If/when depolarization happens, what will it look like?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:39:04 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  If/when depolarization happens, what will it look like?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: If/when depolarization happens, what will it look like?  (Read 3684 times)
Dead Parrot
Rookie
**
Posts: 64


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 26, 2020, 01:00:01 PM »

As pretty much everyone here is aware, one of the defining trends of American politics in the last few years is that our elections are much more polarized. More people than ever are voting straight-ticket, certain states/districts that used to be winnable for both parties are no longer competitive, etc. If this trend ever reverses itself, what will it look like? Will it be gradual, with a bunch of previously uncompetitive seats flipping in successive election cycles? Will it be very sudden, with another 1994-esque wave election? How will voting patterns shift in such a scenario?
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,458
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2020, 01:09:31 PM »

Political polarization will drop when the U.S. begins to regulate its businesses again in a way that reduces economic pressures on the 99.9%. I realize this sounds like more of a political platform-based take, but it was done 100 years ago & the simple fact of the matter is that people tend to be less politically radical when their economy is functioning correctly & their economic needs are met. Until this happens, it'll only get worse from here.
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2020, 02:52:14 PM »

I would think that a major disaster like COVID-19 would bring about broad-based coalitional politics based solely on addressing the crisis, but neither party has presented the kind of leadership that actually changes the status quo.
Logged
Dead Parrot
Rookie
**
Posts: 64


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2020, 05:00:10 PM »

Political polarization will drop when the U.S. begins to regulate its businesses again in a way that reduces economic pressures on the 99.9%. I realize this sounds like more of a political platform-based take, but it was done 100 years ago & the simple fact of the matter is that people tend to be less politically radical when their economy is functioning correctly & their economic needs are met. Until this happens, it'll only get worse from here.

I guess I agree to some extent, but it also seems like a lot of what's driving polarization is structural rather than tied to specific policies. I happen to subscribe to the theory that our current environment is the result of super-polarized Baby Boomers being the electorate's dominant age demographic for the last ~25 years (hence why it picked up so sharply in the '90s when they overtook the Greatest Generation). If this is indeed the case, then we should expect polarization to ease as more and more Boomers depart and more liberal Millennials/Zoomers reach the age when people start voting regularly. My question is on how this transition will unfold. Are there any suprising places that will start trending Dem in the next few years? (I think NC Yankee has mentioned Mississippi as a possibility.) Will Republicans start to moderate as the market for belligerent Trumpist-style populism shrinks? All in all, given the massive age gaps we've been seeing in recent elections, it's hard to imagine that that's not going to have an impact moving forward...
Logged
Stockdale for Veep
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 810


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2020, 05:57:56 PM »

It's here to stay. As long as the Electoral College is around, it will be impossible for any much-needed third or fourth party to exist / be competitive.
Logged
Roll Roons
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,985
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2020, 06:01:00 PM »

It's here to stay. As long as the Electoral College is around, it will be impossible for any much-needed third or fourth party to exist / be competitive.

I could see a centrist third party rise at the state level and maybe elect people to Congress. People who are wary of the influence of AOC types on the Democratic Party, but are scared off by the hardcore Trumpists. Basically people who are ideologically somewhere between Joe Biden and Marco Rubio.
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2020, 07:32:08 PM »

When Communism/Nazism takes over the U.S Government (With Trump, the latter may have already happened.)
Logged
Hope For A New Era
EastOfEden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,729


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2020, 09:31:50 PM »

All in all, given the massive age gaps we've been seeing in recent elections, it's hard to imagine that that's not going to have an impact moving forward...

I could see a centrist third party rise at the state level and maybe elect people to Congress. People who are wary of the influence of AOC types on the Democratic Party, but are scared off by the hardcore Trumpists. Basically people who are ideologically somewhere between Joe Biden and Marco Rubio.

One more remote possibility that combines both of these is the Democratic Party becoming such a massive big tent and so dominant among young voters that it contains nearly every ideology, while the Republican Party keeps purging moderates until it becomes a hyper-Trumpist, conspiracist, borderline-fascist party.
This could eventually lead to a split of the Democrats, and we'd end up with a three-party system, something like Progressive, Democratic, America First or something. A bit like Canada if the NDP was right-wing.

