to root them out. They're looking at high level decision making and seeing a swamp. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans use mythical dangers to get elected. They have nothing to offer in the people's interests, so they tell the people there are great dangers - whether it's the big red scare of the 1940's and 1950's, or the 'deep state' today, or just general demoniztion of 'commie liberals', to keep people from understanding the real threat, the plutocrats.

 

As long as they paint themselves as the victims of some evildoers, they get these voters' sympathies, whether it was Nixon's paranoia and hatred of the press, or the whole 'fake news' attacks on it today. During the election it was 'crooked Hillary trying to steal the election' with all her conniving big government crooks.

 

A century ago, it was the 'anarchists'. The evildoers doing evil by blaming their mythical monsters they're protecting the public from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 6:39 PM, Craig234 said:

The historic Democratic Party has been as 'one of the two major parties' in the US, where it and the Republican Party each represent a large part of the population, each sometimes winning control in Congress and the presidency, sometimes all the branches.

Each is seen as representing a large part of the population.

 

Since the 1960's, the Democratic Party has largely been seen as the party of more government programs benefiting the poor, and for more civil rights, and more egalitarianism. They've had a total of three presidents since the 1960's, while the country has about 2/3 of its states and all federal branches governed by Republicans.

 

This is now an obsolete definition of the party as it needs to be.

 

The Republican Party is now entirely beholden to a very small group in the country - made of about 200 very wealth activist donors and an infrastructure around them. That's who they actually serve.

 

But they pander to various groups to get their support, inflating their numbers, from abortion foes to evangelicals to gun owners to people wanting limits on rights for non-caucasians and immigrants and a 'strong' foreign policy and many others. All of the other issues are quietly subservient to the core issue of their advocacy of plutocracy.

 

The American people people being split this way into two large groups, where the Republicans are competitive as a party, is allowing plutocracy to hold power.

 

The Democratic Party needs to reinvent itself simply as being 'the party of the people', with a core issue of representing the people against plutocracy.

 

Other than that, the party should include the approach of, 'give the people what they want'. Win elections. In every district of the country, the Democrats should be the clear choice of the people, by representing the majority of voters against the few who advocate policies causing plutocracy.

 

Democrats should hold perpetual super-majorities.

 

The way to do this is to recognize the diversity of voter views nationally, and have candidates local to each district who represent the people in that district. The constant issue for every Democratic official would be representing the people against plutocracy in the district.

 

I'm a progressive. I want a progressive country, with progressive politicians elected by progressive voters. But we aren't there. And the alternative that's good for progressives isn't to get it by demanding we run progressives in every election and watching Republicans run the country.

 

If a district wants someone with non-progressive views on other issues, give it to them, in a Democratic candidate who will oppose plutocracy.

 

This will create a much more diverse Democratic Party in the opinions held. There will be Democrats fighting for and against abortion, for and against various gun policies, for and against various foreign policies, for and against various drug policies, and so on.

 

But they'll be Democrats, and they will not be serving the billionaire, and funded by their money as the Republicans are.

 

And it'll be great for progressives to fight for a more progressive country. But we'll do it not by trying to make the Democratic Party a progressive-only party that is in the minority, we'll do it by trying to win over more and more voters to elect more progressive Democrats. If we do it, great, we have a progressive majority. If we don't, we at least have a government for the people, not plutocracy.

 

There is no excuse for 200 people to be half or more of the country's political power. The very essence of the United States' political system is to prevent that, by giving everyone one equal vote. That's supposed to translate into the people having political power - currently, it does not.

 

It can be done. The Democratic super-majorities that passed Social Security and created the SEC to reign in Wall Street, that passed Medicare and the Civil Rights Acts, contained the south who were at war with civil rights for black people, yet it still worked. We can have people we disagree with on many important issues in our party, the key being that they do not serve the billionaires.

 

That's democracy. And we want to keep improving it, just as Social Security, Medicare, and Civil Rights are now broadly accepted, moving the country to a more progressive direction. And to do that, we need to take it back from the billionaires, by ending their ability to win half or more of the elections by giving the people what they want while Democrats refuse to do so.

