A Dark Money Group Is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers (wired.com) 201
The Sixteen Thirty Fund, a liberal dark money organization, is paying Democratic influencers up to $8,000 monthly through its Chorus Creator Incubator Program, Wired reports. Contracts prohibit participants from disclosing their payments or identifying funders, the publication added. The program launched last month includes over 90 creators with a collective audience exceeding 40 million followers. Influencers must attend advocacy trainings and messaging check-ins while Chorus retains approval rights over political content made with program resources. The Sixteen Thirty Fund distributed over $400 million to left-leaning causes in 2020.
And we should care because? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been a tactic on the opposite side of the aisle for decades. At this point why should we care in the slightest?
Re:And we should care because? (Score:5, Funny)
It's only called "class warfare" when we fight back.
Re:And we should care because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should you care? Because how you fucking win matters, shithead.
It's remarkable how Machiavellian certain liberal elements became when we lost to Trump. It's pretty disheartening.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point why should we care in the slightest?
I don't care in the slightest.
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite side of the isle? I think you are confused, this tactic has been on the same side of the isle all along. Advocate billionaires are mostly a leftie thing. That's why the top 1% experienced more wealth growth under Biden than at any point in modern history while the middle to upper middle working class all had their jobs insourced and the entire working class were told they 'can afford it' as inflation soared 26% in 4yrs. They only want class migration to happen in one direction and want the popu
Re:And we should care because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if this group is a foreign government its literally illegal.
I remember that same busted-ass talking point during the 2000 presidential campaign, levied without evidence against Gore.
If you don't like it, why don't you push for Citizens United to be overturned through legislation. Otherwise shut up or get some new material.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good article. I didn't know/remember about it.
one paragraph from it, about the $710K in fines levied:
The total in fines would have been significantly higher except that some of the corporations have folded and others were dummy operations, with no assets, set up as conduits for money from China, Venezuela, Canada and other countries. Foreign individuals and organizations are barred from contributing to federal elections. In some cases, foreigners who would have been subject to fines could not be located and served with papers. In other cases, which sometimes produced minor news coverage, the individuals pleaded guilty in criminal cases and are bankrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Should mod up informative. The claim was not only without evidence but resulted in fines being levied because it was true.
Re:And we should care because? (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't like it, why don't you push for Citizens United to be overturned through legislation. Otherwise shut up or get some new material.
You would have more credibility if you actually understood what happened with Citizens United. The law limiting campaign contributions was largely overturned in Citizens United on constitutional grounds. So new legislation will change nothing. This leaves two possibilities:
1. Stack the Supreme Court with justices who will overturn it (like the fate of Roe vs. Wade)
2. Change the Constitution.
Neither are likely to happen for decades.
Re:And we should care because? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm Canadian, but I'll write it as though I'm in the US - or at least try to - so as to reduce confusion.
1. Stack the Supreme Court with justices who will overturn it (like the fate of Roe vs. Wade)
2. Change the Constitution.
3. Elections are now publicly funded.
Unfortunately I'm not sure how we cover off independents, potential new candidates, or the creation of new parties. You can't make people pay to run for office, though the system is largely pay to win anyway, since anyone is supposed to be able to run. At the same time we also don't want thousands of people applying to be a candidate, we'd need some way to weed out the "joke" candidates from the ones who are actually serious. I'd also like to see a proficiency test which proves candidates have a general idea of the existing laws, both at the state and federal level, and what the Constitution does and does not allow but again I'm not sure that would be legal since anyone is supposed to be able to run.
Either way, when it comes to elections, the only way to fix the problems we have now is to get private money taken entirely out of campaigning and elections.
Re:And we should care because? (Score:4, Informative)
3. Elections are now publicly funded.
Well, yes and no. Candidates can opt-out of that public funding. Obama did exactly that (he was the first to do so [npr.org]), as did Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
great conclusion, maybe people should start a 'defund politics' movement
Re: (Score:2)
How is all that not a violation of the US constitution?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You would have more credibility if you actually understood what happened with Citizens United.
