PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
JesseEwiak said:
I think this is the fundamental difference here - I don't think Sanders is having this massive success story. I just think Sanders is very lucky that folks like Hickenlooper, Biden, Warner, Kaine, Brown, and so on, and so forth decided not to run for the nomination because Hillary decided to run.

If this was the typical Presidential nomination with 8 or 9 candidates, I think Sanders would be getting 10 to 15% of the vote. Great, but right now, he's the only vessel for anti-Clinton sentiment. I'm absolutely sure that you could do a Jay Leno or Jimmy Kimmel style segment finding people at Sanders rallies in Sanders t shirts who disagree with many of his stated policies.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about. I mean that with all due respect, but it's just true. There are about two or three candidates who would have detracted from Sanders' current share, and none of them are ones you named bar Brown. If Sanders was just an anti-Clinton sentiment, then when Biden dropped out, his votes would have gone to Sanders. They didn't, they went back to Clinton, because they are both establishment Democrats and thus represented a joint "not-Sanders" vote. You have the race entirely the wrong way round - if Hickenlooper, Biden, Warner, and Kaine were in the race, they would be draining from Clinton and Sanders would be leading by a country mile.
 
Sea Manky said:
Then let me be perfectly clear. The anti-identity politics discussion going on in this thread right now is fucking revolting. Minorities are engaged in identity politics because they are being systematically abused because of those identities. It's not just a fucking party strategy you can turn off to gain a few more percentage points of white voters who would otherwise be scared off by brown faces looking angry just because they're being killed or deported and shit. These are real problems happening to real people in our country, and their voice needs to be heard, not hushed to avoid driving Johnny Dixiecrat further into the arms of Trump. They deserve representation, not marginalization. Not everything needs to be about god damn white people all the fucking time.

And this shit about white people magically being more tolerant of minorities if their economic needs were met? THEY THREW AWAY THE NEW DEAL BECAUSE BLACKS GOT TO SHARE. The most prosperous fucking time the white middle class EVER had was right before the CRA passed, and you seriously expect people to believe this horseshit that the only reason racism is a thing is because of economic inequality?

The mental contortions that people who are claiming to be such avowed leftists are making to support what is essentially a Southern Strategy Lite are just staggering. So you can't bring yourself to vote for a centrist Democrat, but you're cool with letting racial injustice slide as long as we get that extra 1% difference in economic policy that for some reason meets the threshold for true leftism. Talk about fucking identity politics.
Click to expand...
Yes, and they used to burn witches too. Do you really want to compare today's white working class with the white working class of the 30s/40s?

Also, saying that a condition is necessary for advancement isn't the same thing as saying it will cause it. Economic equality is required but not sufficient.

Required.
Not.
Sufficient.

The argument is not symmetrical and saying it one way does not mean it works the other way.
 
Crux of the matter is that no one should ever be pressured into endorsing someone else by others during a primary. Warren will endorse who she wants when she wants.
 
dabig2 said:
Crux of the matter is that no one should ever be pressured into endorsing someone else by others during a primary. Warren will endorse who she wants when she wants.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't pressure her to do otherwise; I'm just pointing out she'd be shooting herself in the foot.
 
disastermouse said:
Yes, and they used to burn witches too. Do you really want to compare today's white working class with the white working class of the 30s/40s?
Click to expand...

There is no reason to believe they've changed, lol. Trump has gotten a massive amount of the white working class the Democrats lost in the 60s on economic proposals that will fuck them far harder than any Reagan or Bush tax cuts just because Trump has said he will get rid of the brown people.
 
Crab said:
Holy fuck, and the people in this thread were criticizing Sanders fans for not focusing on electability! Do you guys even look at yourselves sometimes?
Click to expand...
Do you look at yourself? You're just anxious because the idea of a Warren endorsement of Hillary could upset the Bernie side and pull votes away from him, that's all. This arguing about how Warren would be turning her back on the movement she started, etc. is a disguise for your displeasure at losing support. It's because you're still attached to the idea that Bernie Sanders has a chance to actually win, and if Warren endorses Hillary that's when the dream shatters, so you'd rather she keep her mouth shut and let you dream longer.

