Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Joe BidenCongratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
 

Uncle Joe

(58,111 posts)
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 05:11 PM Oct 2019

We now know the richest 400 Americans have rigged the system






(snip)

The overall tax rate on the richest 400 households last year was only 23 percent, meaning that their combined tax payments equaled less than one quarter of their total income. This overall rate was 70 percent in 1950 and 47 percent in 1980.

For middle-class and poor families, the picture is different. Federal income taxes have also declined modestly for these families, but they haven’t benefited much if at all from the decline in the corporate tax or estate tax. And they now pay more in payroll taxes (which finance Medicare and Social Security) than in the past. Over all, their taxes have remained fairly flat.

The combined result is that over the last 75 years the United States tax system has become radically less progressive.

(snip)

The data here come from the most important book on government policy that I’ve read in a long time — called “The Triumph of Injustice,” to be released next week. The authors are Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, both professors at the University of California, Berkeley, who have done pathbreaking work on taxes. Saez has won the award that goes to the top academic economist under age 40, and Zucman was recently profiled on the cover of Bloomberg BusinessWeek magazine as “the wealth detective.”

(snip)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
36 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
We now know the richest 400 Americans have rigged the system (Original Post) Uncle Joe Oct 2019 OP
The missed opportunity with Clinton was huge. TidalWave46 Oct 2019 #1
Exactly. I wonder if he even sees his own culpability in creating this paradigm? -nt Amimnoch Oct 2019 #8
What is Sanders' definition of "rigged"? George II Oct 2019 #2
You clearly haven't seen the National Review piece on Trevor Noah. NT TidalWave46 Oct 2019 #3
Here is a little more history. Uncle Joe Oct 2019 #6
That doesn't address his definition of "rigged". George II Oct 2019 #7
Tweet Bernie and ask him. Uncle Joe Oct 2019 #9
Nah. I've learned that many things he's not happy about he considers "rigged". It seems to be.... George II Oct 2019 #11
It sounds like you're Uncle Joe Oct 2019 #16
Nope: George II Oct 2019 #17
Okay, isn't that what you're doing? Uncle Joe Oct 2019 #18
Nope. You know, I can think of only one other politician who routinely uses the word "rigged". George II Oct 2019 #22
I wonder why that is? Uncle Joe Oct 2019 #23
And yet no one who claims it's "rigged" can actually articulate what they mean.... George II Oct 2019 #24
That takes us back to you tweeting Bernie and actually asking him Uncle Joe Oct 2019 #25
Do you believe the system is rigged? If so, why can't you explain how/why? George II Oct 2019 #26
Yes, I do. You never asked. Uncle Joe Oct 2019 #28
I think "rigged" is a fair descriptor in this case Mosby Oct 2019 #29
I certainly understand your desire to avoid "being bothered to Google" yourself LanternWaste Oct 2019 #27
"Rigged" is a trigger word to inflame the faithful BlueMississippi Oct 2019 #19
this seems to fit the definition of rigged, regardless of anyone's feelings about Sanders Celerity Oct 2019 #30
We know all their names. Which part of "we" will make them have a sit down. IF they can be found. ancianita Oct 2019 #4
No, when Republicans have majorities in the legislature they vote to lower taxes and regulations betsuni Oct 2019 #5
It's not conspiracy of any kind to see that quid pro quo, done enough, cripples democracy. ancianita Oct 2019 #10
What quid pro quo? betsuni Oct 2019 #14
You raised the "diabolical conspiracy" idea. You tell me what that means and you'll have your ancianita Oct 2019 #15
"I'll say that much for now." betsuni Oct 2019 #32
It isn't really "now know" since anyone that has followed personal and corporate tax rates TexasTowelie Oct 2019 #12
True, this is not news. And, anyone who follows these things knows that "The 400"... TreasonousBastard Oct 2019 #13
The first significant tax cuts were by JFK BlueMississippi Oct 2019 #21
Yep. (nt) ehrnst Oct 2019 #31
The mantra from BS and his supporters in 2016 GE was BlueMississippi Oct 2019 #20
Bazinga! George II Oct 2019 #34
And... BOOM!! NurseJackie Oct 2019 #35
Great post Gothmog Oct 2019 #36
Bernie... myohmy2 Oct 2019 #33
 