Ditto. The whole premise of Citizens United v. FEC is that corporations are people who are engaged in speech.
Corporations are NOT people, and CAN NOT engage in speech.
People pushing for corporations do be seen as people who have speech, simply want to have more than one voice, as the rest of us do.
Next they'll be lobbying that corporations should be able to vote in elections.
It's an insane argument to make.
Re: (Score:2)
A corporation must be registered and formed under state law and then provides state granted liability protection to the owners. That makes it a state created public entity not a private one.
That's the reality and that is why corporations have basis to claim constitutional protections. But you won't find many pro-business republicans who want that to become recognized and the billionaire cabal that runs the global liberal regime certainly doesn't want that either. The magnitude of the disruption of ruling wi
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. I don't follow. Are you arguing that corporations should have the same rights as people? And, if so, why? And if not, why not?
Re: And we should care because? (Score:2)
A corporation is comprised of people, the corporation should have the same, not fewer rights as a person does.
It simply lets PRIVATE corporations do the same things as labor unions can - should unions be kept out of politics? If you say yes, I'll consider repealing citizens united for PRIVATE corporations.
(Public corporations are not covered by CU)
Re: (Score:2)
OK. As soon as you eliminate the limited liability of the shareholders, giving those people comprising the corporation the same responsibilities as other people, then we can talk about the corporation comprised by people having the same rights as a person does.
Re: And we should care because? (Score:3)
Corporations can have free speech once someone can figure out how to apply the death penalty to a corporation. Until then, it shouldn't have the rights of people.
Let's consider for a moment:
Imagine if a corporation can outright lie to you about what they're selling, and then claim free speech when they're found to be lying.
"Made in America!"
"Gluten Free!"
"Does not contain rodent droppings or insect parts above the legal limits set by the FDA"
"Will not cause hair loss"
"Does not cause birth defects"
"Will not
Re: And we should care because? (Score:2)
Why do you imagine a corporation can lie and escape liability because of Citizens United?
Re: And we should care because? (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with Citizen's United. It's a push by some groups (likely people who control corporations) to try to claim that corporations should have rights that we give to people.
If you give freedom of speech to corporations, then truth in advertising laws fall apart.
Re: And we should care because? (Score:2)
Corporations are NOT people, and CAN NOT engage in speech.
Does this treat all corporations equally? Because if so that also includes charities, labor unions, newspapers and interest groups like the American civil liberties union, all of which are corporations in every sense of the word.
Re: (Score:3)
there was no historical basis supporting the supposed 'right.'
I thought Constitutional rights in the US were eternal and self-evident, not historically determined, aka, the 9th Amendment's "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
When did the US legal tradition transition from jusnaturalism, that is, recognizing rights as having always existed irrespective of previous government having been aware of their existence or not, to juspositivism, in which rights are arbitrarily grante
Re: And we should care because? (Score:2)
(Hit send too soon)
When Roe v Wade was overturned the abortion debate was delegated to the 50 states, exactly where it should be... If you want to change that, if you want to amend the constitution go for it! But fair warning, it's non-trivial.
Re: (Score:3)
What part of "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" isn't clear?
If the people have had from eternity a right granted by nature/a god, they have that right. No legal system can remove that right legitimately. They can remove that right illegitimately, but then that makes the law that removed the right simply an invalid law.
If you want, look into the Bible. It makes it clear there that abortion isn't murder, but loss
Re: And we should care because? (Score:2)
Sign me up! (Score:2)
You [TWX] are so cute when you feed the AC troll or sock puppet. Maybe its hairdresser knows for sure, but why should anyone care?
As for the story, the obligatory joke I was looking for is the fresh Subject. Also lots of joke turf around not getting any value from their investments. At least if that "Democratic" is referring to the large-D political "party" in America, they sure ain't bought much influence that I can detect anywhere.
