The Next DNC Chair: TOM PEREZ WINS, makes Ellison deputy chair
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:25:18 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  The Next DNC Chair: TOM PEREZ WINS, makes Ellison deputy chair
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 74
Poll
Question: Who should become Chairman of the DNC?
#1
Keith Ellison
#2
Tom Perez
#3
Pete Buttigieg
#4
Ray Buckley
#5
Jaime Harrison
#6
Sally Boynton Brown
#7
Jehmu Greene
#8
Sam Ronan
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: The Next DNC Chair: TOM PEREZ WINS, makes Ellison deputy chair  (Read 104530 times)
I知 not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #200 on: December 03, 2016, 11:25:49 PM »

I would really like a moderate to be chairperson. That would be great for me. A moderate is more likely to appeal to voters in the solidly GOP state legislative districts where I live in California.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #201 on: December 03, 2016, 11:54:59 PM »

I would really like a moderate to be chairperson. That would be great for me. A moderate is more likely to appeal to voters in the solidly GOP state legislative districts where I live in California.

The job of the DNC chair is not to "appeal to voters."
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #202 on: December 04, 2016, 12:14:20 AM »
« Edited: December 04, 2016, 12:17:20 AM by Chickenhawk »

No, a moderate like me would not vote for Waserman-Schultz. I think someone far more centrist would be a good choice to appeal to rural and suburban voters.

Well you're in luck, since a pillar of Keith's platform is to expand party capacity outside of the cities, and to make the party rural friendly!

Seriously. Who Keith is or what he believes does not, I repeat does not have any bearing on his work as chair, or how his election will serve the Democratic party. He wants to re-organize it on populist grounds, and orient it towards picking up people in rural areas, cities, and the burbs who do not vote or do not vote Democrat.

Obama is more moderate than Ellison. I don't think Ellison is necessarily anti-semitic, but the ADL opposes him being picked. I don't rember the ADL opposing Obama's candidacy for President. I think someone more moderate would be a better choice. There isn't really a party that favorably views moderates like me.

Obama did not run as a centrist. He ran in 2008 promising to re-negotiate NAFTA and to stop sending our soldiers to die in bad wars. He ran as a lefty whose message was "Hope" and "Change" for Pete's sake. He ran in 2012 saying that he had saved the auto industry and that his opponent was Mr. Potter from It's a Wonderful Life in the flesh.

The way forward is not moderates like DWS certainly, and that is the only kind of Democrat that the modern Democratic party currently has on offer.

But again, Ellison's ideology is not the point of his candidacy for DNC chair. Ideally, he would be elected and never appear in a headline outside of Rollcall ever again. He is promising to re-shape the party to talk to people who have been left out of the elitist governing of the US for the past 20 years, and to talk to them more effectively (from a technical perspective). If you feel left out of the Democratic party because it doesn't care about you, and you aren't a rich suburbanite in upper management of a large corporation, Keith is your guy.

Also, J Street has emphatically stated that he's not an anti-semite, FWIW.
Logged
I知 not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #203 on: December 04, 2016, 12:46:49 AM »
« Edited: December 04, 2016, 12:52:20 AM by ERM64man »

a populist would alienate working-class voters?

this seems like a strange concept for me.

once again: those people voted for effing BARACK hussein OBAMA.
Obama is more moderate than Ellison. I don't think Ellison is necessarily anti-semitic, but the ADL opposes him being picked. I don't rember the ADL opposing Obama's candidacy for President. I think someone more moderate would be a better choice. There isn't really a party that favorably views moderates like me.

oh, i am pretty much concernced about the kind of anti-zionism on the left which often ignores faults in other states and/or in the actions of israel's enemies.

but...to paraphrase:

would a moderate have voted for wasserman-schultz? especially since this job includes tainting your soul.
No, a moderate like me would not vote for Waserman-Schultz. I think someone far more centrist would be a good choice to appeal to rural and suburban voters.

This isn't 1996 my guy. Wishy washy centrism isn't a good course for the Democrats politically if they want to win back rural voters. The Democratic Party needs to become a full on working-class party if it wants to compete in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clintonite neoliberalism will only further damage the Democratic Party in rural areas.
Where I live in suburban California, the GOP dominates. Where I live is home to several white collar businesspeople. Anti-ACA, pro-gun, pro-business, conservative Democrats would at least be more competitive in my community, and would be more appealing to social moderates. Centrists like me don't have a home in any party.
Logged
Cashew
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,559
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #204 on: December 04, 2016, 01:15:52 AM »
« Edited: December 04, 2016, 01:20:44 AM by Cashew »

[No, a moderate like me would not vote for Waserman-Schultz. I think someone far more centrist would be a good choice to appeal to rural and suburban voters.

