Nepal-India Water Cooperation: History of Treaties
October 11, 2021
15 August, 2016
As a vocal film enthusiast and purist, I have a typically cynical perspective toward Hollywood remakes (The Oldboy disaster comes to mind). Of course, with the upcoming releases of Ben-Hur (the same Ben-Hur which won 11 Oscars in 1960 and couldn’t possibly be improved upon through a remake) and The Magnificent Seven (a remake of a Western classic which itself had been a western rendition of Akira Kurosawa’s 1954 masterpiece Seven Samurai), the Hollywood machine will keep churning and us cynics can only whine. But in light of the current circumstances, I am willing to make an uncharacteristic statement: I believe Sophie’s Choice should be remade. The career-defining Meryl Streep classic indeed warrants a remake, albeit in a very different context: Sophie is the U.S. public, her children are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and her horrible choice is not that she can’t save both her children; it is that one of them has to survive.
This election is set to be between two of the most hated candidates in U.S. history. Surveys show as much, with both Clinton and Trump setting milestones of being the first nominees from both parties with double-digit net un-favorability ratings. Add to that the fact that the only candidate with a positive net favorability rating (Sen. Bernie Sanders) did not get nominated thanks to “establishment politics”  and you get an idea about the current scenario. As a politically inactive 18-year-old in Nepal, an ethnically diverse non-aligned third-world country largely insulated from Muslim extremism, partisan media and the geopolitical nightmare that is the Middle East, I believe I can speak form a place of true, albeit inexperienced, objectivity about all three candidates and the systemic problems which have led to the current scenario.
The Obama Administration marked a period of spectacular, almost unprecedented discord, with the Republican congress locked in mortal combat  with the Oval Office. The stubborn opposition of congress led to a government shutdown as advocated by GOP leader Ted Cruz and the lowest approval rating for congress in history (a dismal 9%), with minimum productivity and maximum conflict. This tumultuous relationship has led to the development of adversarial sentiment on both sides. The Democrats maintained that there was a racial element involved in the Republicans’ irrationally vehement opposition at a time of economic stagnation, while the Republicans, frustrated with Obama’s liberal use of executive action in his later years, went so far as to dub him a ‘dictatorial president’ . Far-right members went so far as to consider impeaching Obama and relentlessly criticized any and all policies Obama passed, including Obamacare and the Iran Nuclear Deal .
The divide between Congress and Obama led to an environment of indecision and compromise. Congress became incredulously unproductive, with even basic legislation heralding approval from a major faction of the public, being contested and opposed with no end result. This was primarily a product of the anti-Obama Republican stance. But the major forces in the background were special interest groups and corporate entities. Undue influence from such entities led to the development of hard-line stances which in turn led to ineffective legislation.
Legislation is generally a complicated process anyway due to the ideological conflicts and multiple levels of bureaucracy. However, when corporate/special interest lobbyists become involved, the process becomes even more convoluted. This was the case, and it led to a government that was not only not passing much in the way of legislation, but when it did, it did so with corporate interests in mind, willingly compromising the demands and needs of the public.
Another problem in the legislative process was the presence of special interest groups. This is best demonstrated in the gun debate. While the Democrats pushed (and continue to push) in the direction of enforcing sensible gun reform, the Republicans go against this and repeatedly thwart any attempts to pass said reform, in the interest of protecting the Second Amendment. But of course, the National Rifle Association is unduly influencing the decision. This is particularly interesting as the NRA is not a large group. It is in fact a very vocal minority, which remains perpetually mobilized to push its agenda in Congress (while the democratic voters are neither of those things). Things are of course, more skewed in its favor as it faces no competition from any anti-gun lobbyists.
A third, more deep-rooted influence is religion. This is especially prominent on the right side of the spectrum. America, demographically, is primarily a Christian nation. However, the First Amendment ensures religious freedom and a separation between church and state, making it a secular state in practice. Regardless, the almost exclusively Christian Republican party believes it suitable to draft state-level laws based on religious affiliation, a direct affront to the constitution. This is predominantly relevant in cases relating to laws for minority groups, particularly in the case of homosexuals, transsexuals and religious minorities .