 

Instead, there will be factions within the Democratic Party trying to get more and more support - fighting for civil rights and other issues, for progressive policies.


The Democratic Party needs to redefine itself as the party of the people, all of the people who are not the plutocrats - and count on those with worse views being small enough in number not to get their policies passed, just as civil rights passed over the objections of opponents.

 

And the Democratic Party should market the party on this issue, plutocracy, just as FDR spoke out against the 'economic royals' who were his bitter enemies and made the elections about the people against those interests.


This should make the Republican Party either unelectable, or at least force radical change on it to reduce its support for plutocracy to compete, either of which is good for the country.

 

We should restore 'one person, one vote' to mean the people can rule the country, not the few most wealthy, as the vote was intended to do. And that means fighting the political tactic of allowing 'wedge issues' to split off voters from the party so that employees of the billionaires can win the elections and serve their interest instead of the voters.

 

This is how we stop approving Supreme Court Justices who change our constitution to let money rule the nation. This is how we stop redistributing all wealth to the few at the top, always reducing their taxes and cutting investments in the American people.

 

I think you may be on to a good idea here but there are real obstacles to getting there. Whether we blame rightwing propaganda, stupidity, or hate people tend to see enemies in liberals, activist government, and people who are different. Furthermore a lot of working and middle class people idolize successful business people. They don't think of wealthy business owners, major investors, or corporate CEOs as responsible for wage stagnation, busting unions, damaging the environment, or using money to rig politics in their favor. They simply will not see the negative side to big money predator capitalists. When they think about elites who are " destroying America" its government bureaucrats, left/liberal academics, the Press, lawyers, and politicians. We must do the long and very difficult work of listening, talking, and working with people to fight plutocracy and build a free and egalitarian society. 

 

This will not happen within the Democratic Party apparatus or through established national groups. It must begin at the neighborhood and local level. Then it will go statewide and hopefully national. There is no guarantee. Think about it. Whether it's a small town or an urban area college educated people or the non college educated regardless of race when people connect lack of money for schools, basic services, dirty water, decaying infrastructure, and layoffs to tax cuts for big business and their wealthy owners they will fight. When people see friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors threatened by deregulation pushed by corporate lobbyists and their political lackeys they will fight. When they realize that stagnant wages, lack of paid leave, inadequate retirement benefits, and lack of job security are natural or inevitable. They are caused by selfish greed among top management and rich investors. People will fight back.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2018 at 6:44 PM, kfbvoice said:

 

I think you may be on to a good idea here but there are real obstacles to getting there. Whether we blame rightwing propaganda, stupidity, or hate people tend to see enemies in liberals, activist government, and people who are different. Furthermore a lot of working and middle class people idolize successful business people. They don't think of wealthy business owners, major investors, or corporate CEOs as responsible for wage stagnation, busting unions, damaging the environment, or using money to rig politics in their favor. They simply will not see the negative side to big money predator capitalists. When they think about elites who are " destroying America" its government bureaucrats, left/liberal academics, the Press, lawyers, and politicians. We must do the long and very difficult work of listening, talking, and working with people to fight plutocracy and build a free and egalitarian society. 

 

This will not happen within the Democratic Party apparatus or through established national groups. It must begin at the neighborhood and local level. Then it will go statewide and hopefully national. There is no guarantee. Think about it. Whether it's a small town or an urban area college educated people or the non college educated regardless of race when people connect lack of money for schools, basic services, dirty water, decaying infrastructure, and layoffs to tax cuts for big business and their wealthy owners they will fight. When people see friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors threatened by deregulation pushed by corporate lobbyists and their political lackeys they will fight. When they realize that stagnant wages, lack of paid leave, inadequate retirement benefits, and lack of job security are natural or inevitable. They are caused by selfish greed among top management and rich investors. People will fight back.  

 

 

absolutely I and most here agree with what you stated so well here.