But there is a related joke floating around here, if only I could execute h
I didn't hear a lot of talk from your side (Score:3, Insightful)
And there were a couple dozen other popular right wing YouTubers and pundits who got caught taking hundreds of thousands of dollars directly from Russia State media without disclosing it.
I'm not really calling out right wing hypocrisy because the right wing is completely incapable of the emotions of shame and self-awareness that are associated with hypocrisy.
I mo
Re:I didn't hear a lot of talk from your side (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia seems mostly concerned with widening the partisan gap and tossing monkey wrenches into whatever they can. They throw money at some right-wing podcasters, throw some more to BLM. They aren't trying to bolster one side or the other, they just want to make a mess. They want to discredit our political system so Russians won't want to try voting for someone other than Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
Did any of them have the cognition to recognize that if an adversarial nation was bolstering what they were espousing through a cut-out that meant no direct instructions, that perhaps what they were blathering is bad for our nation and good for that adversary?
Re: (Score:2)
It speaks volumes about who MAGA looks up to as their thought leaders, and it's perfectly on-brand that those people are as easy marks as their followers.
Re: (Score:3)
I maintain that boast remains objectively true (yes, in spite of Biden's decline) every time your guy opens his fool, lying mouth.
Re:I didn't hear a lot of talk from your side (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the bipartisan reports on interference in 2016 while there is some both sides stuff Russia was largely working to the support of Trump which logically tracks, Hillary was far more hawkish on Russia.
Also let's not forget that Roger Stone working with Trump was in contact with Russian state actors to slow drop the release of hacked DNC info and when caught proceeded to both ignore Congressional subpoenas, intimidated a witness to not testify and then received a full pardon from Trump.
Also those podcasters are either complicit or so goddamned stupid to not consider why this org was paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars for mere hours of content on a channel that received views barely into the tens of thousands. Tim and Benny are clowns.
Re:I didn't hear a lot of talk from your side (Score:4, Insightful)
They want to discredit our political system so Russians won't want to try voting for someone other than Putin.
Anything that Russia is doing regarding propaganda is utterly useless compared to the actual damage being done by the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. They have discredited themselves all on their own.
Re: I didn't hear a lot of talk from your side (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is a nothing country with Nukes. That is the ONLY thing that gives them any strength. Pakistan might have just as much influence as Russia at this point for the same reason.
If you think Russia propaganda has any influence on 162 Million voters enough to change anything (2024), please keep spewing that opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty well documented that Russia runs troll farms spreading propaganda and pushing messages - AND that people are listening to them. You can keep sticking your head in the sand or come to realize that there are people (no not everyone gullible enough to vote for Trump) swayed by Russian influence.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great example. Lots of people that ended up voting made Hunter's laptop their top issue because that was a big fake scandal that Russia pushed. Normally sharing private photos from a stolen laptop would result in criminal charges, but Republicans/Russians worked hard to normalize that in a last ditch effort to swing the election.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because there's absolutely no foreign influence coming in on the right.
How about we get all dark money out of politics and remove all the corruption at once? Sounds good, right? Then let's overturn Citizens United.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My opinion is that this is stupid. People who comprise corporations already have a voice as individuals. They can always take money out of their own pockets to support the causes they want to support. If they want, just have the corporation pay them additional salary/fees that they can then donate. Allowing corporations to donate money gives those who control corporations influence above and beyond their influence as individuals. In effect, they get to leverage the resources of all of the shareholders
Re: (Score:2)
Also, keep in mind that the eponymous Citizens United is not a business. It's a 501c4 nonprofit corporation, like the Sierra Club, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the NRA, and AARP. (https://nonprofitlawblog.com/501c4-social-welfare-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And we should care because? (Score:2)
Re:And we should care because? (Score:5, Funny)
Rule 1 of politics: Accuse the other side of what you yourself are in fact doing.