But perhaps the most significant contributing factor is the pathetic state of the media. A loss of objectivity in the mainstream media, also caused by partisanship and corporate interests, has caused a mass misinformation pandemic. This does sound odd, when you consider the everyman’s general distrust toward the liberal/corporate media for exactly the same reasons…but let’s look into that.
The Misinformation Dystopia
The American media landscape has always been divided. Conservatives gravitate toward Fox News and like websites while Liberals toward MSNBC. Of course, rational people and intellectuals know better than to subscribe to a single train of thought. Each media outlet is biased in its own way and ergo shows a lack of objectivity, an essential part of any democracy. This lack of objectivity has given rise to even more serious problems, and has been a prominent issue in this current election.
The current corporate media essentially came into full effect after the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, which was a policy of the United States Federal Communication Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required broadcasters to present contrasting opinions on public issues in a manner which was deemed fair, honest and balanced in the Commission’s view. It was scrapped due to constitutional challenging of a rule, the 80’s talk-radio boom and ultimately, the Obama administration overhaul of federal legislation. Further loosening of restrictions on media concentration allowed for corporations to use news media as advertising platforms. This in turn landed up giving rise to corporate media and marking the demise of corporate criticism in mainstream media. Of course, in the spirit of innovation, a complete takeover was prevented by the rise of subscription-based premium networks (HBO comes to mind). However, the primary entertainment focus (due to the vast costs of operating a non-advertisement-based network) still meant that corporate criticism was severely limited.
However, in an election environment, the bigger problem is partisanship. And with the polarization of ideology and the disappearance of effective moderates, the media shifted toward this model as well, as the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine allowed. Fox News reflected the decidedly anti-Obama Republican stance while MSNBC continued with its adamant support of the administration. Of course, Fox News was guilty of the greater sin as it propagated out-and-out lies, factually vacuous claims to evolve into a true right-wing propagandist channel while MSNBC at least maintained much of its factual integrity.
Another issue in the media is that of political correctness. This has a more prominent place in colleges and universities, where restrictive speech codes are applied in order to create supposedly safe and accommodating learning environments. However, this tends to make students oversensitive about trivial matters and severely limits academic discussions on sensitive issues. And as projection, this strikes a chord with everyone other than the far left. This sort of restrictive speech opposes the bedrock principle of free speech, thus striking the majority of voters as unconstitutional and hypocritical. This is projected in the media particularly in the case of racial minorities and their sensibilities as well as comedy and satire programs.
However, contrary to popular belief, this is not limited to the far-left. Even on the right, the problem of political correctness abides, albeit in a different sense. And this is where, despite well-founded distrust for the mainstream media, objectivity takes a nosedive. Our political views are primarily shaped by a combination of the circumstances we grow in, our education and the media we consume. The circumstances we grow in are shaped by the people we know, and are beyond our control. However, as we undertake our unique set of challenges and experiences, we tend to question our familial ideology. As we educate ourselves, we form rationalizations of what is right and what is wrong. And as we obtain information from the media, we form informed opinions of the political environment around us. But as we have observed, the American environment has been manipulated into a more radicalized political sphere, American education is discouraging academic discourse in favor of conformity and the American media is un-objectively skewed. Thus, a combination of these factors creates an ideological echo chamber, distorting rationalization and causing the average American to oppose a certain set of beliefs on instinct. In other words, looking for alternate media for information, although favorable to corporate media and certainly more accurate, does not often result in an objective ideological shift as we only believe what we want to believe due to our predisposition. Coming back to political correctness, we see it as a problem on both sides of the spectrum, as both sides are predisposed to their set of beliefs and in a radicalized environment primarily shaped by a partisan media, each side is offended and/or unwilling to confront the other’s ideas in a rational manner.
The Identity Angle
The other major factor which has shaped the current scenario is the identity angle. Americans simultaneously pride themselves as being a free nation of immigrants and act in the interest of the white majority whilst compromising the rights of minorities. With the Obama administration having reached such milestones as the national legalization of gay marriage and providing two seats on the Supreme Court for liberal justices, the regressive right feels threatened by the administration. However, since the advent of Trump’s campaign, this sentiment has reached new heights, with the focus on illegal immigration (and the infamous wall) and the temporary Islamic ban acting as greatly divisive issues.