This isn't 1996 my guy. Wishy washy centrism isn't a good course for the Democrats politically if they want to win back rural voters. The Democratic Party needs to become a full on working-class party if it wants to compete in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clintonite neoliberalism will only further damage the Democratic Party in rural areas.
Where I live in suburban California, the GOP dominates. Where I live is home to several white collar businesspeople. Anti-ACA, pro-gun, pro-business, conservative Democrats would at least be more competitive in my community, and would be more appealing to social moderates. Centrists like me don't have a home in any party.

Are you a moderate or a centrist? No they are not the same thing, so make up your mind dude!

And honestly, having somebody like you complain about underrepresentation is quite ridiculous when you realize that neither the economic or cultural elites of both parties accept people like the man in my sig.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #205 on: December 04, 2016, 01:18:10 AM »

a populist would alienate working-class voters?

this seems like a strange concept for me.

once again: those people voted for effing BARACK hussein OBAMA.
Obama is more moderate than Ellison. I don't think Ellison is necessarily anti-semitic, but the ADL opposes him being picked. I don't rember the ADL opposing Obama's candidacy for President. I think someone more moderate would be a better choice. There isn't really a party that favorably views moderates like me.

oh, i am pretty much concernced about the kind of anti-zionism on the left which often ignores faults in other states and/or in the actions of israel's enemies.

but...to paraphrase:

would a moderate have voted for wasserman-schultz? especially since this job includes tainting your soul.
No, a moderate like me would not vote for Waserman-Schultz. I think someone far more centrist would be a good choice to appeal to rural and suburban voters.

This isn't 1996 my guy. Wishy washy centrism isn't a good course for the Democrats politically if they want to win back rural voters. The Democratic Party needs to become a full on working-class party if it wants to compete in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clintonite neoliberalism will only further damage the Democratic Party in rural areas.
Where I live in suburban California, the GOP dominates. Where I live is home to several white collar businesspeople. Anti-ACA, pro-gun, pro-business, conservative Democrats would at least be more competitive in my community, and would be more appealing to social moderates. Centrists like me don't have a home in any party.

Fortunately, there are more swingable working people than there are swingable guys with briefcases hustling someplace.
Logged
I知 not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #206 on: December 04, 2016, 01:24:30 AM »

[No, a moderate like me would not vote for Waserman-Schultz. I think someone far more centrist would be a good choice to appeal to rural and suburban voters.

This isn't 1996 my guy. Wishy washy centrism isn't a good course for the Democrats politically if they want to win back rural voters. The Democratic Party needs to become a full on working-class party if it wants to compete in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clintonite neoliberalism will only further damage the Democratic Party in rural areas.
Where I live in suburban California, the GOP dominates. Where I live is home to several white collar businesspeople. Anti-ACA, pro-gun, pro-business, conservative Democrats would at least be more competitive in my community, and would be more appealing to social moderates. Centrists like me don't have a home in any party.

Are you a moderate or a centrist? No they are not the same thing, so make up your mind dude!

And honestly, having somebody like you complain about underrepresentation is quite ridiculous when you realize that neither the economic or cultural elites of both parties accept people like the man in my sig.
Look at my signature. I'm a center-right moderate libertarian.
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #207 on: December 04, 2016, 01:31:04 AM »

[No, a moderate like me would not vote for Waserman-Schultz. I think someone far more centrist would be a good choice to appeal to rural and suburban voters.

This isn't 1996 my guy. Wishy washy centrism isn't a good course for the Democrats politically if they want to win back rural voters. The Democratic Party needs to become a full on working-class party if it wants to compete in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clintonite neoliberalism will only further damage the Democratic Party in rural areas.
Where I live in suburban California, the GOP dominates. Where I live is home to several white collar businesspeople. Anti-ACA, pro-gun, pro-business, conservative Democrats would at least be more competitive in my community, and would be more appealing to social moderates. Centrists like me don't have a home in any party.

Are you a moderate or a centrist? No they are not the same thing, so make up your mind dude!

And honestly, having somebody like you complain about underrepresentation is quite ridiculous when you realize that neither the economic or cultural elites of both parties accept people like the man in my sig.
Look at my signature. I'm a center-right moderate libertarian.

Fycking hell, you're a republican, you support a flat tax, oppose ACA, and support thatcherite economics. What in that speels social justice and social equality to you.
Logged
I知 not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #208 on: December 04, 2016, 02:46:36 AM »
« Edited: December 04, 2016, 02:59:30 AM by ERM64man »

[No, a moderate like me would not vote for Waserman-Schultz. I think someone far more centrist would be a good choice to appeal to rural and suburban voters.

This isn't 1996 my guy. Wishy washy centrism isn't a good course for the Democrats politically if they want to win back rural voters. The Democratic Party needs to become a full on working-class party if it wants to compete in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clintonite neoliberalism will only further damage the Democratic Party in rural areas.
Where I live in suburban California, the GOP dominates. Where I live is home to several white collar businesspeople. Anti-ACA, pro-gun, pro-business, conservative Democrats would at least be more competitive in my community, and would be more appealing to social moderates. Centrists like me don't have a home in any party.

