Bernie Sanders speech at Women's Convention prompts backlash

Auburn85 · October 12, 2017

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/bernie-sanders-womens-convention/index.html

Organizers behind the Women's Convention still feel the Bern -- and for that, they are feeling the backlash.

On Thursday, the Women's Convention organizers -- who also led the Women's March in January -- announced Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will be a featured speaker at the three-day event, which will take place in Detroit later this month.

The convention "aims to have participants leave inspired and motivated, with new connections, skills and strategies for working towards collective liberation for women of all races, ethnicities, ages, abilities, sexual identities, gender expressions, immigration statuses, religious faiths, and economic statuses," according to its press release.

The news of Sanders as one of the headliners was met by mixed reactions on Twitter.

"What ultimately disappoints me about the choice of Sanders to open the first Women's Convention in some 40 or so years is that we have some excellent leaders to choose from who are women," Valerie Street, who tweeted her disappointment, told CNN. "Ones who are blazing their own trails in American politics right now."

The 35-year-old, who is a community organizer from Austin, Texas, said she is not planning on attending the convention because of scheduling conflicts; though she did participate in the March in January.

"The Women's March nucleus has been such a woman-led movement," she said. But the Sanders news "seems like an odd departure from that at a critical time."

Others echoed this view, and questioned why a man is the opening-night speaker. The convention's official theme is "Reclaiming Our Time," inspired by the viral phrase Rep. Maxine Waters' repeated to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in August. Waters will also speak at the convention.

"Sorry. I'm not attending a women's convention where the opening night speaker isn't a woman," one Twitter user wrote, sharing a photo collage of Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar. "Perhaps consider these choices next time."

As of Thursday afternoon, more than 100 people had signed a Change.org petition to "remove Sanders from opening the Women's Convention."

The petition, created by Amanda Hambrick Ashcraft, said: "Bernie's voice, and the voices of ALL men, women, non-conforming, non-binary, cis, and transgender people who share a passion for the unity principles of the Women's March are needed and necessary voices for this movement. We want them at the convention. We want them listening. We want them leading. We want to learn from them, be challenged by them, changed and ignited by them. We even want them speaking at the Convention -- just not opening it. ... Having a man's face only continues the invisible presence, work and voices of women."

Some of the backlash geared toward the Sanders pick also stems from leftover frustration from the 2016 election. Although the Women's March rallied thousands across the US, some argued the organizers were not inclusive enough of Hillary Clinton, who was the first woman to win the nomination for president of a major political party.

On the Women's March website, 28 women are listed as "revolutionary leaders who paved the way for us to march," but Clinton is not among them. This omission sparked a social media movement, with many using the hashtag #AddHerName. More than 8,000 people signed a Change.org petition of the same name.

"I knew you weren't to be trusted when you threw HRC under the bus at the march, but this is beyond the pale," one user wrote on Twitter Thursday.

Despite the uproar, Tamika Mallory, Women's March co-president, said she feels Sanders is the perfect fit for the convention, describing him in a statement as a "fierce champion of women's rights" and someone who has bolstered "female voices throughout his career of public service."

"We invited many elected officials to our convention that align with the purpose and mission of our existence -- to harness the political power of diverse women and their communities to create transformative social change," she said in follow-up statement after the news was announced. "We are thrilled that Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Sanders will be speaking at the Women's Convention."

Mallory elaborated that while some female lawmakers won't be present, they still extended their support for the event.

"We all know how busy women leaders are, and we are grateful for the support of women like Secretary Clinton along with Sens. Harris, Warren and (Kirsten) Gillibrand," Mallory said. "Although their schedules did not allow them to join us in Detroit the weekend of October 27, they will be fighting for our shared values, as they do every day. Our program features more than 60 women leading in activism, organizing and advocacy, as well as grassroots leaders running for and serving in office across the country. We are excited to come together, to unite across our differences and to fight for the future we all believe in."

In a series of tweets on Thursday afternoon, Mallory addressed criticism from Women's March followers.

".@womensmarch is led by women, mainly WOC. We announce one man as a speaker among over 60, and y'all start saying he's our leader?!" she wrote. "When you lash out at WOC leaders, saying we have a man as our headliner/leader, you erase our work. You erase Rep Waters' work. LISTEN TO US. To the folks yelling at @womensmarch & directly at me: Why does your version of advocating for women's rights = bashing Black women leaders?"