An interesting illustration of the identity picture of where America stands as a society can be gained from the disparity between the responses to the Charleston massacre and the Orlando shooting. In the case of Charleston, Fox News initially denied the racial element, favoring a more anti-religion narrative (possibly because of the Christian love for persecution), before finally settling into it in the face of undeniable evidence on the contrary. Meanwhile, other networks propagated the White Supremacy narrative. To this, whites complained of a lack of similar discussion for the far more prevalent black-on-white/black crime. Here’s the thing…that’s not the issue at hand in this scenario. How any of that is relevant in regards to a black-and-white narrative of white-on-black crime is beyond me.
In the case of the Orlando shooter however, the divide was different. While everyone agreed it was a hate crime against the homosexual community, and the majority agreed to it as an act of radical Islamic terrorism, Fox News promoted a narrative primarily directed toward this factor while choosing to ignore gun control issues while the more liberal outlets focused more on the facet of gun control while dealing with the perpetrator’s claimed ISIS affiliation with caution. Neither side was ready to acknowledge the obvious multi-factorial nature of this incident. Add to that Trump’s statements regarding the matter and the polarizing reactions to it and you get a basic picture. This is a nation divided between two extreme ends of the spectrum on gun control (at least in mindset) and somewhat united but with varying levels of criticism and policy support regarding Islamic terrorism.
Another major facet which has been unique to this election is the perceived ideological threat to capitalism. This of course comes from the Bernie Sanders campaign and his advocacy of socialist democracy ideology. Of course, the mainstream was taken by storm. Originally considered a fringe candidate with no hope against Democrat favorite Clinton, the polls truly debunked this idea as Bernie Sanders remains the only candidate with a positive net favorability rating among the three choices. His detractors opposed him mostly on the grounds of his socialist ideology (considering it as a threat to capitalism and/or a vessel to devalue the worth of hard-working Americans) as well his support for socialist programs and his non-Christian religious orientation. His unprecedented support can be credited to his anti-establishment and anti-corporate rhetoric, having successfully tapped into the aforementioned anti-establishment sentiment and the general public frustration regarding corporate influence in politics and the rapidly growing wealth gap.
This combination of the ineffectiveness of the existing political system and the strong anti-administration sentiment promoted by partisan media propaganda and the right wing, resulting from their incredibly hard right stances influenced by interest groups, corporate entities, racial prejudice and an identity crisis, further exacerbated by the lack of objectivity and the media echo chamber phenomenon resulted in a strong anti-establishment sentiment, leading to rise of fringe candidates and the complete overhaul of tradition election dynamics.
How it all comes together
This election season has primarily been shaped by reactionary politics, marked by anti-objectivism, ideological polarization, anti-establishment sentiment and unprecedented hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle.
Hillary Clinton, with her party endorsements and corporate funding epitomizes establishment politics. Add to that her questionable record as senator and secretary of state, the backlash against liberal political correctness (which moderate and right-wing voters maintain as major influencing factor, seeing her supporters as feminists blind to the drawbacks of her policies), the incongruity between her proposed policies and her record (e.g. introducing taxation for oil companies while accepting international funding from Gulf countries for her campaign and the Clinton foundation), her husband’s morally questionable past and primarily the ongoing FBI investigation against her regarding the misuse of her personal email server and her detractors have more than enough reasons. Further criticism is aimed at her rather conservative policies regarding Israel despite claiming to be a left-leaning centrist and her dishonesty and lack of authenticity (perhaps a byproduct of the anti-establishment sentiment, which views her as someone incapable of caring for general public interests, instead preferring to do the bidding of her corporate sponsors). Her supporters maintain the historic nature of her nomination as a true sign of progressivism and consider her a good candidate in regards to handling foreign policy (apparently due to her prior experience), women and minority rights and economic/gun control policy. A significant portion of course is simply dedicated to not allowing Trump to win.
Donald Trump finds his support amongst the anti-political correctness and right-wing anti-establishment crowd. He is deemed authentic, even in the face of blatant dishonesty, bigotry and typically un-presidential behavior and rhetoric. He appeals to the ideologically insecure American, standing as a proud symbol of capitalist success in the face of socialist opposition (apparently due to his business acumen, which upon further investigation is questionable to say the least), as a true patriot in the face of the radical Islamist terrorism and unchecked immigration, as an advocate of American liberty and constitutional rights in the face of rampant political correctness and proposed gun reform, as a symbol against the evils of corporate America and dishonest and reckless politicization. He is, at least according to his supporters, the quintessential American who will not back down against establishment politics, who will not be suppressed by the political correctness epidemic and do the right thing, who will take the country back from the foreigners and protect it from the terrorist scum of the east, who will restore the economy and show the establishment how things are done and who will restore America’s respect in the world and make America great again!