Elizabeth Warren is Elizabeth Warren, she does what she pleases, and she isn't beholden to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton. If she chooses to endorse somebody, I'm sure she has her reasons. If the people who backed Warren are going to turn on her because she used her own judgment to decide on something, then let her regrets be her regrets. You seem very sure that the Democratic politician of the future will resemble Bernie, so if Warren falls then someone else will take her place.

Your frustration now has nothing to do with electability. That's your excuse for why Warren shouldn't endorse. I'm sure she's more aware of what her position is right now than you, that's for sure.
 
Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 24m24 minutes ago
Trump: "I'm a poll maven. I became the all-time expert on polls."

Trump snatched Nate's soul, and now coming for his job.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
There is no reason to believe they've changed, lol. Trump has gotten a massive amount of the white working class the Democrats lost in the 60s on economic proposals that will fuck them far harder than any Reagan or Bush tax cuts just because Trump has said he will get rid of the brown people.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Sanders gets a decent portion of those back - hence why he beats Trump by bigger margins than Clinton. No, they're not perfect, but one step at a time - first they buy into your economics, then, if that works, they might start believing you on other issues. Nobody's selling this as "every single poor white person will vote Sanders" - but a reasonable amount will to get progress going.
 
PBY said:
Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 24m24 minutes ago
Trump: "I'm a poll maven. I became the all-time expert on polls."

Trump snatched Nate's soul, and now coming for his job.
Click to expand...

Yoooooo, looks like Trump-sempai finally noticed Nate.
 
Crab said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. I mean that with all due respect, but it's just true. There are about two or three candidates who would have detracted from Sanders' current share, and none of them are ones you named bar Brown. If Sanders was just an anti-Clinton sentiment, then when Biden dropped out, his votes would have gone to Sanders. They didn't, they went back to Clinton, because they are both establishment Democrats and thus represented a joint "not-Sanders" vote. You have the race entirely the wrong way round - if Hickenlooper, Biden, Warner, and Kaine were in the race, they would be draining from Clinton and Sanders would be leading by a country mile.
Click to expand...

You really don't think a decent portion of Sanders' current potential voters are just people who would rather have someone other than Clinton? you're in a bubble, dude.

Hell, polling consistently shows Sanders supporters as weak compared to Hillary. Why is that?

This happens all the time in primaries. People want to be contrarian for a while.

You have this notion that every current Sanders supporter is some far left person or someone who is anti-establishment or something, but this isn't true at all. There are definitely a bunch of people who don't even view Sanders as anti-establishment. They see him as Generic D not named Clinton.

I bet a lot, possibly most, of his current supporters don't even know he's not actually a Democrat until this primary!

In politics, we seem to think everyone conforms to our own beliefs. The truth is a lot of Bernie's support is coming from people who know little about him right now.

Shit, you know how many people are in Clinton's camp just because they think "yeah, but I bet Bill is the one who will actually run things?" It happened 8 years ago and is happening again.
 
Crab said:
I wouldn't pressure her to do otherwise; I'm just pointing out she'd be shooting herself in the foot.
Click to expand...

I doubt the severity of your claim, but I agree with the overall point that 1)it's dumb for the Dem establishment to try to essentially peer pressure her and 2)she might be holding back such an endorsement because she does know that a large part of her contingent favor Bernie over Hillary and that she's just trying to be respectful of everyone in the meantime.
 
dramatis said:
snip
Click to expand...

Sanders is losing anyway. I know this, it's just so very unlikely he wins. I don't care about Warren endorsing Clinton from Sanders' perspective, it would turn an initially tight loss into a wipe-out but the pressure has already been applied, so that's no loss. Genuinely, in the long run I care about establishing a powerful progressive movement within the Democratic party, and Warren is the strongest torch-bearer for that movement. I care *much* more about that.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
There is no reason to believe they've changed, lol. Trump has gotten a massive amount of the white working class the Democrats lost in the 60s on economic proposals that will fuck them far harder than any Reagan or Bush tax cuts just because Trump has said he will get rid of the brown people.
Click to expand...
Really? He's talking about shipping the African Americans back to Africa? Cuz that was a populist solution to the race issue once upon a time (Liberia says 'hi').