 

Peace!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I absolutely agree people that demand progressive purity are keeping our party from winning. I also think a lot of the people claiming to be Bernie bros or Green party are actually conservatives trying to drive a wedge into the Democratic party. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Gregory said:

Yes I absolutely agree people that demand progressive purity are keeping our party from winning. I also think a lot of the people claiming to be Bernie bros or Green party are actually conservatives trying to drive a wedge into the Democratic party. 

 

Yes. The trick is, I'm all for fighting for progressive candidates over other Democrats - but not if the district won't elect the progressive and it gives us a Republican.


We need the party not to force that, so we can defeat the people hired by the plutocrats. Better a blue dog not taking their money and working for them than someone who is.

This issue of the plutocrats hiring politicians is more important IMO than any of the other issues.

 

We need the politicians to serve the voters and not the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Craig I believe our freedom is more endangered than any time since the Revolution. To have the chance to win the Democratic Party must be the party of the big tent. Like a family that argues among itself yet when threatened by outsiders unite to defend their members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Over the last 35 years, all US politics have been pulled to the right.  The tide can't be turned instantaneously.  In many, even most cases, progressives will have to vote for moderate democrats with whom they may not be satisfied, in order to stave off the far worse alternative.  The most important quality in any democratic candidate is advocacy of economic fairness ...  The antithesis of the single most important Republican goal:  Plutocracy.

 

As we achieve democratic majorities, politics will be pushed left and more progressive democratic candidates will have a better chance of winning.  That is how the political tide can be gradually turned left again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Before we can do anything, is defeating money in politics, to get the representatives serving the voters and not the bilionaires. People need to understand the difference between different opinions of voters, and the agenda of the billionaires to own the system. Otherwise, they'll just keep buying the voters needed to get power and take the country's wealth.


And the election of trump shows just how easy that is. Throw them a cheap con man minor celebrity, and they grab on. Throw them other Republicans - rich kid sociopath George W. Bush, John McCain, plutocrat stereotype Mitt Romney, and they either win or nearly win. They hold all the branches. Big problem.

Democrats should represent 95% of the country and dominate, and base policies on the voters' wishes. Voters are far more progressive than the policies being passed. This $5 trillion

bill to shift money from healthcare and add to the debt into tax cuts for the rich didn't have the voters wanting it, but they got it because that's who these Republicans are working for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2018 at 8:16 PM, Craig234 said:


Ya, let's just blame the Democratic Party for not being perfect, give the country to the Republicans and billionaires, and stop voting. Screw them.

 

Well they ain't perfect and they most certainly are not the party of the people. They are the lesser evil. And even though the conhole party does not deliver anything of real value for its voters, they do deliver scape goats. Americans don't want to look in the mirror, take responsibility for their screw ups. With the GOP they don't have to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2018 at 6:39 PM, Craig234 said:

There will be Democrats fighting for and against abortion, for and against various gun policies, for and against various foreign policies, for and against various drug policies, and so on.

 

But they'll be Democrats, and they will not be serving the billionaire, and funded by their money as the Republicans are.

 

It really comes down to two choices...

The 'Big Tent' strategy:
    Coalesce around a single issue (such as fighting plutocracy) in order to elect the maximum number of "Democrat" candidates to congress.
 

Or

the 'Purity test' strategy:
    Define what it means to be a Democrat by developing a platform, and taking principled positions on major issues such as environment, gun laws racial discrimination. etc..

 

The Big tent strategy may be effective at electing a majority of Democrats, possibly in name only, in order to make progress on a single issue such as fighting plutocrats. Is it really desirable to elect a candidate that supports the NRA, racial / sexual discrimination, & neoconservative foreign policies in order to win Congressional seats in very conservative districts?
The Purity strategy  has the danger of handing over perpetual control of the House of Representatives, (and some Senate seats) to the Republican party, by alienating voters in conservative districts.

 

I can accept the fact that there are parts of the country that are support conservative, right wing policies, just as there are parts of the country that support progressive, left wing policies.