But he is also the single most polarizing candidate in perhaps the entire electoral history of America. He is widely regarded as a master manipulator of the media, as can be expected from a reality TV star that has created his brand around narcissism and the projection of success. However, he is viewed by his detractors as the symptom of America’s anti-intellectualism and intolerance, regarded as a bigot, a liar, a true hypocrite and an incompetent leader. His involvement in the Birther movement, his questionable record in business, his absolute disrespect for women and minority groups, his Trump University scandal, his controversial statements regarding the combating of ISIS and support for factually inaccurate right-wing propaganda paint a grim picture. But the most frustrating aspect for his detractors remains his apparent invulnerability amongst his supporters despite possessing some of the same qualities that make Hillary Clinton so undesirable.
This invulnerability can be accredited to his masterful media manipulation. When he began, Trump was naturally also considered a fringe candidate, and a mostly non-serious candidate, with Jeb Bush being the Republican favorite. However, as his campaign proceeded, he was able to tap into the anti-establishment rage present in the people, much like Bernie Sanders, on the right side of the spectrum and therefore rise above the fray of establishment candidates. The Republicans began with 17 candidates, something which divided the vote among establishment supporters significantly as compared to the Democratic side, who began with only 6, inevitably leading to an anti-establishment candidate seizing control from a dismally unpopular party. And that, combined with the constant (and almost universally negative) coverage from the “establishment media” led to the so-called Trump phenomenon.
Bernie Sanders had no such luck. His rise could be credited, however, to precisely that. He too tapped into the anti-establishment rage which festered on the left, and primarily in the younger generation. Ergo, the publicity he received was primarily in digital and alternative media as opposed to mainstream media, which kind of established him as the underdog, America’s favorite archetype. He started what is referred to as a revolution to rise above corporate tyranny and dishonesty, advocating first-world amenities still not present in the United States such as free healthcare and paid maternity leave. His main challenge of course was to overcome the negatively regarded label of socialism. And that proved to be entirely too complicated. While technically the challenge shouldn’t be too difficult, seeing how America has a relationship to Socialism similar to what Republicans have with homosexuality, the vestiges of Cold War propaganda and the socioeconomic failures of prominent social democracies, coupled with anti-Islam sentiment and partisan polarization , led to only the more progressive youth identifying with Bernie’s philosophy while the older demographic stayed away, pointed out young naiveté and further still doubted the economic viability of his plans. This was further worsened by the pro-establishment media narrative, which rarely ever involved Sanders and when it did, it was in opposition to the more preferred Hillary.
However, Bernie supporters, being the idealists that they are, are also incredibly loyal and wary of the drawbacks of the two opposing candidates. This has led to the formation of the ‘BernieOrBust’ movement, whereby Bernie supporters have vouched to either write Bernie on the ballot, vote for a third-party candidate (likely options being Green Party candidates Jill Stein or Gary Johnson) or refrain from voting altogether.
In the interest of objectivity, I must now veer away from neutrality. Yes, that does sound counterintuitive but in this scenario, some choices are obviously better than others. Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic nominee. In the hands of either Trump or Clinton, the future of the USA and the world at large seems dire. Hillary presents a smart evil, a dishonest corporate-sponsored warmonger who is sure to make more than her fair share of bad foreign policy and economic decisions, provide an environment for the further festering of more restrictive, politically correct America and act in the interest of her corporate sponsors more so than in the interests of the general American public. Trump presents a nightmare scenario of a bona fide lunatic in charge of the free world (and the nuclear launch codes) who will spell the end of intellectualism as we know it (possibly creating a haven for bigots, unconstitutional religious legislators, lobbyists, Creationists and climate-change deniers among others while also marking at least a pause in free productive criticism) and is all too trigger-happy to be a good world leader. He also presents a more intolerant America and the probable scenario of a sunken American economy, which, as we’ve learnt in 2008, is never a good thing for the rest of the world.