Many of the advances of the unions were based in multi-racial unity. Further, the economic advancement of the white working class is what cleared the way for civil rights movement.
 
NYCmetsfan said:
Dems have opposed pretty much every cut to he new deal. Except welfare reform. I don't get the fact that they've not given any thing on the economic front. They also greatly expanded health care (that was undermined by the courts, help lead to lower energy prices, reduced a lot of the burden of student loans (loan forgiveness among other things).

This reads like a mix white paranoia, misunderstandings about minorities views on social issues, and general concern trolling.

Hispaniss and Asians are liberal on pretty much every social issue in this country. Gay marriage, abortion, welfare spending, racism etc.
Click to expand...

Uhhh...

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/10/...views-on-selected-2014-ballot-measure-issues/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latino-millennials-are-more-conservative-abortion-n330921

The views of Hispanic registered voters are similar to those of white and black registered voters—some 49% of blacks and 53% of whites think abortion should be legal, while some 44% of blacks and 41% of whites think abortion should be illegal.

Looking at all Americans, regardless of their voter registration status, whites (54%) are more likely than blacks (47%) and Hispanics (44%) to think abortion should be legal. Among all Hispanics, 51% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, including 20% who think abortion should never be allowed.

On the issue of abortion, Hispanics overall have long been more likely to say it should be illegal in all or most cases. Over the last decade, this view has not changed much among all Hispanics, with between 51% and 57% saying abortion should be illegal in all or most cases (Pew Research Center, 2014c).16

This difference between Latino registered voters and all Latinos may reflect different views among U.S.-born and foreign-born Latinos, as most Latino registered voters were born in the U.S. Foreign-born Latinos oppose abortion by a margin of nearly 2-to-1: 60% say it should be illegal in all or most cases, while just 35% say it should be legal. By contrast, 51% of U.S.-born Latinos think abortion should be legal, while 43% think it should be illegal.
Click to expand...

A survey of adults ages 18 to 35 released Friday by the Public Religion Research Institute found 54 percent of Latino millennials said abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. However, only 27 percent thought abortion was a critical issue compared to 55 percent who said access to health care is more important.
Click to expand...

Let's head to gay marriage, shall we?

http://www.people-press.org/2015/06...-record-high-but-key-segments-remain-opposed/

As is the case with other demographic groups, African Americans have become more supportive of same-sex marriage over the last decade. However, overall views are mixed: 51% of blacks oppose gays and lesbians marrying legally, while 41% are in favor. Majorities of whites (59%) and Hispanics (56%) now favor same-sex marriage. The racial differences in these opinions largely persist even when taking into account other factors, such as age, religious affiliation and attendance at religious services.
Click to expand...

As for Asian-Americans; article below explains it better than I can.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/opinion/why-are-asian-americans-such-loyal-democrats.html?_r=0

As for guns, that's just the NRA doing their thing. I think everyone's in agreement on that one.

shinra-bansho said:
The unifying platforms of god, guns, gays and taxes don't seem like something I'd define as "identity politics." They unify in being anti-progress.
Click to expand...

But think about how many jokes people make about poor, dumb white southerners / rural folks in relation to that platform. THAT'S an identity.

Crab said:
There's a lot of evidence to suggest that people on the god, guns and gays platform aren't really that enthused about the no taxes platform, though.
Click to expand...

Bingo.

My issue isn't that we should throw away progressive policies towards race or gender or sexuality simply to cater to southern democrats or whatnot. I am saying that we should focus on the myriad of things we have in common with them, and build our party around those (and a common identity on that) just as much as anything else. We're too busy trying to define ourselves by our differences rather than working together based on our commonalities, and we've been succumbing to this very conservative bullshit of "if you aren't our ally 100% you are the enemy".

Hell, look at the Sanders / Warren / Clinton fight you have going on here. Personally, I would probably lean Sanders between the two, but if Clinton wins, it's not like she's a bad candidate. She will push a lot of the same issues that Sanders will, even if not as hard, and that incremental change is important to me. But look at the bloodbath that goes on about it.

