Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

Obama's Legacy Poll

Obama's Legacy Poll  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following would you consider positives that will help Obama's legacy?

    • Obamacare
    • Intervening in Arab Spring (Libya and Syria)
    • Appointed political rival Hillary Clinton as his first Sec. of State
    • Selected Joe Biden as his VP
    • Bailed outs during the Great Recession
    • Stimulus Package during the Great Recession
    • Appointed the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court
    • Appointed moderate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court (currently blocked by Congress)
    • Vetoed Keystone XL Pipeline
    • Marriage Equality legalized nationwide
    • Like JFK's Moon speech, Obama announced a plan to put a man on Mars by 2035
    • Pushed immigration laws to curb deportations and encourage high skill immigrants to work in the US
    • Officially ended the war in Afghanistan
    • Removed nearly all the ground troops in Iraq, favoring airstrikes and drones to help countries combat ISIS and other terrorists
    • Massively increased drone strikes compared to the Bush administration
    • Osama Bin Laden, as well as many other major terrorist leaders, were killed
    • Iran Nuclear Deal
    • Opening relations with Cuba
    • Won two elections, and likely to be succeeded by a member of his own party (not done since Reagan/Bush)
    • First African-American President
  2. 2. Which of the following would you consider negatives that will hurt Obama's legacy?

    • Obamacare
    • Intervening in Arab Spring (Libya and Syria)
    • Appointed political rival Hillary Clinton as his first Sec. of State
    • Selected Joe Biden as his VP
    • Bailed outs during the Great Recession
    • Stimulus Package during the Great Recession
    • Appointed the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court
      0
    • Appointed moderate Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court (currently blocked by Congress)
    • Vetoed Keystone XL Pipeline
    • Marriage Equality legalized nationwide
    • Like JFK's Moon speech, Obama announced a plan to put a man on Mars by 2035
    • Pushed immigration laws to curb deportations and encourage high skill immigrants to work in the US
    • Officially ended the war in Afghanistan
    • Removed nearly all the ground troops in Iraq, favoring airstrikes and drones to help countries combat ISIS and other terrorists
    • Massively increased drone strikes compared to the Bush administration
    • Osama Bin Laden, as well as many other major terrorist leaders, were killed
    • Iran Nuclear Deal
    • Opening relations with Cuba
    • Won two elections, and likely to be succeeded by a member of his own party (not done since Reagan/Bush)
    • First African-American President
      0
  3. 3. Obama has an exceptionally high approval rating for an outgoing president. How do you view Obama?

    • Favorable, and I voted for him at least once. (or if I could vote for him, I would have)
    • Favorable, and I never voted for him. (or if I could vote for him, I would not have)
    • Unfavorable, and I voted for him at least once. (or if I could vote for him, I would have)
    • Unfavorable, and I never voted for him. (or if I could vote for him, I would not have)


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Well, considering North Korea is, since the '70's, a wonky, brainwashed, ritualistic cult-state more in-line with the nations governed by "God-Kings" (or so they were believed to be) of antiquity than any sort of Communist or Marxist, it just shows this politician in Brazil is as uneducated on these affairs as you are.

really i disagree with you but respect.. if you dont respect is not my problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, victor1313 said:

really i disagree with you but respect.. if you dont respect is not my problem

I didn't say you were stupid or crazy, but that you lacked education on the situation in North Korea. Please understand the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

I didn't say you were stupid or crazy, but that you lacked education on the situation in North Korea. Please understand the difference.

at all middle east and north korea is example of countrys not follow i only say that

i dont give none importance with dictators or whatever why arruining nations or continents i say the example of bad intervention of he's countrys

vietnam war is good but usa exit and now vietnam are one of most poors countrys of world etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, victor1313 said:

at all middle east and north korea is example of countrys not follow i only say that

i dont give none importance with dictators or whatever why arruining nations or continents i say the example of bad intervention of he's countrys

vietnam war is good but usa exit and now vietnam are one of most poors countrys of world etc