Are you a moderate or a centrist? No they are not the same thing, so make up your mind dude!

And honestly, having somebody like you complain about underrepresentation is quite ridiculous when you realize that neither the economic or cultural elites of both parties accept people like the man in my sig.
Look at my signature. I'm a center-right moderate libertarian.

Fycking hell, you're a republican, you support a flat tax, oppose ACA, and support thatcherite economics. What in that speels social justice and social equality to you.
I support same-sex marriage, ending the war on drugs, legalizing marijuana, criminal justice reform, raising the minimum wage, and I'm also pro-choice.
Logged
America Needs R'hllor
Parrotguy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,420
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #209 on: December 04, 2016, 08:30:47 AM »


With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

They were the only one's that had Palestinian members, had a policy for co-existence, and didn't support the expulsion of Palestinian from their lands, causing the problems they had, a lot of which Mapai did or didn't support. I believe if Mapam had been elected, Israel and Palestine would've been a been a better place, though more soviet-orientated it would have been. I really don't understand how a party that only once got second place had absolute control

Oh, I thought you argued for Mapai, not Mapam. Sorry.
In that case, I'm of the opinion that it would've been even worse. It's a fact that the Arabic countries at the time weren't willing to allow Israel to exist, so while Mapam might have been more compassionate for the Palestinians, they would still have to fight for survival. And if they got close to the Soviets, they would probably lose, because the Soviets favoured the more numerous Arabic countries while America was willing to support Israel. Not gonna delve into who's right and who's wrong, but the US was absolutely vital for the survival of Israel in the October War.
Logged
The Other Castro
Castro2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #210 on: December 04, 2016, 09:20:17 AM »
« Edited: December 04, 2016, 10:06:38 AM by Castro »

Ellison offers to quit Congress to lead DNC:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://politicalwire.com/2016/12/03/keith-ellison-offers-quit-congress-lead-dnc/
Logged
Intell
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,817
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -1.24

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #211 on: December 04, 2016, 09:28:32 AM »


With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

They were the only one's that had Palestinian members, had a policy for co-existence, and didn't support the expulsion of Palestinian from their lands, causing the problems they had, a lot of which Mapai did or didn't support. I believe if Mapam had been elected, Israel and Palestine would've been a been a better place, though more soviet-orientated it would have been. I really don't understand how a party that only once got second place had absolute control

Oh, I thought you argued for Mapai, not Mapam. Sorry.
In that case, I'm of the opinion that it would've been even worse. It's a fact that the Arabic countries at the time weren't willing to allow Israel to exist, so while Mapam might have been more compassionate for the Palestinians, they would still have to fight for survival. And if they got close to the Soviets, they would probably lose, because the Soviets favoured the more numerous Arabic countries while America was willing to support Israel. Not gonna delve into who's right and who's wrong, but the US was absolutely vital for the survival of Israel in the October War.

If you had a socialist Israel, that allowed the support for the Palestinian people and had USSR support, would the Arab nations attacked it? Mapam were the only one fighting for a egalitarian, equal Israel, while other parties were fine in treating Arabs as treating second class citizens. Initially when there looked to be a socialist Isreal, Stalin was fine in supporting the establishment and supported such a state. I'm not supporting the USSR, and Stalin was of course horrific, but I believe Israel under socialism would be much more equal and accepting of Palestinian rights and would be a more peaceful religion, than it is now. That's unless a communist dictatorship is established, but I doubt that'd happen.
Logged
America Needs R'hllor
Parrotguy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,420
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #212 on: December 04, 2016, 10:12:15 AM »


With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

They were the only one's that had Palestinian members, had a policy for co-existence, and didn't support the expulsion of Palestinian from their lands, causing the problems they had, a lot of which Mapai did or didn't support. I believe if Mapam had been elected, Israel and Palestine would've been a been a better place, though more soviet-orientated it would have been. I really don't understand how a party that only once got second place had absolute control

Oh, I thought you argued for Mapai, not Mapam. Sorry.
In that case, I'm of the opinion that it would've been even worse. It's a fact that the Arabic countries at the time weren't willing to allow Israel to exist, so while Mapam might have been more compassionate for the Palestinians, they would still have to fight for survival. And if they got close to the Soviets, they would probably lose, because the Soviets favoured the more numerous Arabic countries while America was willing to support Israel. Not gonna delve into who's right and who's wrong, but the US was absolutely vital for the survival of Israel in the October War.