In other words, unless a miracle occurs, America is sunk either way. The overlying factor responsible for this is the lack of objectivity in the general public, brought upon by a polarized partisan environment, a corrupt media, lack of education and a general mistrust toward the administration, allowing for ideology and identity to dominate the thought process. As a verdict, I give you this: as someone outside America, I’d rather America implode than explode. And explosions are more likely to occur in the incompetent, easily provoked tiny little hands of Donald Trump. Because while Hillary can be regarded as the Wicked Witch of the West, bound to terrorize the residents of the American Oz and rain hell on the Middle East, Trump is akin to Galactus: he will swallow the planet whole.
1. The quotation marks intend to show not sarcasm but simply a direct quote of the general public consensus as it appears according to polls and the media (remember, as someone who has never even been to America, my perspective of the country is based entirely upon media representation and conversations with those who have been there).
2. Video-game purists, put away your pitchforks. I know it’s “kombat”, I’m just trying to do my job.
3. Even though his record of use of executive action is dwarfed by that of his two immediate predecessors.
4. If only this criticism had been on valid grounds, based on an objective analysis of the deal (which requires actually reading it), there wouldn’t have been need of this footnote. But it’s not. So there.
5. This is the primary problem Obama has faced while in office. The propagation of the climate change deniers in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence against the fact is a good example of undue corporate influence leading to hard-line stances which lead to policymaking problems. This is clearly incentivized by the oil industry, as proven by a tally from the organization Greenpeace which exposed a 30 million dollar campaign run by ExxonMobil which propagated misinformation regarding climate change within the Republican Party. (Source: The Guardian, 15th July, 2015)
6. This was given a central spotlight back in December 2013, when Obama raised the issue of the widening wealth gap, calling it “the defining challenge of our time” and making it out to be an integral part of his agenda for the upcoming years…before almost immediately backing down amongst accusations of class warfare. This was particularly frustrating for his supporters, and may have done something to fuel Bernie’s anti-wealth-gap campaign.
7. 92% of gun owners were in favor of background checks on anyone attempting to purchase a gun while 85% were in favor of restricting guns for people on the no-fly list/terror watch list, according to a CNN/ORC Poll conducted between June 16-19 in 2016 amongst 1001 adults nationwide.
8. Very few people are actually crazy enough to push for such an agenda in the gun country. And the few exceptions are obviously met with great bipartisan hostility and are not nearly mobile/influential enough as compared to the NRA.
9. For whatever reason, this is still up for debate in the country. Here’s the exact statement of the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In simple words, religion and legislature should be kept separate. And voila. Separation of Church and State, pure and simple.
10. I was hoping not to touch on this but since it is relevant to the election, there seems to be no alternative. Religion has permeated policymaking to an unhealthy level. This is best illustrated in the laws regarding to the homosexual community.
11. In this environment of fairly justifiable anti-Islam sentiment, even the moderate Muslim community can expect some level of discrimination. And as the Trump administration apparently plans to ban all Muslim immigration (temporarily…at least that’s what he says), the discrimination is sure to reach new heights.
12. Conan O’Brien was right: “CNN is watched by the people who clean the offices at CNN”.
13. The preferred news medium of the younger generation. Of course, there are some fundamental challenges to that. Firstly, the main objective is satire as opposed to news. And while that does give it some degree of objectivity (The Daily Show and Last Week Tonight come especially to mind) as the absurdity of the media and its brazen hypocrisy whilst pushing a narrative is clearly pointed out, there is very little actual journalism involved (notable exceptions aside (Last Week Tonight and field reports from The Daily Show (such as the Australian gun control segments) come to mind)). The second challenge is corporate sponsorship. This rang painfully true as viewers were noticeably frustrated by the constant Trump-bashing while Clinton was not nearly as often the subject of ridicule, primarily because media companies and corporate sponsors had donated to the Clinton campaign. Even subscription-based media wasn’t immune to this (such as in HBO’s case, wherein its parent company Time Warner donated to the Clinton campaign, creating an obvious conflict-of-interest), further exacerbating the media echo chamber.