The Vietnam War was not good. It was a waste of resources, caused unnecessary death and destruction, created ill-will between the US government and a large portion of it's own population, and the nations supposedly being defended - South Vietnam, the Khmer Republic, the Kingdom of Laos, and (as it stood then) the Kingdom of Thailand, were themselves deplorable and corrupt tin-pot depotisms without a real shred of democracy or civil rights. Where is the "good" part?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

The Vietnam War was not good. It was a waste of resources, caused unnecessary death and destruction, created ill-will between the US government and a large portion of it's own population, and the nations supposedly being defended - South Vietnam, the Khmer Republic, the Kingdom of Laos, and (as it stood then) the Kingdom of Thailand, were themselves deplorable and corrupt tin-pot depotisms without a real shred of democracy or civil rights. Where is the "good" part?

the good part if he's governments fall and go to democracy like usa, he's countrys have much deads by famine,kill by government,or concentration camps none is more worse than continue with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, victor1313 said:

the good part if he's governments fall and go to democracy like usa, he's countrys have much deads by famine,kill by government,or concentration camps none is more worse than continue with that

But, the governments of the countries I mentioned weren't interested in Democracy, and nor was anyone of any not in any possible position of power, whether US supporters, Communists, or neutrals or those whose allegiances shifted (like Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia). There was no one at all ready to rise up and establish any sort of democratic regime. And, the US military presence didn't foster such people - they very much actively seemed to prefer anti-Communist but corrupt and brutal despots.

Share this post


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

But, the governments of the countries I mentioned weren't interested in Democracy, and nor was anyone of any not in any possible position of power, whether US supporters, Communists, or neutrals or those whose allegiances shifted (like Norodom Sihanouk in Cambodia). There was no one at all ready to rise up and establish any sort of democratic regime. And, the US military presence didn't foster such people - they very much actively seemed to prefer anti-Communist but corrupt and brutal despots.

the people are manipulated for decades in his countrys the modification of people view needed decades to rebuild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, victor1313 said:

the people are manipulated for decades in his countrys the modification of people view needed decades to rebuild

And I'm saying the US presence at that time showed no interest in fostering such a modification in people's views. There are VERY FEW people today, even imperialistic, nation-building, Bush-style Republicans, who defend the idea of the Vietnam War or say it was a good idea. It's not at all a popular topic for retrospective defense and apologism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

And I'm saying the US presence at that time showed no interest in fostering such a modification in people's views. There are VERY FEW people today, even imperialistic, nation-building, Bush-style Republicans, who defend the idea of the Vietnam War or say it was a good idea. It's not at all a popular topic for retrospective defense and apologism.

bush views,obama views of interventions are one of worsts visions of that...  i say if USA like back to intervention in one country other time he's needed rebuild deep democracy and off all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, VanMav said:

Mostly negative.

I'm the opposite--mostly positive. He definitely didn't bring as much change as I wanted, but I think he was a definite improvement over GW Bush, and I think he'll be viewed better than either Clinton or Trump. 

@Patine

I wish you'd vote on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm the opposite--mostly positive. He definitely didn't bring as much change as I wanted, but I think he was a definite improvement over GW Bush, and I think he'll be viewed better than either Clinton or Trump.

@Patine

I wish you'd vote on this.

I will when I actually get more than just a few minutes at a time to browse this forum. I've been preoccupied the last few days, and making several selections from two different menus will take a bit of time to sit down and go over them. I'll give that my attention when I'm able to give a sober and thought-out set of answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I said "first black president" because I just HAD to choose something.  The second list should have included first Communist President and first anti-American President.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2016 at 7:03 PM, Patine said:

The Vietnam War was not good. It was a waste of resources, caused unnecessary death and destruction, created ill-will between the US government and a large portion of it's own population, and the nations supposedly being defended - South Vietnam, the Khmer Republic, the Kingdom of Laos, and (as it stood then) the Kingdom of Thailand, were themselves deplorable and corrupt tin-pot depotisms without a real shred of democracy or civil rights. Where is the "good" part?