Fundamentally - I'm taking pragmatism over principles when it comes to it. (I worked for Obama for too long, what can I say)

Because its easy for me to stand on principles (even as I get "randomly checked" at airport security every time I fly because I'm a brown dude with a beard) because fundamentally I know I'm well off all things considered. But I can't ask someone who actually needs help to wait an extra 4 years, 8 years, however long, because the solution that was proposed wasn't perfect.

If I have to pound the economic message in order to get us to a place where I can stop black people from getting shot because they looked funny at a cop, or I can appoint a new SCOTUS judge to restore VRA; I'll freaking do it.
 
Cybit said:
If I have to pound the economic message in order to get us to a place where I can stop black people from getting shot because they looked funny at a cop, or I can appoint a new SCOTUS judge to restore VRA; I'll freaking do it.
Click to expand...

Preach.
 
Crab said:
Yes, and Sanders gets a decent portion of those back - hence why he beats Trump by bigger margins than Clinton. No, they're not perfect, but one step at a time - first they buy into your economics, then, if that works, they might start believing you on other issues. Nobody's selling this as "every single poor white person will vote Sanders" - but a reasonable amount will to get progress going.
Click to expand...

You guys need to stop bringing this up. Not only is the polling this far out completely worthless, nobody really knows Bernie outside of the early primary states.

Let me tell you, and I know anecdotes aren't good arguments, but nobody in California is paying attention to the democrat primary. Just the other day someone asked me "wait, who is it again that's running against Hillary?"

Bernie is a generic D placeholder in national polls for the general election voters.

If you want to argue Bernie would attract those voters over Trump, you have to use philosophical or political arguments, not empirical ones because no reliable empirical data exists.

I guarantee you, if I conducted a national poll and put a fake name but a D next to it, it would beat Trump by the same Sanders vote or around it.
 
Crab said:
Sanders is losing anyway. I know this, it's just so very unlikely he wins. I don't care about Warren endorsing Clinton from Sanders' perspective, it would turn an initially tight loss into a wipe-out but the pressure has already been applied, so that's no loss. Genuinely, in the long run I care about establishing a powerful progressive movement within the Democratic party, and Warren is the strongest torch-bearer for that movement. I care *much* more about that.
Click to expand...

You should be looking to build a progressive movement outside the Democratic Party.

the_democratic_party_graveyard_of_movements__mike_flugennock.jpeg
 
Black Mamba said:
You guys need to stop bringing this up. Not only is the polling this far out completely worthless, nobody really knows Bernie outside of the early primary states.

Let me tell you, and I know anecdotes aren't good arguments, but nobody in California is paying attention to the democrat primary. Just the other day someone asked me "wait, who is it again that's running against Hillary?"

Bernie is a generic D placeholder in national polls for the general election voters.

If you want to argue Bernie would attract those voters over Trump, you have to use philosophical or political arguments, not empirical ones because no reliable empirical data exists.

I guarantee you, if I conducted a national poll and put a fake name but a D next to it, it would beat Trump by the same Sanders vote or around it.
Click to expand...

So first, I dispute this. Sanders is at 84% national recognition now (Clinton 96%). Secondly, even if you were right about this, which you're not, that tells you that Clinton polls *worse* than a generic (D). Don't you need to seriously reconsider how viable she is at that point?
 
Crab said:
So first, I dispute this. Sanders is at 84% national recognition now (Clinton 96%). Secondly, even if you were right about this, which you're not, that tells you that Clinton polls *worse* than a generic (D). Don't you need to seriously reconsider how viable she is at that point?
Click to expand...

National Recognition means "yeah, I've heard that name."

It does not mean "Yeah, I know what his policies are and his history is and pretty much exactly who he appears to be as a person and politician."

To the bold: no, because every well-known Democrat not named Bill Clinton would poll that way.

edit: Also like to point out that those recognition polls are highly suspect. For one, 85% of voters couldn't pick Joe Biden out of a picture lineup. Not joking.

For another, the respondents on those polls are likely more active politically than the real electorate because those people hang up the phone this far out from an election.
 
