• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is the future for the Democratic Party?

Radical Ron

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
209
Reaction score
31
Location
Palm Harbor, FL USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What is the future going to be for the DNC or Democratic party?
Recently it has seemed that the Republican domination of the three branches has been in overwhelming support of a solid conservative agenda. I don't agree with all of it (especially those involving civil liberities) but at least the conservatives of America can come together on somewhat of a party agenda.
What is the solid agenda for the Democrats?
The only thing resembling an agenda is a new form of censorship and control over artistic creation. Joe Lieberman's crusade against Hollywood for one, and Hillary Clintons attacks on video games are some of the more noticable statements from the Party (and of course the early pullout from Iraq proposal).
One solid issue that they should stand on is healthcare, under Bush the common man has entered an even worse state than 6 years ago.
If the Democrats can take hold in the senate and house than they will have the oppurtunity to build an agenda (similar to the republicans in the 90's).
What do you think will be the "honest" future of the Democrats in the years to come?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think the Democrats should abandon the socialists, race-baiters, and union dinosaurs. Then they can stand for REAL progress, and probably more-than-compensate for those losses in the votes that they can gain from progressives and moderates. The Republicans can do the same by abandoning the religious nutjobs.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Don't worry, in 2006 DNC will win Senate and house due to breach of civil liberties and war weariness. It will be a hard fight though since there are alot of Red necks and Christian nazi cons that will vote Republican.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Kandahar said:
I think the Democrats should abandon the socialists, race-baiters, and union dinosaurs. Then they can stand for REAL progress, and probably more-than-compensate for those losses in the votes that they can gain from progressives and moderates. The Republicans can do the same by abandoning the religious nutjobs.
This one's not bad...

Disown the radicals and you find a happy medium of moderates from both sides of the aisle...


Che said:
Don't worry, in 2006 DNC will win Senate and house due to breach of civil liberties and war weariness. It will be a hard fight though since there are alot of Red necks and Christian nazi cons that will vote Republican.
This one sucks...

As I've said previously...There are two ways to win an election...

1) Make yourself out to be better than the opposition...

2) Make the opposition look worse than you...

The Democratic Party has abandoned option "A"...They want to win with a popularity of 2%, as long as they make the opposition have a popularity of 1%...

What a plan...:roll:
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I don't think democrats are very much different then republicans are. I think the social democrats in the party should join the green party so that I can happily support them there. I want to see the Green Party emerge as a third party. I would also like to see the Libertarian Party emerge as well.

George W. Bush is a special issue though because hes absolutelly horrible while the democrats and republicans are just your run-off-the-mill corrupt politicians.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
galenrox said:
I think the future of the democratic party is a split. I think the democrats will regain power with the combined liberal and disenfranchised republicans (and some libertarians) voting against the current republicans, but the two main bases for the democratic party are so divergent that they will split, leaving a third more conservative, envigorated libertarian party.
I agree about the bases being divergent. The media/Hollywood/academia/green crowd doesn't seem to have much in common with poor minorities or blue-collar union workers.

I'd love to see some kind of moderate libertarian party emerge as an electable alternative to the status quo.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
This one's not bad...

Disown the radicals and you find a happy medium of moderates from both sides of the aisle...


This one sucks...

As I've said previously...There are two ways to win an election...

1) Make yourself out to be better than the opposition...

2) Make the opposition look worse than you...

The Democratic Party has abandoned option "A"...They want to win with a popularity of 2%, as long as they make the opposition have a popularity of 1%...

What a plan...:roll:
If the democrats become moderate they will lose just as much support as they would gain. Republicans wouldn't come over to the dems just because they are less liberal. No way. Besides, if they did become more moderate than they would be nearly the same as the republicans.

isn't your plan what happens with both parties. I.E. trying to make dems look unpatriotic. :roll:

I agree with what FinMacCool says I guess. I'd actually rather Socialists left the Dems because the dems have become a flip-flop populist party. I think Green party is a good party for Socialists to join. However, there aren't very many charismatic candidates that can actually get votes that are part of the green party. I predict that Green party will have Nader run again.
 