3h

Tamika D. Mallory

✔@TamikaDMallory

Replying to @TamikaDMallory and 2 others

Over 60 speakers currently lined up. Only 2 are men...see who is speaking here: http://Womensconvention.com/speakers.html

Follow

Tamika D. Mallory

✔@TamikaDMallory

.@womensmarch is led by women, mainly WOC. We announce one man as a speaker among over 60, and y'all start saying he's our leader?!

2:08 PM - Oct 12, 2017

42 Replies

95 Retweets

273 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

She pointed out that the convention has over "60 speakers currently lined up. Only 2 are men." She emphasized that Waters, who is a black woman, was announced as a speaker in mid-September.

A representative for Sanders said he had no further comment aside from his additional statement in the press release, in which he expressed his enthuasism for the event.

In a statement provided in the initial press release, Sanders expressed enthusiasm about the event.

"I'm honored to join the women at the front lines of our struggle for economic, social, racial and environmental justice," Sanders said. "In January, millions of women came out in an extraordinary and unprecedented display of power and resistance. Now more than ever, we must support the leadership of women across the country and fight together to advance our progressive agenda."

Other speakers include actress and activist Piper Perabo, political commentator and community organizer Sally Kohn, The Young Turks reporter Nomiki Konst, co-executive director of the Indivisible Project Leah Greenberg, Michigan Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan state Rep. Stephanie Chang, Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and others.

HVAU · October 13, 2017

The co-founder's statement proclaiming a 60:2 ratio of female to male speakers should be enough to calm any reasonable, interested party.

aujeff11 · October 13, 2017

13 minutes ago, HVAU said:

The co-founder's statement proclaiming a 60:2 ratio of female to male speakers should be enough to calm any reasonable, interested party.

Not to mention that Sanders was/is a strong advocate for women’s rights in his own right.

HVAU · October 13, 2017

Right on. This is what I was saying in the thread about the fireman, I think. The left needs to learn political tact. We can't fly off the handle at every perceived slight.

Mims44 · October 14, 2017

Maybe the ones complaining are afraid they will not be able to concentrate due to Bernie's undeniable sex appeal?

japantiger · October 14, 2017

On 10/12/2017 at 8:24 PM, HVAU said:

Right on. This is what I was saying in the thread about the fireman, I think. The left needs to learn political tact. We can't fly off the handle at every perceived slight.

So, what your saying is don't be who you are? It can't happen....you guys have nothing but outrage at everything....it's the entire basis for your party and every liberal movement. Without constant outrage at some made up slight, you would have to actually have policies that promote growth, fix the healthcare mess you created and defend the nation by standing up to real threats to the safety of American citizens. Your statement is sort of like the new New York Times new social media policy....stop tweeting so you don't appear biased.....not that, "wholly crap, my whole newsroom is biased" so I have a bigger problem in that my reporters can't actually report stories objectively....just clean up your twitter accounts guys and it will be ok; no one will notice that the slant of everything you report is a never ending ad for the latest liberal outrage and democrat talking points....The left needs actual policies that look out for the welfare of the American people and do so within the constraints of the constitution.

HVAU · October 15, 2017

11 hours ago, japantiger said:

So, what your saying is don't be who you are? It can't happen....you guys have nothing but outrage at everything....it's the entire basis for your party and every liberal movement. Without constant outrage at some made up slight, you would have to actually have policies that promote growth, fix the healthcare mess you created and defend the nation by standing up to real threats to the safety of American citizens. Your statement is sort of like the new New York Times new social media policy....stop tweeting so you don't appear biased.....not that, "wholly crap, my whole newsroom is biased" so I have a bigger problem in that my reporters can't actually report stories objectively....just clean up your twitter accounts guys and it will be ok; no one will notice that the slant of everything you report is a never ending ad for the latest liberal outrage and democrat talking points....The left needs actual policies that look out for the welfare of the American people and do so within the constraints of the constitution.

I find it funny that someone aligned with the right, the affiliate of the GOP, that promotes and consumes Fox news, supports Donald Trump, etc. criticises anybody from the left for their outrage.