If you had a socialist Israel, that allowed the support for the Palestinian people and had USSR support, would the Arab nations attacked it? Mapam were the only one fighting for a egalitarian, equal Israel, while other parties were fine in treating Arabs as treating second class citizens. Initially when there looked to be a socialist Isreal, Stalin was fine in supporting the establishment and supported such a state. I'm not supporting the USSR, and Stalin was of course horrific, but I believe Israel under socialism would be much more equal and accepting of Palestinian rights and would be a more peaceful religion, than it is now. That's unless a communist dictatorship is established, but I doubt that'd happen.

Predicting the future is tough. What would happen when the USSR fell? If not for American money, would Israel become an advanced nation with a relatively high standard of living (which might not be that important from people that don't live there, but certainly is for me)? Would the Likud, after inevitably taking power, be even more extreme in response to Socialism? Not sure.



I like this. Ignoring the Israel business, if he actually resigns, I'd certainly be more likely to support him.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #213 on: December 04, 2016, 11:17:20 AM »

Does anyone in this thread understand that the DNC chair has virtually no influence over policy and that the vast majority of voters don't even know who holds the position much less vote based on it?
Logged
America Needs R'hllor
Parrotguy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,420
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #214 on: December 04, 2016, 11:49:04 AM »

Does anyone in this thread understand that the DNC chair has virtually no influence over policy and that the vast majority of voters don't even know who holds the position much less vote based on it?
Agreed, that's why I don't see the need to delve into the Israel argument (other than interesting historical debate). The more important thing for me is that he resigns from Congress, to actually devote himself to this very important job.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #215 on: December 04, 2016, 11:51:27 AM »

Does anyone in this thread understand that the DNC chair has virtually no influence over policy and that the vast majority of voters don't even know who holds the position much less vote based on it?

Having an anti-Semitic DNC chair gives the Republicans a pretty effective attack line, especially when called out on their race-baiting.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #216 on: December 04, 2016, 01:38:18 PM »


There goes my only objection to him. Let's hope Ellison leads us out of the wilderness! Smiley
Logged
I知 not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #217 on: December 04, 2016, 02:54:12 PM »

I think the party needs a much bigger tent to satisfy establishment, progressive, centrist neoliberal, and centrist populist voters. Expanding to include both moderate neoliberal and moderate populist voters would give centrists a home.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #218 on: December 04, 2016, 03:41:44 PM »

Does anyone in this thread understand that the DNC chair has virtually no influence over policy and that the vast majority of voters don't even know who holds the position much less vote based on it?

Having an anti-Semitic DNC chair gives the Republicans a pretty effective attack line, especially when called out on their race-baiting.

If he's an anti-Semite why does he always win St. Louis Park?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #219 on: December 04, 2016, 03:42:22 PM »

And wow if he resigns local politics will get pretty interesting...
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #220 on: December 04, 2016, 06:25:13 PM »

Does anyone in this thread understand that the DNC chair has virtually no influence over policy and that the vast majority of voters don't even know who holds the position much less vote based on it?

Having an anti-Semitic DNC chair gives the Republicans a pretty effective attack line, especially when called out on their race-baiting.

If he's an anti-Semite why does he always win St. Louis Park?

Read the replies to your thread asking the question and maybe you'll find out.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #221 on: December 04, 2016, 07:35:15 PM »

It said he hinted at quitting, but he clearly doesn't want to quit. We'll see.
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #222 on: December 04, 2016, 11:37:27 PM »

Does anyone in this thread understand that the DNC chair has virtually no influence over policy and that the vast majority of voters don't even know who holds the position much less vote based on it?

Yes, yes I do.

That said, of course, the DNC Chair is (informally) a pretty powerful figure in determining the ethos, direction, and balance of power with in the party. It would be a significant notch in the belt of the Bernie/Warren wing if we were to bring the chairship in.

Having an anti-Semitic DNC chair gives the Republicans a pretty effective attack line, especially when called out on their race-baiting.

It's pretty clear at this point that he's not so much anti-semitic as an inflection point in the right/left conflict between various Jewish groups in DC/the broader world. At this point I've read as many defenses of his pro-Semitism as I have hit pieces.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #223 on: December 05, 2016, 12:12:06 AM »

Ellison is a smug, overconfident extreme elitist. That's a good reflection of present day Democratic party. A mirror image of Republicans: as French Bourbons of 19th century they "forgot nothing and learned nothing". If 2016 (after 2010 and 2014) didn't taught Democrats anything - they are, probably, as hopeless as Republicans are..
Logged
Shameless Lefty Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #224 on: December 05, 2016, 02:14:43 AM »

Ellison is a smug, overconfident extreme elitist. That's a good reflection of present day Democratic party. A mirror image of Republicans: as French Bourbons of 19th century they "forgot nothing and learned nothing". If 2016 (after 2010 and 2014) didn't taught Democrats anything - they are, probably, as hopeless as Republicans are..

Which of his statements make you think that he's a smug elitist?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 74  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.089 seconds with 15 queries.