ChristopherHall

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
320
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Democratic Party is in serious trouble unless it embraces faith, freedom, and family. There is a trend here in my state. Pro-Life Democrats win over Republicans hands down. If the Democrats can recapture values it may recover.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ChristopherHall said:
The Democratic Party is in serious trouble unless it embraces faith, freedom, and family. There is a trend here in my state. Pro-Life Democrats win over Republicans hands down. If the Democrats can recapture values it may recover.
Definately! losing by 2% means that the party is in seroius trouble.

But maybe yes. If both parties become theocratic then Christian fascism can prosper
:mrgreen:
 

ChristopherHall

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
320
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Feel free to keep marching into oblivion. I challenge you to read some articles articulated by the Third Way and the DFLA:

http://dispatch.third-way.com/articles/2006/01/25/a-new-progressive-approach-on-abortion

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

The Democrats do not have to become theocrats to embrace a pro-life or pro-values agenda. For example the Third Way has virtually adopted the 95/10 Initiative from the Pro-Life Democratic group Democrats for Life. The Democratic position here is to suggest policies that will asist struggling mothers while reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

What amazes me is how the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides are completely blind to the middle ground, and friend, the middle ground is where most of the voting electorate is.
 
H

hipsterdufus

ChristopherHall said:
The Democratic Party is in serious trouble unless it embraces faith, freedom, and family. There is a trend here in my state. Pro-Life Democrats win over Republicans hands down. If the Democrats can recapture values it may recover.
The Democratic party does embrace those issues.

Faith: Freedom to worship as you choose, or not choose to do.
In general, Dem's are not in the habit of wearing their faith on their sleeve. I think they should use more of the language of their faith on the stump if it's coming from the heart.

Freedom: Get the Government out of our bedroom. The Dems are leading the charge on finding out if the NSA wiretapping is leagal or not. They are also the one's taking a serious look at the Patriot Act.

Family: Health Care is a family value, so is poverty, education and disaster relief.
 

LeftyHenry

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,896
Reaction score
12
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ChristopherHall said:
Feel free to keep marching into oblivion. I challenge you to read some articles articulated by the Third Way and the DFLA:

http://dispatch.third-way.com/articles/2006/01/25/a-new-progressive-approach-on-abortion

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

The Democrats do not have to become theocrats to embrace a pro-life or pro-values agenda. For example the Third Way has virtually adopted the 95/10 Initiative from the Pro-Life Democratic group Democrats for Life. The Democratic position here is to suggest policies that will asist struggling mothers while reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

What amazes me is how the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides are completely blind to the middle ground, and friend, the middle ground is where most of the voting electorate is.
I don't think abortion is in most people's minds when it comes to voting. Things like benefits, wages, taxes, healthcare, and protection come before all other social issues.

Most people really don't find that it really matters if a woman got an abortion in context of there day-to-day life. The only ones who really do think about it are the christian fanatics.

Most people don't support abortion but believe that it's a woman's body so if worst comes to worst, she should be able to get an abortion.
 

ChristopherHall

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
320
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
galenrox said:
Well I think the merit of your argument relies somewhat of what you mean by bringing faith, freedom and family. If you mean that by having a leader with clear values and a good sense of right and wrong, while understanding compassion and the shades of gray in any situation, I agree 100%. If you mean we should have a leader that wants prayer in school, God on the money, and abortion illegal, I don't agree, nor do I think that that would be someone who could claim to be for faith, freedom, and family.
I'm a deeply religious, Bible believing, person and I do not believe we should push for prayer in public schools. Public schools have a hard enough time teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. I couldn't imagine expecting a public school system to "indoctrinate" my child and shape their religious beliefs. I do not believe religious teaching is a role for the public schools. Most public school teachers are no where near qualified enough to provide spiritual counsel or teaching for our students. Religious education is the domain of the church, synagogue, temple, or mosque. In my opinion parents and churches who want the Public School system to teach religion and lead in prayer are only shifting their responsibilities off on the Federal Government.

Regarding God on the money, I do not believe it is a serious issue. I enjoy the "In God We Trust" for traditional reasons, not for religious reasons.

I would one day love to see abortions illegal, but I highly doubt that is a attainable goal. I believe the better path should be to address the issues women face that cause them to seek abortion. Expanding WIC, SCHIP, Pegnancy Prevention Education, Federal Funding for Abortion Counseling and Daycare on University Campuses, Required Adoption Referal Information, Providing Ultrasound Equipment, increasing funding for Domestic Violence Programs (the leading cause of death against pregnant women is murder), Parental Notification, Provide Grants to States to Help in the Promotion and Implementation of Safe Haven Laws, and requiring counseling in Maternity Group Homes are initiatives that will greatly reduce the number of abortions without making abortion illegal.