As far as policy goes, considering the state of the economy in 2007, I'd say some of the ideas from the left have been proven effective. Hopefully the trend continues, but looking at the cycle that economics has fallen into historically, and considering the current leader's adherence to the tripe that is trickle down economics, I'm skeptical.

As far as the ACA, you'll get no apologies from me. Maybe if the Republicans would have negotiated in good faith, or implemented the state exchanges properly, instead of purposefully sabotaging the mechanics of a policy that was found by the center right SCOTUS tobe within the constraints of the Constitution, we would have better functioning health care.

Trump has decided to take it a step further, since he can't repeal/replace it by working with others and it wasn't failing naturally, and executive order the ACA into the death spiral. His main motivation being that it was policy of the previous administration, and that outrages him.

I seem to remember a lot of outrage of executive orders a few years ago. Also, over golf trips. I wonder where that outrage went.

The policies from the left may not always be perfect, and there is frequent, misguided outrage, but if you want constant outrage, blind and furious policy decisions with little concern for anything except the donor class, look no further than your boy Donald Trump and the coward lap dogs like Nunes, Ryan, Onionhead Gowdy, et al.

War Eagle

Auburn85 · October 18, 2017

https://www.themarysue.com/bernie-sanders-dem-party/

How Bernie Sanders Helped Turn the Democratic Party Against Women

Kylie Cheung

On Saturday, the organizers of the Women’s March issued a statement apologizing for the “hurt and confusion” caused by their announcement that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would headline the upcoming Women’s Convention, taking place October 27–29 in Detroit, MI.

‘‘We are sorry we caused hurt and confusion for so many of you this week,’’ the Women’s March said in a series of tweets. They added, ‘‘We acknowledge the announcement about Senator Sanders gave the impression he is occupying a central role at the convention. (He is not.)’’

You see, Sanders is very much male in a society where far too many brilliant women are overlooked for platforms and opportunities to represent themselves—to tell their own stories as women instead of having their stories told by men—which was just one reason why the decision by the Women’s March organizers didn’t sit too well with feminists. Other critics also argued that Sanders’ harsh character attacks on Hillary Clinton, which painted the painfully stereotypical image of a dishonest, deceitful woman during the primaries, laid the groundwork for Clinton’s defeat in the general election.

But the harm that Sanders has done to the Democratic party is farther reaching than some petty internal conflict in the 2016 primaries. In particular, his time in the limelight has drastically impacted the Democratic party’s outlook on women, people of color, and all Americans of marginalized identities, and the importance of fighting for their rights. Don’t get me wrong when I say I’m grateful for Sanders’ contributions to the Democratic party’s 2016 platform, re: universal health care, marijuana legalization, a $15 minimum wage, and Palestine. But someone who’s spent the past year unapologetically leading a crusade against the concept of “identity politics” has no place at a convention to unite intersectional feminists in a contentious, dangerous political climate such as this.

While Sanders’ anti-identity politics crusade picked up in the wake of the Democratic party’s devastating general election defeat, from the start, his ultimate message was that nothing was a bigger, more urgent threat to Americans than the country’s broken economy and corrupt political establishment. According to this message, socialism was the cure-all: All the other, innumerable identity-based problems, ranging from racial and anti-LGBTQ discrimination to increasingly inaccessible abortion, would immediately cease to exist. In many ways, whether or not it was his intention, Sanders’ rhetoric convinced his supporters that “identity politics” are nothing but a distraction from “real issues.” And, as Sanders himself might say, “let me be very clear”: in those supporters’ eyes, women’s issues are not real issues.

That 12 percent of Sanders’ supporters went on to vote for Trump in the general election also shows the extend of the damage done by his message of all-consuming, unquestioning hatred for the “establishment”—without even clearly explaining just what the establishment really is. In their eyes, largely because of Sanders’ preaching, the debate was establishment vs. anti-establishment to the death—not of progress vs. bigotry, of feminism vs. patriarchy.

To Sanders’ feisty faction of “Bernie Bros,” the sociopolitical oppression shouldered by women, the LGBTQ community, and people of color to this day is purportedly a thing of the past, and those who continue to harp on continued discrimination are simply being whiny, annoying “social justice warriors.”