TidalWave46

(2,061 posts)
1. The missed opportunity with Clinton was huge.
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 05:23 PM
Oct 2019

Instead of raising taxes on the wealthiest we got the Tax Scam. Outside of the fact that he is a traitor, the Tax Scam is probably at the top of the list on horrific things Trump has accomplished.

Trump was thrown an assist by a number of Sanders current top advisors. Never forget.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Amimnoch

(4,558 posts)
8. Exactly. I wonder if he even sees his own culpability in creating this paradigm? -nt
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 05:45 PM
Oct 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

George II

(67,782 posts)
2. What is Sanders' definition of "rigged"?
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 05:24 PM
Oct 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

TidalWave46

(2,061 posts)
3. You clearly haven't seen the National Review piece on Trevor Noah. NT
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 05:27 PM
Oct 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Uncle Joe

(58,111 posts)
6. Here is a little more history.
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 05:35 PM
Oct 2019


(snip)

By the middle of the 20th century, the high-tax advocates had prevailed. The United States had arguably the world’s most progressive tax code, with a top income-tax rate of 91 percent and a corporate tax rate above 50 percent.

But the second half of the 20th century was mostly a victory for the low-tax side. Companies found ways to take more deductions and dodge taxes. Politicians cut every tax that fell heavily on the wealthy: high-end income taxes, investment taxes, the estate tax and the corporate tax. The justification for doing so was usually that the economy as a whole would benefit.

The justification turned out to be wrong. The wealthy, and only the wealthy, have done fantastically well over the last several decades. G.D.P. growth has been disappointing, and middle-class income growth even worse.

The American economy just doesn’t function very well when tax rates on the rich are low and inequality is sky high. It was true in the lead-up to the Great Depression, and it’s been true recently. Which means that raising high-end taxes isn’t about punishing the rich (who, by the way, will still be rich). It’s about creating an economy that works better for the vast majority of Americans.

(snip)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

George II

(67,782 posts)
7. That doesn't address his definition of "rigged".
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 05:40 PM
Oct 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Uncle Joe

(58,111 posts)
9. Tweet Bernie and ask him.
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 05:46 PM
Oct 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

George II

(67,782 posts)
11. Nah. I've learned that many things he's not happy about he considers "rigged". It seems to be....
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 06:42 PM
Oct 2019

...the "go to" rationalization.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Uncle Joe

(58,111 posts)
16. It sounds like you're
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 09:37 AM
Oct 2019

rationalizing to me.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

George II

(67,782 posts)
17. Nope:
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 10:02 AM
Oct 2019

For your information:


ra·tion·al·ize
/ˈraSHənlˌīz,ˈraSHnəˌlīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: rationalizing

1. attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Uncle Joe

(58,111 posts)
18. Okay, isn't that what you're doing?
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 10:22 AM
Oct 2019

Refusing to tweet Bernie for his firsthand explanation as to what "rigged" actually means to him instead of relying on your own pre-conceived assumptions in regards to his beliefs.

Your original question was about Bernie not you.



"What is Sanders' definition of "rigged"?"



If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

George II

(67,782 posts)
22. Nope. You know, I can think of only one other politician who routinely uses the word "rigged".
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 10:34 AM
Oct 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Uncle Joe

(58,111 posts)
23. I wonder why that is?
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 10:47 AM
Oct 2019


70% of Americans believe the political system is rigged

An overwhelming majority of Americans feel angry and marginalized by a political system that "seems to only be working for the insiders,” according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday.