So far the Pro-Life movement has only supported making abortion illegal. That means they are failing to address the issues that cause women to feel they must choose. Their solution is making abortion illegal and throw women in jail. A more comprehensive federal approach to address this issue is needed.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You know what's a great way to reduce the number of abortions? More abortions. Unwed pregnant teenagers (the demographic most likely to get an abortion) are very often the daughters of unwed pregnant teenagers. In a generation or two, the problem solves itself. Eliminate the demographic most likely to get an abortion and I can guarantee you'll reduce the number of them. Abortion is great for crime control too.
 

ChristopherHall

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
320
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
galenrox said:
You know what I've decided, I've decided that I like you, and we're gonna get along!
I am pro-choice, but I agree that instead of arm-wrestling over and over again over its legality, I think we should just focus on fixing the problems that lead to abortions, and so women will have the option, but won't opt to do it.
And I agree about the prayer, and I agree about the money, and I too am a very religious person.
That being said, you should become a libertarian.
I thought about becoming a libertarian once but found that I clashed too mush with the party's beliefs. I believe in common sense programs funded by the federal government. Libertarians seem to believe that government should have fewer programs. I believe that there is a need for a reformed welfare system. Libertarians traditionally do not believe in a welfare system at all. The only place were I fully agree with libertarians in regards to their platform is in that we should withdraw from the United Nations.

Now, while I may not fit well in the Libertarian Party, I know a few libertarians I get along with. Most consider me a Moderate Republican or a Conservative Democrat.
 

ChristopherHall

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
320
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Kandahar said:
You know what's a great way to reduce the number of abortions? More abortions. Unwed pregnant teenagers (the demographic most likely to get an abortion) are very often the daughters of unwed pregnant teenagers. In a generation or two, the problem solves itself. Eliminate the demographic most likely to get an abortion and I can guarantee you'll reduce the number of them. Abortion is great for crime control too.
Roughly two out of every three abortions are performed on women who live below the poverty level. Two out of three women report that they chose abortion because they could not afford a child or were not responsibile enough econominically to have a child. This means abortion is a poverty issue. Abortion is also a minority issue seeing that there is a greater percentage of minorities below the poverty line. Abortion overwhelmingly effects poor minority women because of their economic hardship.

I do not believe that we need to eliminate poor minorities to reduce abortion or to reduce crime. That sounds very inhumane to me. I believe the solution is to lift up women who struggle under economic hardship. Subsidized daycare, educational opportunities, expansion of SCHIP and WIC, and other programs will not only reduce abortions but they will equip mothers with the tools they need to properly raise their children thus reducing crime. Increased focus on education will also reduce poverty.

The answer isn't the systematic elimination of poor people through encouraged abortion. The key is for us as a society to lift them up and address their greatest needs.
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The last aristocrat to make the American people believe in him was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He knew how to talk to the people and to be understood.People like John Kerry don't have a clue.
They are left wing ideologues who have no feeling for ,the folks.
The democratic party is controled by the special interests and minorities.They have no understanding any more of working white people or even poor white people.You can even add asians to that.
 

ChristopherHall

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
320
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
JOHNYJ said:
The last aristocrat to make the American people believe in him was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He knew how to talk to the people and to be understood.People like John Kerry don't have a clue.
They are left wing ideologues who have no feeling for ,the folks.
The democratic party is controled by the special interests and minorities.They have no understanding any more of working white people or even poor white people.You can even add asians to that.
Johny, the Democratic party isn't controlled by special interests and minorities, it's concerned with the issues they face. My mother-in-law is the Chapter Chair of the Blue Collar chapter of our AFSCME local and I have first hand knowledge of Democratic political efforts. They are very concerned with working white people and poor white people. The minimum wage has been stagnant while inflation and the cost of living has steadily risen. Only Democrats support raising the minimum wage to match the cost of living. The vast majority of working whites work for small businesses and corporations like Wal-Mart. They have the lowest pay and benefits in their field. Only the Democrats have been concerned with their plight. Only the Democrats have supported their Constitutional right to unionize and negotiate for better wages and benefits. Wal-Mart could afford it. Wal-Mart alone has the 8th largest economy in the world and is pulling in record profits.