The reality, of course, is that over the past five years alone, marginalized Americans continue to face all sorts of challenges, old and new. In many states, gay and trans people can be fired or evicted solely for their orientation or gender identity. Racially charged police violence continues to claim black lives at staggering rates. And across the country, especially in rural areas, hundreds of restrictions on abortion enacted just within the past few years have decimated access to safe, legal abortion, shutting down clinics by the dozen and outright banning different, safe forms of the procedure.

Surely, regulations on Wall Street and a higher minimum wage would help all of the aforementioned groups, given the often intersectional nature of social and economic issues. But the point is that there’s great harm in talking about “identity politics” like they’re unimportant issues, when often, as with abortion rights and the institutionalized racism behind mass incarceration, they can be life and death matters.

And speaking of abortion rights, over the past year, Sanders ranked among prominent Democrats including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Gov. Jerry Brown, and DNC chair Tom Perez, who opened their arms to “pro-life” Democrats, stating the DNC should get behind them and offer them funding. The idea behind this was typical Sanders-speak: Economic issues unite, while petty, irrelevant “social” issues do nothing but divide.

“I think you just can’t exclude people who disagree with us on one issue,” Sanders said of his decision to support the Nebraska mayoral candidate in April. Pelosi, Perez, and Brown would come out with similar statements shortly after.

At a time in which the United States has the highest maternal mortality ratein the industrialized world, when the federal and the vast majority of state governments would like to see Planned Parenthood defunded, it’s shocking that anyone could be so dismissive of abortion rights, so willing to cheaply negotiate away women’s human rights. It’s unlikely that a Democratic candidate could win Republican voters just by flip-flopping on one, singular issue; the real way to win voters is to win over those who historically have records of sitting out elections, many of whom are progressives. Clearly, this isn’t about winning back seats as Sanders says it is, as much as it is about sending the message that the party has “matured” post-2016 election, and now sees what’s really important (read: not women’s rights issues.)

For a while, the idea that abortion is a human right and GOP lawmakers’ fetishization of fetuses has no place in forcing women to give birth seemed widely accepted among the left. It wasn’t until the whole “identity politics have divided America, etc.” argument became the glamorous, prototypical Democratic argument that it is, today, that abortion rights suddenly became something to shrug at and compromise on. And it wasn’t until Sanders that the Democratic party altered its direction exclusively to shy from identity-based issues.

It’s important to note that this tension in the party is fundamentally one of privilege. If Sanders and his legions of Bernie Bros would rather rant about Democratic socialism to women than listen to their voices, perhaps that’s because many of them have never experienced the same identity-based oppression, but nevertheless feel confident in their authority to claim that identity politics are meaningless.

In his latest book, We Were Eight Years in Power, Ta-Nehisi Coates tackles the phenomenon of politicians on both sides of the aisle disregarding on what they deem “identity politics,” and offered one starkly disappointing episode involving Sanders and a woman running to be the second Latina senator in U.S. history.

“It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’ No, that’s not good enough,” Sanders said. “One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics.”

His suggestion that female candidates are trying to gain advantage in proudly declaring their gender in a male-dominated political sphere—or that candidates of color are attempting to gain advantage in declaring their race in a predominantly white political sphere—with nothing else of substance to offer, is equal parts offensive and ridiculous. If we all really believed that being part of a marginalized identity made winning elections any easier, then we’d really need someone to explain the demographics of our Congress to us. It’s absurd that Sanders believes that this is new information he’s imparting on people who have been made well aware by life that being part of a marginalized group isn’t an advantage.

As for that last part about going “beyond identity politics,”—boy, do I have questions. Namely, what is beyond identity politics? I can’t think of anything other than the right’s beloved colorblind society, and if that’s what Sanders has convinced his fellow Democrats is the best path forward, then they’d better be prepared for intersectional feminists to fight back. And in the meantime, here’s to hoping Sanders is confronted about this at the Women’s Convention.

DKW 86 · October 19, 2017

Pure delusion, detached from any real sense of reality....

WOW...how do you repair someone or something that broke?