Vietnam War was a waste of time - we spend seven years fighting to keep Communists at bay, then we put one in the White House.

Yes I did vote for him in 2008, back when I was still a young Democrat.  Shortly after as his Presidency started to unfold, and I got out of academia and began to get experience in the real world, I began to see the error of my ways and voted for Romney in 2012. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Vietnam War was a waste of time - we spend seven years fighting to keep Communists at bay, then we put one in the White House.

Yes I did vote for him in 2008, back when I was still a young Democrat.  Shortly after as his Presidency started to unfold, and I got out of academia and began to get experience in the real world, I began to see the error of my ways and voted for Romney in 2012.

How is Obama a Communist? From my studies of Communist governments that have arisen historically, please answer these questions:

-Why has he not outlawed the Republican Party and all Third Parties, except maybe ones willing to enter into a submissive role  in a completely controlled coalition (such as the National Front or Fatherland Front of several Warsaw Pact countries, or the People's Front of Communist Yugoslavia).

-Why haven't all private media outlets been closed, replaced by a government controlled newspaper, radio network, and television network which ONLY broadcasts government-approved programs and propaganda.

-Why haven't ALL political opponents been executed, sent to labour camps in remote areas, put under house arrest, or driven into political exile, often after show trials.

-Why haven't ALL privately owned land, businesses, resources, utilities, industries, etc. been nationalized, with absolutely NO compensation to their former owners.

-Why weren't the State Governments brought into tow with this supposed Communist regime, or, if they refused, declared in rebellion and military forces brought in to pacify and occupy the State.

-Why is any aspect of the Bill of Rights still relevant.

-Why do elections now have more than one uncontested candidate per office, a candidate chosen by this supposed Communist regime.

I could go on, but I think I've listed the biggest hallmarks of REAL Communist regimes in history. And, historically, they also NEVER waste time getting established and set up. It's obvious you, like all the other uniformed people popping up in the US who declare Obama's a "Communist," have no idea at all what a Communist regime really looks like at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has always baffled me about Obama's presidency is that most people seem to hold strong views (be they positive or negative) about it. In my view his presidency has been largely benign with even his most significant legislative achievement (Obamacare) not exactly being transformational in the grand scheme of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RFK/JFKfan said:

What has always baffled me about Obama's presidency is that most people seem to hold strong views (be they positive or negative) about it. In my view his presidency has been largely benign with even his most significant legislative achievement (Obamacare) not exactly being transformational in the grand scheme of things.

My opinion is mostly align with yours, but if I had to pick approve or disapprove, I'd say approve. 

@Patine

I doubt that guy responds to you. There are two Libertarian guys on this forum. They're pretty much interchangeable, and it only appears that they post in here when they're drunk or something, because their comments aren't very well thought out, or they are so delusional that I give them the benefit of the doubt of drunkeness. Your response to his labeling of Obama as Communist was perfect. 

Share this post


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

How is Obama a Communist? From my studies of Communist governments that have arisen historically, please answer these questions:

-Why has he not outlawed the Republican Party and all Third Parties, except maybe ones willing to enter into a submissive role  in a completely controlled coalition (such as the National Front or Fatherland Front of several Warsaw Pact countries, or the People's Front of Communist Yugoslavia).

-Why haven't all private media outlets been closed, replaced by a government controlled newspaper, radio network, and television network which ONLY broadcasts government-approved programs and propaganda.

-Why haven't ALL political opponents been executed, sent to labour camps in remote areas, put under house arrest, or driven into political exile, often after show trials.

-Why haven't ALL privately owned land, businesses, resources, utilities, industries, etc. been nationalized, with absolutely NO compensation to their former owners.

-Why weren't the State Governments brought into tow with this supposed Communist regime, or, if they refused, declared in rebellion and military forces brought in to pacify and occupy the State.

-Why is any aspect of the Bill of Rights still relevant.

-Why do elections now have more than one uncontested candidate per office, a candidate chosen by this supposed Communist regime.