Amidst rising healthcare costs the Democrats are the only ones who proposed a solution. The cost of healthcare is something white working Americans and the elderly are very concerned with. By opening up the group rates received by Congress to every American who qualifies we would not only cover more people but we would offer employers a more affordable healthcare option for their employees. In addition conventional health insurance providers would have to compete and lower their prices. By using capitolist market forces the Democrats were poised to lower healthcare costs and generate competition. The Republicans only drafted plans to lock people into the conventional healthcare system which is steadily raising healthcare costs.

Every time I run into folks who make these asertions about the Democratic Party I find that they have not heard the whole message, considered all the details, or given it serious thought. More often than not they are merely parrotting the sentiments of radio talk show hosts.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
ChristopherHall said:
Roughly two out of every three abortions are performed on women who live below the poverty level. Two out of three women report that they chose abortion because they could not afford a child or were not responsibile enough econominically to have a child. This means abortion is a poverty issue. Abortion is also a minority issue seeing that there is a greater percentage of minorities below the poverty line. Abortion overwhelmingly effects poor minority women because of their economic hardship.

I do not believe that we need to eliminate poor minorities to reduce abortion or to reduce crime. That sounds very inhumane to me. I believe the solution is to lift up women who struggle under economic hardship. Subsidized daycare, educational opportunities, expansion of SCHIP and WIC, and other programs will not only reduce abortions but they will equip mothers with the tools they need to properly raise their children thus reducing crime. Increased focus on education will also reduce poverty.

The answer isn't the systematic elimination of poor people through encouraged abortion. The key is for us as a society to lift them up and address their greatest needs.

Well that's not what I said, now is it? I said we should eliminate through abortion the demographic most likely to commit crime (or have an abortion themselves): the children of unwed teenagers.

Steven Levitt (author of Freakonomics and a possible future contender for the Nobel Prize in Economics) studied this and found that legalization of abortion in 1973 was the single factor most responsible for the drop in the crime rate beginning the early 1990s.
 

JOHNYJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
ChristopherHall said:
Johny, the Democratic party isn't controlled by special interests and minorities, it's concerned with the issues they face. My mother-in-law is the Chapter Chair of the Blue Collar chapter of our AFSCME local and I have first hand knowledge of Democratic political efforts. They are very concerned with working white people and poor white people. The minimum wage has been stagnant while inflation and the cost of living has steadily risen. Only Democrats support raising the minimum wage to match the cost of living. The vast majority of working whites work for small businesses and corporations like Wal-Mart. They have the lowest pay and benefits in their field. Only the Democrats have been concerned with their plight. Only the Democrats have supported their Constitutional right to unionize and negotiate for better wages and benefits. Wal-Mart could afford it. Wal-Mart alone has the 8th largest economy in the world and is pulling in record profits.

Amidst rising healthcare costs the Democrats are the only ones who proposed a solution. The cost of healthcare is something white working Americans and the elderly are very concerned with. By opening up the group rates received by Congress to every American who qualifies we would not only cover more people but we would offer employers a more affordable healthcare option for their employees. In addition conventional health insurance providers would have to compete and lower their prices. By using capitolist market forces the Democrats were poised to lower healthcare costs and generate competition. The Republicans only drafted plans to lock people into the conventional healthcare system which is steadily raising healthcare costs.

Every time I run into folks who make these asertions about the Democratic Party I find that they have not heard the whole message, considered all the details, or given it serious thought. More often than not they are merely parrotting the sentiments of radio talk show hosts.
The problem is no one believes what you say. The Democratic party is a 5 to 1 majority in NYC.Yet they elected a Republican mayor for the second time
. Most Americans voted against their own interests to elect President Bush.Thats how much they disliked the democrats.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
JOHNYJ said:
The problem is no one believes what you say. The Democratic party is a 5 to 1 majority in NYC.Yet they elected a Republican mayor for the second time
. Most Americans voted against their own interests to elect President Bush.Thats how much they disliked the democrats.
If you think people voted for Mike Bloomberg because they disliked the Democrats, I suggest you read some of his political views. He's considerably to the left of both Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.
 

ChristopherHall

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
320
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Kandahar said:
Well that's not what I said, now is it? I said we should eliminate through abortion the demographic most likely to commit crime (or have an abortion themselves): the children of unwed teenagers.