That's so quaint (Score:5, Funny)
Planes, crypto, buckets of cash - well, when King Shitlizard does it, it isn't illegal, and will stomp on you if you disagree in public.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Let's start with Russia. [cbsnews.com]
Re:And we should care because? (Score:4, Informative)
Big Dark Money on both sides of the aisle.
One Nation — boosts Republican/Conservative Senate allies.
Majority Forward — boosts Democratic/Liberal Senate allies.
Americans for Prosperity — Koch network; backs conservative/Republican causes.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — pro-business; often Republicans, sometimes centrist Democrats.
All of these have strong digital outreach spending. It's hard to pin this to actual "influencers", but it definitely funds advertising, and influencers are definitely paid, if not directly. Though, if I had to wager, i would put my chips on the fact that they are also being paid directly by both sides. But i'm willing to admit I cannot cite direct evidence of that.
Re:And we should care because? (Score:5, Insightful)
I see. Can you name any of the dark money orgs funding right wing influencers? If we're going to be pointing fingers, let's get them all out in the open so everyone can be more aware.
How about AIPAC? PAC payments don't have to be under the table in order to be 'dark'.
Israel is paying many American politicians and influencers lots of money to soft-peddle Israel's actions and to deny that what's happening in Gaza is a genocide. Israel lets these people know in no uncertain terms that they have to say certain things and vote in certain ways if they want the gravy train to keep rolling.
Re:And we should care because? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are infinite reasons why some Americans would support Israel no matter what they did. The largest are ethnic and religious.
The US has a huge religious component that believes the coming of Christ requires certain Old Testament messianic prophecies coming true. These generally require the Jews to triumph in The Holy Land.
The US also has a huge ethnic component- Jews who came here fleeing genocide and persecution, who have Zionist beliefs.
I wouldn't send a dime to Israel, personally, or if I were King of the US- they're an Apartheid state that needs to feel the isolation their decisions should be bringing them if not for the US.
You are walking dangerously close to "A Jewish Cabal Runs The US".
It was antisemitic trash when certain members of the Squid intimated it, and it's antisemitic trash now.
Re: (Score:2)
It has an entire world of difference, you degenerate wannabe.
Americans have the right to support Israel. Israel does not have the right to influence our elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't it?
From whence does such a right derive?
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't it?
Why does it?
No country has the right to interfere in the sovereignty of another.
There are accepted exceptions to this (democratically on the world stage- UNSC for example, its major flaws notwithstanding)
Are you actually arguing that countries have the right to interfere in each other's regime selection processes?
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't it?
Why does it?
No country has the right to interfere in the sovereignty of another.
Says who?
Are you actually arguing that countries have the right to interfere in each other's regime selection processes?
Of course they do.
It's also been going on ever since more than one country existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Says who?
That's literally how sovereignty is defined.
Of course they do.
You're an idiot.
It's also been going on ever since more than one country existed.
Indeed it has.
People have trampled upon the rights of others for as long as rights were recognized. Sovereignty has been trampled upon since the dawn of sovereignty.
People disrespecting the rights of others doesn't somehow indicate that those rights don't exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
AIPAC is acting on behalf of Americans who wish for their country to support Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
AIPAC is not acting on behalf of Israel.
This simply does not pas the laugh test.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, AIPAC spent $40 million to oppose the nuclear deal with Iran in 2015. That's explicitly pushing Israeli policy goals. Or maybe I should say Netanyahu's policy goals, he thanked AIPAC explicitly for their help when
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've gone overboard here. Yes, the distinction between working for and working on behalf does matter a bit in the technical sense (though this is the same excuse that's used to justify super PACs...), but it's not such a big difference and the line is blurred here anyway.
It matters entirely. If you think otherwise, you are wrong.
This is how the Committee of Unamerican Activities came to be.