I could go on, but I think I've listed the biggest hallmarks of REAL Communist regimes in history. And, historically, they also NEVER waste time getting established and set up. It's obvious you, like all the other uniformed people popping up in the US who declare Obama's a "Communist," have no idea at all what a Communist regime really looks like at all.

I am not saying that Obama is a Communist, but this really isn't a great defense.  A person could be in Communist and put a plan into place to slowly transform society where it gets to the point of a Communist regime.  One person in power isn't a regime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

I am not saying that Obama is a Communist, but this really isn't a great defense.  A person could be in Communist and put a plan into place to slowly transform society where it gets to the point of a Communist regime.  One person in power isn't a regime.

But tell me, what policies has Obama specifically advocated or legislated that are actually Communist in nature, and not New Left, which is an entirely diiferent political ideology and stance altogether, to the point of being unrecognizable and almost entirely unrelated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, vcczar said:

My opinion is mostly align with yours, but if I had to pick approve or disapprove, I'd say approve. 

@Patine

I doubt that guy responds to you. There are two Libertarian guys on this forum. They're pretty much interchangeable, and it only appears that they post in here when they're drunk or something, because their comments aren't very well thought out, or they are so delusional that I give them the benefit of the doubt of drunkeness. Your response to his labeling of Obama as Communist was perfect. 

Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that my comments aren't well thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that my comments aren't well thought.

I'm not saying they aren't well thought out because I disagree with you. I am saying they are not well thought out because they are not well thought out. Plenty of conservatives on this forum disagree with me all the time, and I value the concision, completeness, and contemplative nature of their arguments. This would include @VanMav, @jvikings1, @Conservative Elector 2 among others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reasons for Obama to be the worst President in the modern era and probably bottom five all time:

1) Eight years of stagnant (at best) economic growth

2) Anti-American attitude - Spends too much time going around the world berating his own country for the mistakes of its past

3) Extremely weak leader - our allies don't respect us and our enemies don't fear us.  His refusal to deal with (or even say) radical Islamic terror has emboldened groups such as ISIS.  For example, after the shooting of the Orlando nightclub by a radical Muslim, Obama immediately turns this into a gun control debate.  China is building forts in the South China Sea. Russia, North Korea, and ISIS are laughing at our refusal to defend our global interests. 

4) He props Muslims up as some protected class, importing as many Syrian refugees as possible, while ignoring European and Christian refugees.  He is letting the radical Islamic world walk all over us in the name of political correctness.  This is the same person who says, "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."  What about other religions, or are we not eligible for membership in your perpetual victim class?  No Mr. President, ALL Muslims are NOT terrorists, but you refuse to deal with even the 1% that is, out of some fear of offending Islam!  Remember on 9/11, two thousand people were killed by only nineteen hijackers.

5) Being anti-police - After the Orlando shooting, Obama and the Justice Dept. are slow to come to any conclusions, but as soon as a black person is shot by a police officer, he races to the nearest microphone and lectures the American people about poor race relations, and how Americans need to "soul search" - finger wagging at his own people, calling society racist.

6) Constantly race-baiting at every turn.  If a black person is shot, regardless of the circumstances, he turns to his own people, wags his finger at us, and proclaims that this is because of systemic racism.  After the Trayvon Martin shooting, for example, the DOJ concludes that the shooter did nothing wrong, and it was only after political pressure brought on by Obama that they even decide to prosecute Zimmerman.  "Trayvon Martin could have been my son."  Well if your son is a gang member who mixes up illegal drugs and body slams innocent people to the turf, or perhaps if your son were to rob a store at gunpoint and then go after a cop's gun, then yes you would be right.  But race is the only thing that matters to this guy.