Actually, is there any interest in a timeline of that? Maybe I'll try my hand at writing one.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,458
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2020, 10:08:02 PM »
« Edited: August 27, 2020, 09:07:31 AM by brucejoel99 »

Political polarization will drop when the U.S. begins to regulate its businesses again in a way that reduces economic pressures on the 99.9%. I realize this sounds like more of a political platform-based take, but it was done 100 years ago & the simple fact of the matter is that people tend to be less politically radical when their economy is functioning correctly & their economic needs are met. Until this happens, it'll only get worse from here.

I guess I agree to some extent, but it also seems like a lot of what's driving polarization is structural rather than tied to specific policies. I happen to subscribe to the theory that our current environment is the result of super-polarized Baby Boomers being the electorate's dominant age demographic for the last ~25 years (hence why it picked up so sharply in the '90s when they overtook the Greatest Generation). If this is indeed the case, then we should expect polarization to ease as more and more Boomers depart and more liberal Millennials/Zoomers reach the age when people start voting regularly. My question is on how this transition will unfold. Are there any suprising places that will start trending Dem in the next few years? (I think NC Yankee has mentioned Mississippi as a possibility.) Will Republicans start to moderate as the market for belligerent Trumpist-style populism shrinks? All in all, given the massive age gaps we've been seeing in recent elections, it's hard to imagine that that's not going to have an impact moving forward...

I disagree. The U.S. has almost always exhibited some degree of political polarization:



However, our current era of such is largely related to economic pressures resulting from income inequality, which drives citizens to choose more ideologically-extreme options. This chart shows the share of pre-tax household income received by the top 1%, top 0.1%, & top 0.01% in the U.S.:



As we can see, the level of income inequality mirrors the level of political polarization: if you look at the beginning of the charts (so, the late-1800s & early-1900s), levels of political polarization & income inequality were high. This obviously coincides with the Gilded Age, an era known for its lack of substantive business-structure regulation & labor laws in spite of there being massive industrial growth. This subjected much of the working-poor to harsh-working conditions & allowed the elite to gain untold riches. This - along with an often jingoistic & dis-informative press - radicalized the 2 flanks of the population until progressive reforms were enacted under Teddy Roosevelt. Polarization later rose slightly during WWI & the year after due to the 1st Red Scare, but decreased during the Roaring Twenties & continued to do so even further when FDR enacted the New Deal in response to the Depression, which further reduced income inequality.

Any of this sound familiar? Well, we're obviously currently in a 2nd Gilded Age, triggered by the ideology of seemingly-perpetual deregulatory reforms that were initiated in the 1970s & cuts to social-spending (outside of health-care) that culminated in Clinton's passage of "the end of welfare as we know it." In the social-issue realm, one of these deregulatory reforms was the 1987 abolition of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, which required all news broadcasters to report only the facts with as little bias as possible. This led to the rise of conservative talk-radio & the subsequent moral panics of the late '80s & early '90s. At that point in the first chart, we can see polarization begin its climb to its current levels today. This was made even worse by the infamous Citizens United case, which allowed unlimited amounts of corporate PAC money to pour into our elections. This - combined with the fact that the average American family never really recovered from the Great Recession - has created an immense amount of pressure &, in turn, radicalization.

EDIT: forgot to include the link to the 1st political polarization chart lol
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,282
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2020, 06:08:10 AM »


I disagree. The U.S. has almost always exhibited some degree of political polarization, but our current era of such is largely related to economic pressures resulting from income inequality, which drives citizens to choose more ideologically-extreme options. This chart shows the share of pre-tax household income received by the top 1%, top 0.1%, & top 0.01% in the U.S.:



As we can see, the level of income inequality mirrors the level of political polarization: if you look at the beginning of the charts (so, the late-1800s & early-1900s), levels of political polarization & income inequality were high. This obviously coincides with the Gilded Age, an era known for its lack of substantive business-structure regulation & labor laws in spite of there being massive industrial growth. This subjected much of the working-poor to harsh-working conditions & allowed the elite to gain untold riches. This - along with an often jingoistic & dis-informative press - radicalized the 2 flanks of the population until progressive reforms were enacted under Teddy Roosevelt. Polarization later rose slightly during WWI & the year after due to the 1st Red Scare, but decreased during the Roaring Twenties & continued to do so even further when FDR enacted the New Deal in response to the Depression, which further reduced income inequality.