Why it matters: The percentage of angry Americans remains virtually unchanged from when the same question was polled in October 2015, a year before the political system was seemingly upended by the anti-establishment, "Drain the Swamp" message of then-candidate Donald Trump. Four years later, 2020 candidates Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are using a similar populist message to win back the confidence of Americans by promising to fight for the forgotten worker.

(snip)

Between the lines: Even though U.S. unemployment is holding steady at 3.7% after a 10-year recovery, Americans are still facing sluggish wages. The Trump administration denies warnings of a coming recession, but Americans are still anxious about what the future holds for the economy.


https://www.axios.com/poll-political-system-rigged-trump-c3f84eaa-7e94-441d-ba78-fb477d2b47e3.html



If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

George II

(67,782 posts)
24. And yet no one who claims it's "rigged" can actually articulate what they mean....
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 10:53 AM
Oct 2019

"I wonder why that is?"

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Uncle Joe

(58,111 posts)
25. That takes us back to you tweeting Bernie and actually asking him
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 11:12 AM
Oct 2019

what his definition of "rigged" is.

Of course I suppose you could google Bernie and "rigged" to get more information as to what his definition might be.

Aside from that the article/poll that I just posted to which you responded to may shed some light on the subject, if you read it.

Having said that, if you can't be bothered to either google, tweet Bernie directly, or actually read the aforementioned poll for more information as to why 70% of Americans believe the system is rigged then whose fault is that for your lack of knowledge on the subject?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

George II

(67,782 posts)
26. Do you believe the system is rigged? If so, why can't you explain how/why?
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 11:26 AM
Oct 2019

As for BS, have you ever sent him a tweet? Have you ever gotten an answer?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Uncle Joe

(58,111 posts)
28. Yes, I do. You never asked.
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:23 PM
Oct 2019

It's rigged to work predominately for the wealthiest among us at the expense of the vast majority of the American People.

Our system is rigged on multiple levels, media conglomeration or monopolization is a major pillar.



Concentration of media ownership

Media oligopoly

An oligopoly is when a few firms dominate a market.[8] When the larger scale media companies buy out the more smaller-scaled or local companies they become more powerful within the market. As they continue to eliminate their business competition through buyouts or forcing them out (because they lack the resources or finances) the companies left dominate the media industry and create a media oligopoly.[7]

Risks for media integrity

Media integrity is at risk when small number of companies and individuals control the media market. Media integrity refers to the ability of a media outlet to serve the public interest and democratic process, making it resilient to institutional corruption within the media system, economy of influence, conflicting dependence and political clientelism.[9] Media integrity is especially endangered in the case when there are clientelist relations between the owners of the media and political centres of power. Such a situation enables excessive instrumentalisation of the media for particular political interests, which is subversive for the democratic role of the media.

(snip)

Concentration of media ownership is very frequently seen as a problem of contemporary media and society.[4][5][6] When media ownership is concentrated in one or more of the ways mentioned above, a number of undesirable consequences follow, including the following:

Commercially driven, ultra-powerful mass market media is primarily loyal to sponsors, i.e. advertisers and government rather than to the public interest.
Only a few companies representing the interests of a minority elite control the public airwaves.
Healthy, market-based competition is absent, leading to slower innovation and increased prices.

(snip)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership



Citizens United comes into play here as well.



(snip)

In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had restricted corporate spending on electioneering communications. The ruling effectively freed labor unions and corporations to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates. In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens argued that Court's ruling represented "a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government."

The decision remains highly controversial, generating much public discussion and receiving strong support and opposition from various groups. Senator Mitch McConnell commended the decision, arguing that it represented "an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights". By contrast, President Barack Obama stated that the decision "gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington". The ruling had a major impact on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions and fueling the rise of Super PACs. Later rulings by the Roberts Court, including McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), would strike down other campaign finance restrictions.