14. The wall is a universally panned idea (save for the devoted Trump supporters). The Islam ban, regardless of my personal position, is a legitimately debatable issue. Fear is the driving emotion on both sides. Those for the ban fear the advent of radical Islamist terrorism (further fueled by atrocities conducted by members of the American Islamic community) while those against the ban fear the possible radicalization of moderates present within the U.S. and the ideological leverage ISIS might gain from the act.
15. Which, to me, is entirely too ironic to ignore. Every modern industrialized nation in the world is a quasi-socialist economy, including America, where the most popular programs and those which have worked historically have been socialist-democratic, such as the New Deal, Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps and farm subsidies.
16. Don’t even get me started. There are between one and fifty reasons why Trump is un-presidential, not the least of which is his Trump University scandal, his paper-thin temperament triggered at the slightest provocation, his affinity for insulting physically impaired journalists and women, his prejudice against certain minority groups (best illustrated by his stance and reasoning against the justice presiding over his Trump University scandal case, Gonzalo Curiel), his propensity for personal attacks (see his Twitter feed, his campaign speeches and tremendous number of lawsuits), absolute lack of policy sense and experience. But of course, the anti-political correctness sentiment seems to have granted him new standards of unacceptability while the regressive political correctness on the right further increases his support.
17. The irony of course is that he is the embodiment of everything bad about corporate America, including the ruthless, exploitative businessman mentality, the birth into privilege, the narcissism, sense of entitlement, disconnect from general problems, shameless hollow advertising and immunity to guilt.
18. His detractors of course are confident that his policies will make the United States his fifth venture to end on Chapter 11.
19. To his credit, he did indeed make his campaign one of the most cost-effective ever, as opposed to the other candidates, such as Jeb Bush who spent 0 million for seemingly nothing. This, of course, was combination of many factors: his brand, which is undoubtedly powerful, his incendiary statements which guaranteed him insane media coverage (saving up on advertisement costs) and the fact that he loaned his own campaign a portion of his money, which assured that the money was regained.
20. She is widely viewed as dishonest, untrustworthy, inauthentic and elitist. Her ideological ambiguity (running as a socially liberal candidate with a record of opposition against gay rights), corporate sponsorship (even as she proposes Wall Street reform), and email (non)scandal further project this vibe. Trump, although every bit as dishonest as her (with the lowest record of true statements in accordance to Politifact), untrustworthy due to his unreliable temperament and his fickle stances and inauthentic and elitist (with more pronounced ideological ambiguity thanks to his New York democrat past and atypical non-Republican stances on certain topics), gets a pass due to his anti-establishment rhetoric and media image.
21. This is also a talking point for more astute Trump supporters/agnostics when confronted accusations of incompetence and downright stupidity by his detractors. He was successfully able to go this far even while the media, including Fox News (perhaps due to corporate influence or Trump’s more non-conservative views) antagonized him, he can’t be stupid…right?
22. And this is completely non-ironic. Bernie Sanders has the highest proportion of true statements and is the only candidate with no pants-on-fire statements according to Politifact. He also is the most consistent of the candidates (having maintained his anti-corporate stance throughout his career) and has far more legislative foresight as compared to Clinton (evident by her senatorial voting record as compared to his and also by the fact that he voted against the Iraq War while she voted for it).
23. Although some members aggressively oppose the idea, in practice, the things are more complicated (refer to Senator Derek Dreier or Alabama A.G. Troy King or George Rekers or…)
24. Some of the more illogical arguments made against Bernie’s policies by avid Trump supporters include Sweden’s rape epidemic and the derogatory effects of Islamic refugee immigration, neither of which have much of anything to do with socialism. It is noteworthy solely because there are so many illogical Trump supporters present, which goes to show the extent of the effect of the aforementioned factors.
25. In light of recent developments (Bernie Sanders’ waning campaign, his declaration to vote for Hillary Clinton and the political fallout after the fact), some discrepancies have also emerged. A significant portion of Bernie’s voters are directed toward Trump (even while he insists that Clinton is a better choice and that his voter base is smart enough to realize that voting for Trump is against their best interests), the reasons being obvious. However, a significant portion also remains loyal to Bernie’s beliefs and thus is devoted to keeping Trump out. Therefore, with five to six different avenues to go through, it will indeed be interesting to see how Bernie’s considerable voter base reacts.
October 11, 2021
September 26, 2021
May 14, 2021