Steven Levitt (author of Freakonomics and a possible future contender for the Nobel Prize in Economics) studied this and found that legalization of abortion in 1973 was the single factor most responsible for the drop in the crime rate beginning the early 1990s.
We should never resort to Nazi like tactics of "eliminating" any particular demographic based upon what they "might" do.

I was raised in a very poor single parent household and never resorted to a life of crime. No have I ever had a child out of wedlock. I have married my high school sweetheart, served in the US Army as a 91B10 Combat Medical Specialist, presently working code enforcement, I also preach in my Church, and I am currently corresponding to get my minister's license. Many who would argue a logic similar to yours would have advocated eliminating me. But I'm alive and well.

You see your entire premis is unAmerican and frankly is inhumane and unjust. You see in America people are innocent until proven guilty. You cannot advocate systematically eliminating millions of innocent Americans based upon what they "might" do. This again rings of the Nazis to me. That would be a crime against humanity.
 

ChristopherHall

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
320
Reaction score
10
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
JOHNYJ said:
The problem is no one believes what you say. The Democratic party is a 5 to 1 majority in NYC.Yet they elected a Republican mayor for the second time
. Most Americans voted against their own interests to elect President Bush.Thats how much they disliked the democrats.
Bloomberg's considered by most Republicans to be a RINO. The Republican Party ran a left leaning Republican to beat centrist Democrats in the region.

Yes, most who voted for Bush voted against their own interests. Why? Morality. The Democratic Party's position on abortion and homosexuality and challenged the traditional American understanding of morality. The American people will not trust someone who is unashamedly immoral. If a person doesn't appear to respect life and family values that person certainly cannot respect the power granted when leading a nation. When Clinton engaged in a highly publicized affair, it only seemed to prove the point that Democrats are immoral and void of any true traditional values. This is why the Democratic Party must redifine itself on the level of values. It must take the lead in initiatives that will reduce abortion. It must take the lead in lifting laws that penalize married couples. Also the Democratic Party should take the lead in fighting the filth and perversion on both TV and the Internet. Initatives that will clean up our society and prosecute peddlers of smut. The Democratic Party can capture family values by addressing issues that most families face on an everyday level. A redifined message would illustrate the following:

"I am a Democrat and I believe in the value of human life. I believe we can combat abortion and reduce the abortion rate while preserving our constitutional liberties. That is why I am in full support of expanding SCHIP to cover pregnant women. I also support increasing the funding for WIC to assist new mothers who chose life and are struggling in poverty. I would support Federal subsidies for childcare on university campuses. I would support more funding and greater effort to promote efforts that will reduce unwanted pregnancies like comprehensive sex education. Initiatives such as these will assist women in crisis pregnancies and women who are struggling in poverty that they may feel they have the option of choosing life, knowing they are not alone. My Republican opponent says he's Pro-Life. But his view of resolving this national tragedy is merely making abortion illegal and throwing women in jail. We can do better than that. We must do better than that."

...or...

"I am a Democrat and I believe in family values. Family values go far beyond the debate regarding homosexuality and gay marriage. Each and every day an ever growing number of pornographic smut peddlers are marketing their sites to our children on the internet. Most American children have seen hardcore pornography on the internet by age 11. I believe we can protect our children from the filth being pumped into our homes while also protecting our Constitutional liberties. The filth and every growing perversion that is coming out of certain corners of the entertainment industry is appauling and it must be stopped. My Republican opponant would outlaw Gay Marriage but subsidize corporations that are invested in the porn industry. They would ban gay marriage, yet they would do nothing to prevent filth from being pumped into our homes every day. I believe it's high time we take a stand against immorality and end this assult on the family and our children's innocence. I advocate investigating which corporations and businesses are investing in this seedy and immoral industry that we might know who is poisoning our children. We must begin cracking down on pornography's availability to save the hearts, minds, and innocence, of our children."

If the Democratic Party could capture the values and morality issues...they would be unbeatable. But sadly, the current bunch of Democrats on the Hill and in leadership have no creditability with the American people. If they wish to save their party and perhaps even save our nation...they must step down and allow a new breed of leaders to take charge.
 
Last edited:

Radical Ron

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
209
Reaction score
31
Location
Palm Harbor, FL USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree, but who can the left wing look to as the future of the party? The next president or majority leader?
 
Top Bottom