For example, AIPAC spent $40 million to oppose the nuclear deal with Iran in 2015. That's explicitly pushing Israeli policy goals. Or maybe I should say Netanyahu's policy goals, he thanked AIPAC explicitly for their help when he gave a speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference. It's hard to argue that these are just independent Americans acting independently. Even super PACs are seldom that blatant about their coordination.
Americans have the right to agree with Israeli policy.
Do you think those elected are the only ones allowed to have opinions on foreign affairs?
Also, you said something above that was a little thought provoking. "Americans have the right to support Israel." ... Do they? I don't see why Americans would have the right to support a foreign country. I guess this depends heavily on how you're using the word "support," but ultimately Americans are expected to have allegiance to one country only. As you point out, someone who has allegiance to another country can't be trusted to vote.
Of course they do, insomuch as at least to have a political opinion about them. Lobbying is an extension of your first amendment.
Material support is another matter. This is not material support.
Claims that AIPAC is a front for Israel are as o
Re: (Score:2)
I oppose the fuck out of it.
I said that calling it a "front for Israel" is likely the uttering of an antisemitic piece of shit.
That's pretty standard Cabal of Jews bullshit.
What you call "obviously", the parent is literally arguing against.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing illegal about that.
Pro-Cuba PACs come to mind.
This is the United States, our citizens are allowed to have opinions. You cannot provide material aid to a state sponsor of terror, but that doesn't somehow turn into, "you're not allowed to have a political opinion about them".
Seriously- you are human fucking trash.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is entirely consistent to love and respect a mix of all 3 elements. But equally we shouldn't turn a blind eye to a barbaric war on Gaza, every soldier is responsible for the lives they take - look it up it's one of the 10 commandments about killing.
Nobody said that.
Rather, the barbaric war in Gaza should not be used to try to impugn the political rights of Americans to disagree on whether its barbaric.
You and I agree that it's barbaric.
Those that support AIPAC do not. And that's their fucking right.
Re:And we should care because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Completely ignoring the very public outing of several Tighty-Righty "influencers" taking direct money from Russia [npr.org] to spread their talking points, we can also probably include the $1.6B or so that Leonard Leo got for his SuperPAC through Federalist Society contancts, where that same Society's tax status forbids political activism. [politico.com]
But yeah, let's try to "bothsides" it like absolute morons rather than fix the problem, which is mountains of money being dumped into elections from many questionable sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Koch Brothers
Americans for liberty
Heratige foundation
ALEC (that ones a more direct polticians, rather than influencer one, but its super pernicious)
Thomas W Smith foundation
Tenet Media (russian inflence op)
Atlas Network
Fraser Institute
The list goes on..
That sounds pretty normal (Score:4, Insightful)
Specially given it's a country that has literally just two parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That sounds pretty normal (Score:4, Funny)
So... never?
Re: (Score:2)
I vote for the apparently non-existent libertarian party candidate whenever he or she is not a nut job.
If you're just going to vote for the candidate who is going to step aside and let the oligarchs do whatever they want, you may as well vote Republican. Libertarian voters mostly tend to be in the same circus tent with Republicans, they just can't stomach the freak show.
Re: (Score:2)
We have multiple parties, just two that dominate. They have successfully convinced people that they need to get on their team to beat the other guys. We end up mostly voting against things and people rather than voting for things. Ranked Choice voting would be an improvement.
Undemocratic (Score:2)
If they are being funded by "Dark Money" then they are not democratic.
Article is using the wrong term to describe them.
Re: (Score:2)
You know better.
Another conservative tactic to steal (Score:4, Interesting)
My idea is to create a grassroots version of ALEC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
ALEC is a billionaire-funded organization that creates 'model legislation', hands it to representatives at all levels of government, and says: "introduce this or we will fund your primary opponent". Famous examples which passed include the Stand Your Ground law in Florida, Right to Work in Wisconsin, and the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.