I was reading yesterday, Perez was adding "new faces" to the DNC. Turns out everyone he added was a Clinton supporter. Mark my words folks, HRC is getting ready to run again and she is going to destroy anyone in her way. They are replacing the DWS crowd with...just more of the same.

TitanTiger · October 19, 2017

13 hours ago, Auburn85 said:

https://www.themarysue.com/bernie-sanders-dem-party/

How Bernie Sanders Helped Turn the Democratic Party Against Women

Kylie Cheung

On Saturday, the organizers of the Women’s March issued a statement apologizing for the “hurt and confusion” caused by their announcement that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would headline the upcoming Women’s Convention, taking place October 27–29 in Detroit, MI.

‘‘We are sorry we caused hurt and confusion for so many of you this week,’’ the Women’s March said in a series of tweets. They added, ‘‘We acknowledge the announcement about Senator Sanders gave the impression he is occupying a central role at the convention. (He is not.)’’

You see, Sanders is very much male in a society where far too many brilliant women are overlooked for platforms and opportunities to represent themselves—to tell their own stories as women instead of having their stories told by men—which was just one reason why the decision by the Women’s March organizers didn’t sit too well with feminists. Other critics also argued that Sanders’ harsh character attacks on Hillary Clinton, which painted the painfully stereotypical image of a dishonest, deceitful woman during the primaries, laid the groundwork for Clinton’s defeat in the general election.

But the harm that Sanders has done to the Democratic party is farther reaching than some petty internal conflict in the 2016 primaries. In particular, his time in the limelight has drastically impacted the Democratic party’s outlook on women, people of color, and all Americans of marginalized identities, and the importance of fighting for their rights. Don’t get me wrong when I say I’m grateful for Sanders’ contributions to the Democratic party’s 2016 platform, re: universal health care, marijuana legalization, a $15 minimum wage, and Palestine. But someone who’s spent the past year unapologetically leading a crusade against the concept of “identity politics” has no place at a convention to unite intersectional feminists in a contentious, dangerous political climate such as this.

While Sanders’ anti-identity politics crusade picked up in the wake of the Democratic party’s devastating general election defeat, from the start, his ultimate message was that nothing was a bigger, more urgent threat to Americans than the country’s broken economy and corrupt political establishment. According to this message, socialism was the cure-all: All the other, innumerable identity-based problems, ranging from racial and anti-LGBTQ discrimination to increasingly inaccessible abortion, would immediately cease to exist. In many ways, whether or not it was his intention, Sanders’ rhetoric convinced his supporters that “identity politics” are nothing but a distraction from “real issues.” And, as Sanders himself might say, “let me be very clear”: in those supporters’ eyes, women’s issues are not real issues.

That 12 percent of Sanders’ supporters went on to vote for Trump in the general election also shows the extend of the damage done by his message of all-consuming, unquestioning hatred for the “establishment”—without even clearly explaining just what the establishment really is. In their eyes, largely because of Sanders’ preaching, the debate was establishment vs. anti-establishment to the death—not of progress vs. bigotry, of feminism vs. patriarchy.

To Sanders’ feisty faction of “Bernie Bros,” the sociopolitical oppression shouldered by women, the LGBTQ community, and people of color to this day is purportedly a thing of the past, and those who continue to harp on continued discrimination are simply being whiny, annoying “social justice warriors.”

The reality, of course, is that over the past five years alone, marginalized Americans continue to face all sorts of challenges, old and new. In many states, gay and trans people can be fired or evicted solely for their orientation or gender identity. Racially charged police violence continues to claim black lives at staggering rates. And across the country, especially in rural areas, hundreds of restrictions on abortion enacted just within the past few years have decimated access to safe, legal abortion, shutting down clinics by the dozen and outright banning different, safe forms of the procedure.

Surely, regulations on Wall Street and a higher minimum wage would help all of the aforementioned groups, given the often intersectional nature of social and economic issues. But the point is that there’s great harm in talking about “identity politics” like they’re unimportant issues, when often, as with abortion rights and the institutionalized racism behind mass incarceration, they can be life and death matters.