Crab said:
Swing voters and undecideds are not usually moderates. You want an accurate example of swing voter? HUELEN. There is a fuck ton of information out there, easily enough to make a preference for one party or the other. Therefore most of the people who can't decide, can't decide because they have a crazy as fuck mish mash of god knows what priorities. Surprisingly (or perhaps not), many of these people like Sanders. He dominates Clinton among independents. Yes, you need these people - that's why you need Sanders.
Click to expand...

Yes. This, Australian swing voters want low taxes (right) and good public services while loathing privatization and public-private partnerships (left) . These things are mutually exclusive so they vote for whoever they feel presents the greatest benefit to them right now.
 
Black Mamba said:
National Recognition means "yeah, I've heard that name."

It does not mean "Yeah, I know what his policies are and his history is and pretty much exactly who he appears to be as a person and politician."

To the bold: no, because every well-known Democrat not named Bill Clinton would poll that way.
Click to expand...

No, it's more than that. That's 86% who felt informed enough to say very favourable/favourable/unfavourable/very unfavourable. I just disagree on your second point, because Sanders is now more well-known than perhaps any active Democratic politician not named Clinton/Obama/Biden/Warren, and he is not polling that way.
 
Crab said:
No, it's more than that. That's 86% who felt informed enough to say very favourable/favourable/unfavourable/very unfavourable. I just disagree on your second point, because Sanders is now more well-known than perhaps any active Democratic politician not named Clinton/Obama/Biden/Warren, and he is not polling that way.
Click to expand...

By well informed, it means, "hey, I like the guy I've seen on TV once or twice guy with the weird hair screaming about the banks."

...what happened to the gay rights movement, exactly?
Click to expand...

It was destroyed when Bill didn't veto a bill and cripple his Presidency that was passing by veto proof margins anyway.
 
ivysaur12 said:
...what happened to the gay rights movement, exactly? Or feminism? Or the environmental movement?
Click to expand...

Yeah, to be fair some of those died because they achieve their motivating force. And some of them came back to life later (Gay rights, environmental).

Poodlestrike said:
How is gay rights in a grave?

How does that even make sense?

EDIT: Ditto Feminism and the environmental movement.
Click to expand...

Note the dates. That's the point at which the Democratic Party more or less abandoned those things as major issues. Some of them came back and got re-embraced.
 
Chelsea Clinton made her way around New Hampshire today in attempt to convince voters that they should support her mother, Hillary Clinton, as the next president.

Bernie Sanders, Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, is practically tied with Clinton in voter polls. He now leads Clinton by a slim margin in Iowa for the first time.

Until now, Chelsea Clinton has shied away from directly naming Sanders in her speeches. She took a shot at the Vermont senator when asked by a young voter how to best galvanize young Americans, who are excited about Sanders' candidacy.

The youngest Clinton was on the defensive. “I never thought that I would be arguing about the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare in the Democratic primary,” Clinton said at an event in Manchester. “Senator Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare and private insurance.”
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chelsea-clinton-takes-bernie-sanders/story?id=36245706

Even Chelsea is getting into the action, interesting tactic by the Clinton campaign.
 
Crab said:
No, it's more than that. That's 86% who felt informed enough to say very favourable/favourable/unfavourable/very unfavourable. I just disagree on your second point, because Sanders is now more well-known than perhaps any active Democratic politician not named Clinton/Obama/Biden/Warren, and he is not polling that way.
Click to expand...

90% of people couldn't name anyone other than Obama and Clinton as a democrat in politics. I'm including Biden, here. You overestimate people so fucking much, dude. People know fuck all. And who the hell else would be a national politician, anyway? People hear Bernie's name on the news when they hear about a poll coming out. That's it. But that's more than everyone not named clinton, biden, obama!

Second, who cares if they pick a favorable or unfavorable?

You're starting to argue that polling is very reliable in terms of uninformed people's beliefs. lol. You need to back off what polling says in relation to actual people.

Look how quickly voters went from Carson to Cruz. Look at the "not Romney" in the last GOP Primary.

Look how Clinton went from high approval to lower approval simply by announcing she's running. What does that tell you about people and voters?