My idea:
1. Web app where users enter a bill idea for the local/county/state level (federal is hopeless)
2. Runs it through an LLM trained on a corpus of laws for that jurisdiction
3. Generate a model bill with references to existing laws, similar to what a legislative aide would do
4. Once complete, pick a representative you'd like to introduce it
5. A GoFundMe-type interface which fundraises to get the bill introduced
6. If the rep introduces the bill, the donated money goes to their next campaign. If not, it goes to their primary opponent (if there is one, obvs)
Anyone is free to run with this independently if they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Just keep in mind that they are generally going to donate because they agree and want to help, rather than doing it to take over and red
Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
This is how America works. Spending money in the name of political promotion is protected speech in America.
On one note (Score:2)
Normally a person have doubts sometimes, change mind from time to time, but not anymore: everything sounds on the same note to please a supervisor.
Re: (Score:2)
everything sounds on the same note to please a supervisor.
Zampolit.
Oh well. (Score:2)
Gotta replace that USAID funding somehow.
Is this ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod article flamebait (Score:2)
Calling it a "dark money organization" is pejorative and meaningless. There is no definition of what makes an organization a "dark money" organization, other than that it does something you (the author) disagree with.
And if the funding is so secret, how is it a slashdot headline? Clearly, it's not a secret.
The political affiliation isn't relevant here, the same principles would apply whether the organization was left-aligned or right-aligned.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that "dark money" networks don't necessarily identify who is putting up the money. If any part of the org deliberately obscures who put up the money or who gets the money, then there is a potential problem. Reread the summary at the very least, maybe it'll make more sense in that light.
Apparently Sixteen Thirty is less interested in shielding the identities of its donors and more interested in hiding who actually gets the money. Did you suspect that George Soros is involved with this group? I
Re: (Score:2)
What, did you think Citizens United would only allow conservative organizations to conceal their funding sources?
Notable donors .. (Score:2)
"liberal dark money" (Score:2)
Welcome back to drudgedot! (Score:2)
Yes, I know I'm going to get downmodded into oblivion on this. Go ahead, bring it.
It's not dark money when they're patriots (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the author of the article is one of those folks who believes the Democratic Party needs to position itself further to the left. Never underestimate the ability of liberals to make perfect the enemy of good. People on the far left complaining about the Democratic Party can often sound indistinguishable from the criticisms of the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like she's on her way to Owensville, if you catch my drift.
Re:The best government that money can buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's to say we're OK with it?
Unfortunately based on both written law and interpretation by the court setting precedent, it is the way it is. At some point you're a fool to not use the tools available to you when they're demonstrated to be effective.
I would love for Citizens United to go away, and I'd love for lobbying to be determined to be bribery where campaign contributions are involved, but that's not the way it is right now, and the political right has been using this tactic since the Dubya's administration. At this point the Democrats may as well use it too.
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, if you want it to ever change, one party cannot unilaterally "disarm" and put themselves at a disadvantage by ceding the electoral ground in order to hold a morally superior position.
The way the electorate votes in the current climate is that moral superiority doesn't win. And nothing changes if the current power holders stay in power, as the current situation was completely structured by one particular political party, and more specifically by 5 unelected guys wearing black robes striking
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the definition of Fascism:
A far-right, authoritarian, and ultra-nationalist political ideology. Fascism is characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Which parts do not describe the current occupant of the White House?
Source: ahref=https://en.wikipedia.org/wik [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing away with fascism is good.
Reverting back to oligarchy is only setting the stage for fascism's return.
We can't just relieve the symptoms. We have to remove the underlying disease, which in this case is the rampant corruption that has been infecting the United States for generations.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Big Beautiful Bill" passed. Might be time to get over that whole tire particles thing if you're even slightly considering upgrading to an EV, because both the new and used EV credits are going away as part of that.
What is going on right now that the Trump administration might want a distraction from is the drama at the CDC. Something about making America healthy again by letting most people go unvaccinated against Covid. *rolls eyes*
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I see a flood of press attacking the Democrat party
Oh how the left screamed when the likes of Rush Limbaugh called it that.