Any of this sound familiar? Well, we're obviously currently in a 2nd Gilded Age, triggered by the ideology of seemingly-perpetual deregulatory reforms that were initiated in the 1970s & cuts to social-spending (outside of health-care) that culminated in Clinton's passage of "the end of welfare as we know it." In the social-issue realm, one of these deregulatory reforms was the 1987 abolition of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, which required all news broadcasters to report only the facts with as little bias as possible. This led to the rise of conservative talk-radio & the subsequent moral panics of the late '80s & early '90s. At that point in the first chart, we can see polarization begin its climb to its current levels today. This was made even worse by the infamous Citizens United case, which allowed unlimited amounts of corporate PAC money to pour into our elections. This - combined with the fact that the average American family never really recovered from the Great Recession - has created an immense amount of pressure &, in turn, radicalization.

I find this somewhat funny because the only other person who I have heard basically calling this era a 2nd Gilded Age is Tucker Carlson. And I imagine that in all likelihood you loathe Carlson.
In any case, it's a theory to which I probably subscribe.
Logged
Samof94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,312
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2020, 12:13:12 PM »

I think there’ll be a “Clinton” who is socially liberal for a Republican at some point and is more like W on immigration.
Logged
TiltsAreUnderrated
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,771


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2020, 12:33:03 PM »

I think there’ll be a “Clinton” who is socially liberal for a Republican at some point and is more like W on immigration.

If this is to lead to meaningful depolarisation, it will either mean outright outflanking high-profile Democrats on social issues to gain college-educated voters, economic or climate change moderation for a Republican, or a very nasty electoral loss (I don't think it could move that many black voters despite the prognostications of this position's high-profile advocates).

"Socially liberal, economically conservative," is a massively overrepresented demographic within the US political system.
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2020, 12:53:21 PM »

I disagree. The U.S. has almost always exhibited some degree of political polarization, but our current era of such is largely related to economic pressures resulting from income inequality, which drives citizens to choose more ideologically-extreme options. This chart shows the share of pre-tax household income received by the top 1%, top 0.1%, & top 0.01% in the U.S.:



As we can see, the level of income inequality mirrors the level of political polarization: if you look at the beginning of the charts (so, the late-1800s & early-1900s), levels of political polarization & income inequality were high. This obviously coincides with the Gilded Age, an era known for its lack of substantive business-structure regulation & labor laws in spite of there being massive industrial growth. This subjected much of the working-poor to harsh-working conditions & allowed the elite to gain untold riches. This - along with an often jingoistic & dis-informative press - radicalized the 2 flanks of the population until progressive reforms were enacted under Teddy Roosevelt. Polarization later rose slightly during WWI & the year after due to the 1st Red Scare, but decreased during the Roaring Twenties & continued to do so even further when FDR enacted the New Deal in response to the Depression, which further reduced income inequality.

Any of this sound familiar? Well, we're obviously currently in a 2nd Gilded Age, triggered by the ideology of seemingly-perpetual deregulatory reforms that were initiated in the 1970s & cuts to social-spending (outside of health-care) that culminated in Clinton's passage of "the end of welfare as we know it." In the social-issue realm, one of these deregulatory reforms was the 1987 abolition of the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, which required all news broadcasters to report only the facts with as little bias as possible. This led to the rise of conservative talk-radio & the subsequent moral panics of the late '80s & early '90s. At that point in the first chart, we can see polarization begin its climb to its current levels today. This was made even worse by the infamous Citizens United case, which allowed unlimited amounts of corporate PAC money to pour into our elections. This - combined with the fact that the average American family never really recovered from the Great Recession - has created an immense amount of pressure &, in turn, radicalization.

I find this somewhat funny because the only other person who I have heard basically calling this era a 2nd Gilded Age is Tucker Carlson. And I imagine that in all likelihood you loathe Carlson.
In any case, it's a theory to which I probably subscribe.

Thomas Piketty and Paul Krugman have also described it as such. The latter said, “The middle class America of my youth is best not thought of as the normal state of our society, but as an interregnum between Gilded Ages.” In this way, the New Deal order with its profound economic, social and political effects, reducing both economic equality and political polarisation, was arguably an aberration within American history.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2020, 01:36:04 PM »

I don't think you'll get a "socially liberal" Republican; you will get a socially tolerant Republican.  John Kasich is a social conservative through and through ... yet he has tons of issues with Trump's rhetoric (on the record, anyway).  Any "GOP Clinton" will likely be a reaction to Democratic control for an extended period of time, as the Democratic Party exerts its power to enact progressive legislation.  Such a GOP nominee would hold together culturally and socially conservative voters, economic conservatives and regain several moderate areas, most likely in the suburbs.