(snip)

Third, Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize the dangers of the corporate form. Austin held that the prevention of corruption, including the distorting influence of a dominant funding source, was a sufficient reason for regulating corporate independent expenditures. In defending Austin, Stevens argued that the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process.

Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not "We the People" for whom our Constitution was established.[23] Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, he argued, protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas. Corporate spending is the "furthest from the core of political expression" protected by the Constitution, he argued, citing Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont,[35] and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending "more transactional than ideological". Stevens also pointed out that any member of a corporation may spend personal money on promoting a campaign because BCRA only prohibited the use of general treasury money.

(snip)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC



Which begs the question why do you believe President Obama was so concerned about giving the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington? Could it be because unlimited sums of money...gulp...have a corrupting influence on government?

Now I could go on about how our health care system is primarily set up to make profits for the "health" insurance industry, big pharma and their major shareholders vs actually caring for the American People's health needs while hundreds of thousands of Americans have medical bankruptcies every year, the only advanced nation in the world to have such a thing happen to its citizens, that's certainly not "promoting the general welfare." That higher education has become prohibitively more expensive over the past half century while wages have remained stagnant. How the ever growing catastrophe of global warming climate change will decimate human society over the next century with the poor and middle class being the most vulnerable (although not exclusive) victims while government simply hasn't done enough to curtail it at least since the 1980s at the behest of the wealthy and powerful fossil fuel industry along with a host of other issues and unmet critical needs for our nation but it all goes back to the hold big money has on our government and the media.

Big money; commercial buyers and corporate conglomerate parents are dominate in influencing the corporate media, the corporate media conglomerates are dominant in determining which issues, frames and candidates they will cover, build up, trash or ignore, the successful candidates of both parties which arise from this system are dominant in determining which laws are passed and who sits on the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is dominant in determining how those laws will be interpreted or struck down and it's exceptionally rare when Big money loses.

It's all one big closed bubble or circle; ruled by big money that if not drastically altered will become increasingly dysfunctional to the needs of the American Nation.

That's how I believe the system is rigged.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

Mosby

(16,161 posts)
29. I think "rigged" is a fair descriptor in this case
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:33 PM
Oct 2019

The tax system is rigged against most americans because we pay almost all our tax on "earned income", which maxes out at 37%. Rich people mostly pay capital gains tax, which maxes out at a whopping 20%. Then with deductions that rate goes down. Remember Romney's tax returns? He paid 13% on 15 million or something income. If that was paid as salary he would have paid 37% minus deductions.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
27. I certainly understand your desire to avoid "being bothered to Google" yourself
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 11:53 AM
Oct 2019

That being the fundamental premise of Sanders' statement, while you simultaneously hold others responsible to interpret his muddled and vague bumper-sticker statement... as those specifics would potentially be far too inconvenient for your narrative.



"This doesn't look good for _______. I'm concerned..."

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

BlueMississippi

(776 posts)
19. "Rigged" is a trigger word to inflame the faithful
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 10:28 AM
Oct 2019

Everything that is not to BS's liking is "rigged" and thus illegitimate.

Comparing tax rates is a fallacy and BS should know this.

Taxes are complex and just comparing tax rates paid by various groups with the numerator as gross income is highly misleading. Gross income is NOT taxable income. The only way to compare tax rates is against taxable income and there, the disparity is far less pronounced.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Celerity

(42,646 posts)
30. this seems to fit the definition of rigged, regardless of anyone's feelings about Sanders
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 01:38 PM
Oct 2019




Almost a decade ago, Warren Buffett made a claim that would become famous. He said that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, thanks to the many loopholes and deductions that benefit the wealthy.

His claim sparked a debate about the fairness of the tax system. In the end, the expert consensus was that, whatever Buffett’s specific situation, most wealthy Americans did not actually pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. “Is it the norm?” the fact-checking outfit Politifact asked. “No.”

Time for an update: It’s the norm now.