7) No respect for the Constitution of the United States - (Oh servo, you're not going to wave that pesky little Constitution around, are you?)  Hell yes! Say what you want, the Constitution is still the framework of our government.  Our President continually ignores the separation of powers, threatening to "rule by pen and phone", in other words if Congress doesn't give him what he wants, he's going to shove his agenda down our throats with executive orders.  The POTUS does not have that authority!  For example, the President decides unilaterally that people should be allowed to use whatever bathroom they choose if they "identify" as another gender.  As loony as this is, he then threatens school districts with withholding of funds if they don't comply with his insane edict.  Thinks he can make up policy as he goes along.  He is every bit the definition of a tyrant.  He also decides that we're not going to enforce our immigration laws (sanctuary cities, DACA), and "accidentally" conferring citizenship on people who were supposed to be deported??!!

8) The abysmal failure of Obamacare.  He straight out lied to the American people when he said that we could keep our plan, keep our doctor, that we'd save $2500 per year.  Tell that to the residents of Arizona and many other states that are seeing their premiums MORE THAN DOUBLE from last year, and having only one choice for a provider at $2000 or more per month.  And even then if they don't buy it, they have to pay a tax penalty? 

9) No respect for the free market or for business enterprise.  "At a certain point, you've made enough money." "You didn't build that [business]." "better when you spread the wealth around."  The guy is a Socialist, believing that it's his job to disperse wealth and income as the government sees fit, regardless of how hard people work to earn it.  Another case in point is Solyndra.  I'm all for the exploration of green energy, but when the government picks winners and losers through crony capitalism, and feels they can "invest" in whatever technology they want with taxpayer money, that is overstepping the Constitution big-time.  Soviet Russia tried this type of government takeover of private enterprise (Obamacare, Solyndra, etc.) and that is what makes him, if not a full-fledged Communist, definitely someone with a Marxist/Socialist view of the world.

I'm sick and tired of these ultra-leftist loons insinuating that any anti-Obama talk is some sort of racism.  And I haven't even gotten into his corruption and complicity in Clinton's botching of Libya and her email server scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Patine said:

How is Obama a Communist? From my studies of Communist governments that have arisen historically, please answer these questions:

-Why has he not outlawed the Republican Party and all Third Parties, except maybe ones willing to enter into a submissive role  in a completely controlled coalition (such as the National Front or Fatherland Front of several Warsaw Pact countries, or the People's Front of Communist Yugoslavia).

-Why haven't all private media outlets been closed, replaced by a government controlled newspaper, radio network, and television network which ONLY broadcasts government-approved programs and propaganda.

-Why haven't ALL political opponents been executed, sent to labour camps in remote areas, put under house arrest, or driven into political exile, often after show trials.

-Why haven't ALL privately owned land, businesses, resources, utilities, industries, etc. been nationalized, with absolutely NO compensation to their former owners.

-Why weren't the State Governments brought into tow with this supposed Communist regime, or, if they refused, declared in rebellion and military forces brought in to pacify and occupy the State.

-Why is any aspect of the Bill of Rights still relevant.

-Why do elections now have more than one uncontested candidate per office, a candidate chosen by this supposed Communist regime.

I could go on, but I think I've listed the biggest hallmarks of REAL Communist regimes in history. And, historically, they also NEVER waste time getting established and set up. It's obvious you, like all the other uniformed people popping up in the US who declare Obama's a "Communist," have no idea at all what a Communist regime really looks like at all.

I grant you none of these things have de jure come true, but some of the things you describe above (such as executing political opponents) are functions of certain communist countries, not Communism itself.  However, many of them are at least partially coming true in what Mark Levin calls a "soft tyranny". 