Everyone stereotypes middle- and upper-middle class voters who have fled the GOP as "socially liberal," but they're not from my experience.  They like stability.  In the right climate, that is as socially conservative as it is socially liberal ... Trump is just giving "social conservatism" a very demagogic and unsavory face, bordering on reactionary appeal.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2020, 02:09:02 PM »

I think a narrow Biden win probably means things aren't depolarizing anytime soon.
A big Biden victory might deescalate what's going on and force the Republican Party to find a way to victory that doesn't involve the politics of humiliation ("pwning teh libz") or the politics as being as loud and zealous as possible. Unless the Republican Party keeps losing (Democrats score a hat trick with presidents or trifectas), they probably aren't going soften on things like abortion, the ACA, or flat taxes.
It would still be something if the next GOP nominee is just seen more like Louis XVI than Pinochet the way Romney was.

In the event of a Trump winning but losing the Housing and the NPV, I don't think that would do much either. Democrats would just say that Trump has a lot of "charisma" and move on. Many Democrats were talking about how they needed to nominate someone between Evan Bayh and Bob Casey for 2008 in 2005 and Howard Dean's big tent won enough red states in 2006 to win all of Congress. Eventually they ended up with the most liberal trifecta in 40 years in 2008.  So even in a narrow Trump victory, I don't think that would mean anything would change anytime soon. If anything, it could be be worse than a narrow Biden victory.

Even in the case of a Republican sweep, its really hard to see any depolarization because a lot of "Trump Democrats" won't even vote for a "Law and Order" Pro-Life Democrat who just wants to go back to the taxes and spending in 2014. The only thing such a candidate would accomplish would be to keep liberals home.
Logged
Heebie Jeebie
jeb_arlo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,178
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2020, 07:46:22 PM »

The intense polarization is a result of a lack of democracy in our governing systems.  Minority rule is the order of the day, and until that changes there are few incentives to appeal to the moderate middle of the electorate.  To depolarize our politics, we need to do the following:

1.  End the Electoral College (NPVIC would do the job)
2.  Eliminate the Senate's legislative filibuster
3.  Add more states so that actual people have more representation and empty land has less
4.  End partisan gerrymandering of Congressional districts
5.  Normalize partisan changes to the size and constitution of the federal judiciary
6.  Normalize executive and legislative push-back to judicial review

Basically, we need to dis-incentivize extremism by creating fair competition among political actors.  If we pump more democracy into our system, there'll be more room for compromise and moderation.
Logged
GeorgeBFree
Npard23
Rookie
**
Posts: 55
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2020, 11:50:26 PM »

Polarization will end under one of three conditions:

1) Economic fortunes of millennials and Gen Z improve enough that they grow more satisfied with the status quo. Economic weakness and distribution of the “winnings” into smaller hands (mostly tech sector and older generations who bought assets pre-Fed stimulus era). If economic situation wasn’t as precarious for bottom 80%, people would care less about politics and focus on other social activities/groups.

2) Inflation and higher interest rates equalize wealth distribution upon the age and class curve in a fashion similar to what happened in the 1970’s. This would also wipe out debts in real terms. 1970’s was painful but it set foundation for more stable politics in 1980s-2008. This run of stagflation will get ugly too, but not violent.

3) One side wins enough power (either electorally or violently) to monopolize levers of power and arrest the leaders of opposition and silence the rest. The result will be years of “harmonization” through totalitarian brute force and censorship. China is the least politically polarized country in the world, and that is not because they have a healthy democracy.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2020, 01:08:06 AM »

I think there’ll be a “Clinton” who is socially liberal for a Republican at some point and is more like W on immigration.

This personal could never win the primary.

Social issues and immigration are the biggest issues for the GOP.

Most Republican voters don't vote for the Republicans because of fiscal issues.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2020, 01:21:46 AM »

I think there’ll be a “Clinton” who is socially liberal for a Republican at some point and is more like W on immigration.

This personal could never win the primary.

Social issues and immigration are the biggest issues for the GOP.

Most Republican voters don't vote for the Republicans because of fiscal issues.