And speaking of abortion rights, over the past year, Sanders ranked among prominent Democrats including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Gov. Jerry Brown, and DNC chair Tom Perez, who opened their arms to “pro-life” Democrats, stating the DNC should get behind them and offer them funding. The idea behind this was typical Sanders-speak: Economic issues unite, while petty, irrelevant “social” issues do nothing but divide.

“I think you just can’t exclude people who disagree with us on one issue,” Sanders said of his decision to support the Nebraska mayoral candidate in April. Pelosi, Perez, and Brown would come out with similar statements shortly after.

At a time in which the United States has the highest maternal mortality ratein the industrialized world, when the federal and the vast majority of state governments would like to see Planned Parenthood defunded, it’s shocking that anyone could be so dismissive of abortion rights, so willing to cheaply negotiate away women’s human rights. It’s unlikely that a Democratic candidate could win Republican voters just by flip-flopping on one, singular issue; the real way to win voters is to win over those who historically have records of sitting out elections, many of whom are progressives. Clearly, this isn’t about winning back seats as Sanders says it is, as much as it is about sending the message that the party has “matured” post-2016 election, and now sees what’s really important (read: not women’s rights issues.)

For a while, the idea that abortion is a human right and GOP lawmakers’ fetishization of fetuses has no place in forcing women to give birth seemed widely accepted among the left. It wasn’t until the whole “identity politics have divided America, etc.” argument became the glamorous, prototypical Democratic argument that it is, today, that abortion rights suddenly became something to shrug at and compromise on. And it wasn’t until Sanders that the Democratic party altered its direction exclusively to shy from identity-based issues.

It’s important to note that this tension in the party is fundamentally one of privilege. If Sanders and his legions of Bernie Bros would rather rant about Democratic socialism to women than listen to their voices, perhaps that’s because many of them have never experienced the same identity-based oppression, but nevertheless feel confident in their authority to claim that identity politics are meaningless.

In his latest book, We Were Eight Years in Power, Ta-Nehisi Coates tackles the phenomenon of politicians on both sides of the aisle disregarding on what they deem “identity politics,” and offered one starkly disappointing episode involving Sanders and a woman running to be the second Latina senator in U.S. history.

“It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’ No, that’s not good enough,” Sanders said. “One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics.”

His suggestion that female candidates are trying to gain advantage in proudly declaring their gender in a male-dominated political sphere—or that candidates of color are attempting to gain advantage in declaring their race in a predominantly white political sphere—with nothing else of substance to offer, is equal parts offensive and ridiculous. If we all really believed that being part of a marginalized identity made winning elections any easier, then we’d really need someone to explain the demographics of our Congress to us. It’s absurd that Sanders believes that this is new information he’s imparting on people who have been made well aware by life that being part of a marginalized group isn’t an advantage.

As for that last part about going “beyond identity politics,”—boy, do I have questions. Namely, what is beyond identity politics? I can’t think of anything other than the right’s beloved colorblind society, and if that’s what Sanders has convinced his fellow Democrats is the best path forward, then they’d better be prepared for intersectional feminists to fight back. And in the meantime, here’s to hoping Sanders is confronted about this at the Women’s Convention.

Sanders is trying to save the Democrats from themselves. It's apparently falling on deaf ears for those addicted to identity politics. Talk about being unable to see the forest for the trees.

DKW 86 · October 19, 2017

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Sanders is trying to save the Democrats from themselves. It's apparently falling on deaf ears for those addicted to identity politics. Talk about being unable to see the forest for the trees.

Sad, but true. Sanders is showing some of the people I love that they need to just readjust their sights. They are refusing with all they have to do so.

Sign In

Bernie Sanders speech at Women's Convention prompts backlash

Recommended Posts

Auburn85 434

Link to comment

Share on other sites

HVAU 673

Link to comment

Share on other sites

aujeff11 6,243

Link to comment

Share on other sites

HVAU 673

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mims44 1,958

Link to comment

Share on other sites

japantiger 4,077

Link to comment

Share on other sites

HVAU 673

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Auburn85 434

How Bernie Sanders Helped Turn the Democratic Party Against Women

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DKW 86 7,726

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TitanTiger 20,708

How Bernie Sanders Helped Turn the Democratic Party Against Women

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DKW 86 7,726

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived

Members Online

Recently Browsing 0 members