For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group, according to newly released data.
The overall tax rate on the richest 400 households last year was only 23 percent, meaning that their combined tax payments equaled less than one quarter of their total income. This overall rate was 70 percent in 1950 and 47 percent in 1980.

For middle-class and poor families, the picture is different. Federal income taxes have also declined modestly for these families, but they haven’t benefited much if at all from the decline in the corporate tax or estate tax. And they now pay more in payroll taxes (which finance Medicare and Social Security) than in the past. Over all, their taxes have remained fairly flat.

The combined result is that over the last 75 years the United States tax system has become radically less progressive.

Source:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
4. We know all their names. Which part of "we" will make them have a sit down. IF they can be found.
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 05:28 PM
Oct 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

betsuni

(25,122 posts)
5. No, when Republicans have majorities in the legislature they vote to lower taxes and regulations
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 05:33 PM
Oct 2019

on the wealthy and corporations. Not everything is a diabolical conspiracy.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
10. It's not conspiracy of any kind to see that quid pro quo, done enough, cripples democracy.
Mon Oct 7, 2019, 05:47 PM
Oct 2019

Anyone with just common sense filters, not conspiracy filters, can see the effects of the 400 on the American economy.

The 400 have agents, PR firms, media sycophants and stories to justify their wealth. One of them is to mock anyone who thinks they conspire while they run their Aspen summits, Chamber of Commerce, Business and Bankers Associations, Conferences, Foundations and PACs 24/7.



If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

betsuni

(25,122 posts)
14. What quid pro quo?
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 06:59 AM
Oct 2019

"The 400"? What is that conspiracy theory?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
15. You raised the "diabolical conspiracy" idea. You tell me what that means and you'll have your
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 09:24 AM
Oct 2019

Last edited Thu Oct 10, 2019, 09:21 AM - Edit history (1)

answer.

There is legal and illegal quid pro quo. I'll say that much for now.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

betsuni

(25,122 posts)
32. "I'll say that much for now."
Thu Oct 10, 2019, 05:02 AM
Oct 2019

Conspiracy!

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

TexasTowelie

(111,292 posts)
12. It isn't really "now know" since anyone that has followed personal and corporate tax rates
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 02:57 AM
Oct 2019

have seen the top rates decline since the 1950s. I'll file the article under "not news." It does make we wonder where Bernie has been all of these years though since he thinks that he is breaking news on this topic. Personally, I've known these facts since my American government class in college back in 1983.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
13. True, this is not news. And, anyone who follows these things knows that "The 400"...
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 06:18 AM
Oct 2019

are able to spend vast sums on consultants, PR, accountants, tax lawyers, and lobbyists to keep their earnings high and taxes low.

The rest of us don't have that advantage.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

BlueMississippi

(776 posts)
21. The first significant tax cuts were by JFK
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 10:33 AM
Oct 2019

under a Democratic house and senate.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

BlueMississippi

(776 posts)
20. The mantra from BS and his supporters in 2016 GE was
Tue Oct 8, 2019, 10:32 AM
Oct 2019

"Hillary is as bad as Trump - there is no difference between them."

BS has no room to kvetch and moan about it. Thanks to people like David Sirota, Nina Turner, Brihana Joy-Grey and others (i.e. Sanders' Top Mnanagement), we now really have had some 300 ultra right wing judges in the federal court system, including two SCOTUS appointees, the stupid tax break for the wealthy and a mayhem on immigrants and their children.

So, I'd say the one who should get a majority of the blame for this "rigging" is Bernie Sanders, his crocodile tears notwithstanding.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

myohmy2

(3,118 posts)
33. Bernie...
Thu Oct 10, 2019, 07:56 AM
Oct 2019

" Or will we take back our democracy from the oligarchs who run this country? "

...good question...

...history is not very encouraging...


"...over the last 75 years the United States tax system has become radically less progressive. "

...here's how we pay for Medicare For All...

...

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Democratic Primaries»We now know the richest 4...