Would your analysis in the early 1990s about what unites the Democratic Party hold true for 2020?  This is a hypothetical about the future, and to talk about it will require thinking much more creatively than viewing the GOP as it as now for decades and decades.
Logged
Samof94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,312
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2020, 06:56:49 AM »

“Liberal for a Republican” might be having social views considered progressive the 1990’s. My scenario has the GOP(or a rival Conservative party that is more secular).  It’d be a very different time when Gen X is hitting retirement age and Zoomers are mostly in their 30’s.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2020, 07:14:05 AM »
« Edited: September 09, 2020, 07:18:19 AM by DC Al Fine »

I don't think you'll get a "socially liberal" Republican; you will get a socially tolerant Republican.  John Kasich is a social conservative through and through ... yet he has tons of issues with Trump's rhetoric (on the record, anyway).  Any "GOP Clinton" will likely be a reaction to Democratic control for an extended period of time, as the Democratic Party exerts its power to enact progressive legislation.  Such a GOP nominee would hold together culturally and socially conservative voters, economic conservatives and regain several moderate areas, most likely in the suburbs.

Everyone stereotypes middle- and upper-middle class voters who have fled the GOP as "socially liberal," but they're not from my experience.  They like stability.  In the right climate, that is as socially conservative as it is socially liberal ... Trump is just giving "social conservatism" a very demagogic and unsavory face, bordering on reactionary appeal.



It's been four years and Atlas still doesn't get that fiscon-soclib barely exists outside the internet.
Logged
TiltsAreUnderrated
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,771


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2020, 07:58:02 AM »

I don't think you'll get a "socially liberal" Republican; you will get a socially tolerant Republican.  John Kasich is a social conservative through and through ... yet he has tons of issues with Trump's rhetoric (on the record, anyway).  Any "GOP Clinton" will likely be a reaction to Democratic control for an extended period of time, as the Democratic Party exerts its power to enact progressive legislation.  Such a GOP nominee would hold together culturally and socially conservative voters, economic conservatives and regain several moderate areas, most likely in the suburbs.

Everyone stereotypes middle- and upper-middle class voters who have fled the GOP as "socially liberal," but they're not from my experience.  They like stability.  In the right climate, that is as socially conservative as it is socially liberal ... Trump is just giving "social conservatism" a very demagogic and unsavory face, bordering on reactionary appeal.



It's been four years and Atlas still doesn't get that fiscon-soclib barely exists outside the internet.

In fairness to them, this is a common misconception perpetuated by the many fiscon/soclib Beltway powerbrokers and their allies.
Logged
GeorgeBFree
Npard23
Rookie
**
Posts: 55
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2020, 09:39:10 AM »

I’ve seen this chart before, but why don’t you see someone with Rick Santorum’s social views and Bernie’s economics in real life or run for office? Fiscally left/socially right may be the future winning ticket. Populist parties in Europe are trending this way already.
Logged
TiltsAreUnderrated
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,771


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2020, 09:56:07 AM »
« Edited: September 09, 2020, 10:00:46 AM by TiltsAreUnderrated »

I’ve seen this chart before, but why don’t you see someone with Rick Santorum’s social views and Bernie’s economics in real life or run for office? Fiscally left/socially right may be the future winning ticket. Populist parties in Europe are trending this way already.

Part of this is the difference between the average profile of people likely to make serious runs at public office (much more likely to be college-educated, white and metropolitan) and the profile of the median voter. Another plank is institutional conventional wisdom lagging behind current political norms - a couple of decades ago, Reaganomics was a lot more popular. These two are somewhat related in that institutions that form said conventional wisdom (most of the press etc.) also come from these backgrounds in which socially liberal, economically conservative people are a lot more prevalent (think NYT, WSJ, etc.).

I believe the main reason why you won't see it very often in presidential candidacies is because most institutionalists despise the economic component and do their best to tie it to more divisive social policy. Sanders' more populist 2016 campaign was disingenuously decried as racist and tied to Republicans (where his 2020 campaign moved from this, the same people claimed it was suddenly "Unelectable"). Any Republican equivalent's would be tied to "America-hating socialists" (probably with reference to AOC) - we've already seen this begin with the Republican hit pieces on Hawley. Reasonable compromiseTM for Republicans will almost always be on social issues and, for Democrats, usually on economic issues - the opposite of where each party has most room to grow with the general populace. The more politics is focused on the culture war, the less likely it is that its most corrupt operatives will be called to account.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2020, 10:29:34 AM »




It's been four years and Atlas still doesn't get that fiscon-soclib barely exists outside the internet.

This.

We're far more likely to see a President Joe Manchin than a President Charlie Baker.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 11 queries.