* We know thanks to Wikileaks that many private mainstream media outlets are in collusion with the Democratic Party. 
* State governments are being undermined by Obama's abuse of power, and disregard for Constitutional separation of powers.  And I know this is an old reference, but putting military force on state governments WAS done (unconstitutionally) by Lincoln in 1861.
* The rigging of the Democratic primaries in Hillary Clinton's favor by the DNC, along with the rejection of voter ID laws in the name of "racial equality", allowing Democrats to cheat in elections by having dead people vote, or vote more than once (again, thanks James O'Keefe)
* Events like the Presidential Debates are controlled by an organization made up of GOP and Dem officials, and they make ridiculous rules to keep out third-party candidates from debates.  Also the top two parties have nearly limitless resources through campaign financing that smaller parties don't have access to. 
* The Bill of Rights is (unfortunately for the Democrats) still relevant, but the First and Second Amendments are under relentless attack by the Progressive left, the Fourth Amendment by illegal NSA wiretapping and some Obamacare policies, and the Tenth Amendment through the creation of federal agencies (DEA, Dept of Education, EPA, and many others.  Thanks a lot FDR!) that are not in the jurisdiction of Federal Government.
* Why isn't private property being confiscated?  Hello, ever heard of eminent domain?  Also, Mr. Obama has constantly talked about the notion that many Americans make "too much money" and we need to "spread the wealth around" to promote "economic justice", as if it's the Federal government's business to decide who should be able to earn certain amounts and what they should be "allowed" to keep.  Money = property, so wealth redistribution, especially through incremental tax rates, is seizure of property to redistribute to the people.  That's what Socialism is all about.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, servo75 said:

I grant you none of these things have de jure come true, but some of the things you describe above (such as executing political opponents) are functions of certain communist countries, not Communism itself.  However, many of them are at least partially coming true in what Mark Levin calls a "soft tyranny".

* We know thanks to Wikileaks that many private mainstream media outlets are in collusion with the Democratic Party. 
* State governments are being undermined by Obama's abuse of power, and disregard for Constitutional separation of powers.  And I know this is an old reference, but putting military force on state governments WAS done (unconstitutionally) by Lincoln in 1861.
* The rigging of the Democratic primaries in Hillary Clinton's favor by the DNC, along with the rejection of voter ID laws in the name of "racial equality", allowing Democrats to cheat in elections by having dead people vote, or vote more than once (again, thanks James O'Keefe)
* Events like the Presidential Debates are controlled by an organization made up of GOP and Dem officials, and they make ridiculous rules to keep out third-party candidates from debates.  Also the top two parties have nearly limitless resources through campaign financing that smaller parties don't have access to. 
* The Bill of Rights is (unfortunately for the Democrats) still relevant, but the First and Second Amendments are under relentless attack by the Progressive left, the Fourth Amendment by illegal NSA wiretapping and some Obamacare policies, and the Tenth Amendment through the creation of federal agencies (DEA, Dept of Education, EPA, and many others.  Thanks a lot FDR!) that are not in the jurisdiction of Federal Government.
* Why isn't private property being confiscated?  Hello, ever heard of eminent domain?  Also, Mr. Obama has constantly talked about the notion that many Americans make "too much money" and we need to "spread the wealth around" to promote "economic justice", as if it's the Federal government's business to decide who should be able to earn certain amounts and what they should be "allowed" to keep.  Money = property, so wealth redistribution, especially through incremental tax rates, is seizure of property to redistribute to the people.  That's what Socialism is all about.


 

If this is Communism to you, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, and Ceucescu would be rolling in their graves at how lame, softcore, pathetic, gentle, subtle, and wet-noodle the movement they championed had become, at least according to you. While these things are all abuses of power and the existing US Constitution, yes, they are NOT remotely Communism by any sense of the word, nor even leaning to the REAL polictoeconomic movement in any recognizable to anyone who knows what a Communist regime or Communist philosophy is AT ALL. Also, contrary to the uninformed crowd tutored by people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and other public pundits who have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about the things they claim to speak about with authority, not ALL government abuses of power and their laws are Communism or Fascism automatically and wholly (and, surprising to many who buy into those self-same stereotypes, Communism and Fascism are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and antagonistic political and ideological systems on completely ends of the political spectrum, and neither is in force in ANY remote, entrenched, of full-out way in the United States). What I think is present is something completely different in terms of a power-abusive system separate entirely from older systems like Communism and Fascism, and in no directly resembles them, and that the majority of the Republican is JUST AS COMPLICIT in that whole system as the majority of the Democratic Party.

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

×