Most voters know very little. Most voters respond to polls and vote in an uninformed way. This is how it really works.

You're an informed person when it comes to politics. You are unique. Don't start to believe people are like you even if they disagree with you.
 
ivysaur12 said:
...what happened to the gay rights movement, exactly? Or feminism? Or the environmental movement?
Click to expand...
Look at the dates. The point is that the Democratic Party co-opted the energy of those movements and delayed them as long as they could. Dems flipped on gay rights only when it was politically advantageous to do so. They didn't lead the charge, they co-opted the energy for electoral gains while holding back the movements themselves.
 
disastermouse said:
Look at the dates. The point is that the Democratic Party co-opted the energy of those movements and delayed them as long as they could. Dems flipped on gay rights only when it was politically advantageous to do so. They didn't lead the charge, they co-opted the energy for electoral gains while holding back the movements themselves.
Click to expand...

so being co-opted and ultimately successful is the graveyard, I see
 
disastermouse said:
Look at the dates. The point is that the Democratic Party co-opted the energy of those movements and delayed them as long as they could. Dems flipped on gay rights only when it was politically advantageous to do so. They didn't lead the charge, they co-opted the energy for electoral gains while holding back the movements themselves.
Click to expand...

Well did they kill these movements or cynically exploit them when beneficial? Kind of feels like a mixed message cartoon.
 
ivysaur12 said:
Gay rights died even though it's the most successful left wing movements in the past few decades.
Click to expand...
Right. And it was 'led' by the Democratic Party...

Except it wasn't. Look at the dates. In the '90s, it was political suicide to be pro-gay rights as a Democrat. Even our great savior (Obama) had to 'evolve' on the issue.
 
Elaugaufein said:
ETA - Racism was exploited to overturn the New Deal yes. But it wasn't racism , in the sense of "we hate black people", like you're putting forward. They created a mythical black person who was abusing the system and used that. It was exploiting a fear of Others taking from them. It's that ability to suggest unfairness that's the key. And yes racism makes people far more willing to accept that idea.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the difference between "We hate black people so we don't want them to have something good" and "We are telling these white people that black people are horrible and they shouldn't share something good with them"? It's all racism. That "mythical black person who was abusing the system" wasn't something that was just pulled out of nowhere, it already existed as a racist stereotype of the "lazy black".

And it is disingenuous to believe that these politicians who sought to overturn the New Deal were neutral and distant types who were able to reach into the container of Racism with a long spoon and dole out little tidbits without getting any of the toxic ideology on them. The people who were using these caricatures to exploit the populace were also racist.
 
Iolo said:
so being co-opted and ultimately successful is the graveyard, I see
Click to expand...
The success had nothing to do with the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party didn't actively fight for those causes, mass movements did. Starting in the '70s the gay community started working to 'normalize' gay culture which led to more people realizing that many of their friends, families, and neighbors were gay. That removed the threat of the 'other'. Gay activists did that, not the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party pushed 'don't ask, don't tell' and, if they were feeling frisky, 'civil unions'.
 
disastermouse said:
The success had nothing to do with the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party didn't actively fight for those causes, mass movements did. Starting in the '70s the gay community started working to 'normalize' gay culture which led to more people realizing that many of their friends, families, and neighbors were gay. That removed the threat of the 'other'. Gay activists did that, not the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party pushed 'don't ask, don't tell' and, if they were feeling frisky, 'civil unions'.
Click to expand...

So, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan became SC Justices to be the votes that helped make gay marriage legal nationwide by magic?
 
JesseEwiak said:
So, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan became SC Justices to be the votes that helped make gay marriage legal nationwide by magic?
Click to expand...

This is where the rubber hits the road. We can point to how these changes are reached.

It's easy to snipe. It's not so easy to present a precise, realistic alternative path towards these end goals.
 
Speaking on gay marriage, it really is quite interesting how fast momentum happened. I mean, look at this shit:

sNOK03k.png


We're looking at a mere decade, a blink of the eye in terms of political trends.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
254K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
PKrockin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT15| Orange is the New Black
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
The Technomancer replied
Top Bottom