The democratic ideal of representative governance establishes primary elections that allow the citizens to determine how each party should represent their wishes, and desires, & which issues are most important. This process has been corrupted by established power structures within each political party.

 

Political discourse, and governance is devolving into a sporting event, where the team with the most power & money 'wins' more power & money.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you're getting my suggestion.

 

What I'm saying is, to have the 'purity test' at the candidate/district/election level, instead of the party level, EXCEPT for the issue of serving plutocracy.

 

So keep the battle going to win on all the issues, but change the battle to winning over voters to elect candidates with the right positions, instead of making it about the party platform. EXCEPT the issue of being funded by wealthy plutocratic donors and supporting them rather than voters - that's the one requirement.

 

Then, when a majority of the party supports an issue, it can be part of the platform. But individual candidates can differ.


The central point here is simply to get candidates who are serving voters rather than a handful of big donors, in order to deny the wealthy donors buying the elections and government.

 

That's not simply 'big tent' in order to elect Democrats. That would be pointless. The point is to make the Democratic Party the party that represents voters, not a few big donors.

 

To scale back the power of the few wealthy donors from being half of the country's political representation, to being far smaller.

 

As long as these few wealthy donors can buy the elections, they can gut democracy to keep their power, and keep transferring the country's wealth to them from the people.

 

That needs to be fought before issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Craig, I appreciate the clarification. I agree with much of what you have written, I am just a little skeptical that the Democratic Party establishment, (or the Republican Party) will ever deny contributions from wealthy donors or special interests. Even if the National Party refuses support from wealthy donors, the individual candidates will still require funding to compete effectively, unless ALL political parties agree to not accept ANY contributions from special interest PACS, etc.

 

The 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act placed  limits on contributions by individuals, and limited the amounts that candidates could spend on their campaigns, or that citizens could spend to promote their political views. It attempted to restrict the influence of wealthy individuals by limiting individual donations to $1,000 and donations by PACs to $5,000. However, the Act's provisions limiting expenditures were struck down by Supreme Court in 1976 (Buckley v. Valeo).

In 2002 McCain-Feingold attempted to limit corporate soft money contributions. Again,  struck down by Supreme Court (infamous Citizens United case). It is truly frightening that special interests were able to strike down laws regulating special interests through the Judiciary process.

 

If true voter representation is the goal, then politicians, political parties, PAC's, and plutocrats have to be taken completely out of the equation by instituting Federal Referendums on specific issues. Imagine if gun control , Affordable Healthcare, or Corporate tax  decisions were take directly to the voters, bypassing all the corruption. The Plutocrats power would be taken away from them and given directly to individual voters.

This is not without pitfalls either, namely tyranny of the majority. Perhaps this is preferable to tyranny of the (plutocratic) minority.

No easy solution, unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2018 at 2:27 AM, bludog said:

Nothing like a crusade to get people motivated.  As it stands now, American Democracy has been made a sham by the rule of a small handful of Plutocrats.  There would be no more worthy a crusade than the cause of putting power in the hands of the the voters. 

 

There appears to be a growing awareness of the problem.  We have a an exhibitionist plutocrat in the White House who is breaking unpopularity records.  Democrats are running and winning on an anti-plutocrat platform.  Conor Lamb is a recent example.  And he won in a deep red state, heavily gerrymandered to defeat Democrats.

 

One of the main values at the outset of the US was equality ....   "All men are created equal".  Gradually that expanded as we freed the slaves, women got the vote and senators came to be elected directly. 

 

But in the last 35 years, regressive forces have staged a resurgence and pushed politics far to the right.   To popularize an anti-plutocratic movement so that it doesn't just depend on a backlash against the most bizarre and unfit president of all time, would take resources deep enough to defeat the nearly bottomless pockets of the plutocracy.

Connor Lamb is the blueprint of removing plutocrats from these districts, he is a strong supporter of unions and doesn't let the other side drag him down with "He's just another liberal letting grown men in womens bathrooms" crap that distracts simple minded voters with something  no one really needs to concern themselves with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...