🚨 Watch the video for 911 🚨

💌 The September fan envelope is here! 💌
Sign in to follow this  
question

Is Gaga a progressive Democrat?

Would Gaga endorse Bernie?  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. Would Gaga endorse Bernie?

    • Yes
      22
    • No
      32


Faysalaaa
3 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

682

The top is conservatives, the bottom is progressives :emma: 

Anyway, the bolded statement is patently false, its just that Trump is a pathological liar and his corruption is basically daily. Obama had many faults, economically, on foreign policy, etc. but to say that that is comparable to what Trump is is... beyond a reach. Fact checkers didnt just come out of nowhere in 2016, they existed before and leftists held Obama to account on his errors all of the damn time. The only difference with Trump now is that arguably many more people are aware of how broken the system is, or feel more personal stake in speaking out about it than in the past, its not that Democrats were purposefully silent before - they weren't. Democrats are annoyingly (but necessarily) self-critical and disjointed.

 Also the "better of two evils" thing is a lie. The more marginal, and fringe your identity and ideology become, the more accurate that statement, but for the majority of people in this country, Democrats aren't an *evil* at all in terms of their impact on people's day to day lives because their general mode of operating in the last 50 years is incremental, gradual change... but Republicans are more dangerous for more people. It's like saying MSNBC and FOX News are equally bad. They just aren't on the same level even though they are both definitely biased in their political leanings.

Democrats and republicans work and serve the same system and people. They act like their are different to make you think you have a choice, but on the big issues that actually effect the American people and looking at the big picture, its the same thing.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Devil of Pop

I wish, but I would hazard a guess that no, she is a neoliberal. I would guess that her dad is a Repub and that + her money push Gaga toward the "#LoveWins" "#WeJustNeedKindnessandPrivledge" side of centrism. She reminds me of my mom and aunties in that she cares about the social side of politics but I'm not sure how much she is really into the policies versus the identity appeal of the candidates. Anyways, even though that is what I would guess, I don't judge Gaga for that, she is allowed to have politics that are private and different from mine :)

How can I protect something so perfect without evil?
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ItsTommyBitch
11 minutes ago, Faysalaaa said:

Democrats and republicans work and serve the same system and people. They act like their are different to make you think you have a choice, but on the big issues that actually effect the American people and looking at the big picture, its the same thing.

I mean, this is a really big picture way to look at things and also strips all individuality and free will of thought from the equation, but sure :shrug: If this isn't some generic conspiracy theorist talk, (I know your post history enough to bet that its not a profound sociological observation either... ) then it sounds like you are saying Capitalists exist to accumulate capital, and the Two American political parties both help to perpetuate that system because they are made in a capitalist image. I can accept that framing.

The problem with this kind of zooming out however is that it refuses to see marginal progress as important or part of any potential sort of transition to change the "system" and thus makes things quite black and white. We're either all resisting the system, or doomed for existing under it with this framework unless every single person is fighting against it 24/7 at all levels of society :rip: 

Even if you're a socialist or a communist, and even if you see the fundamental existence of capitalism as a problem, it doesn't mean you must deny that things like passing regulation on governments to limit the corruption of capitalism, making public goods publicly funded, fighting corruption in government, affirming equal rights and protections, etc. are worthy goals. Those are bare minimums to be more equitable societies, and in that light, there is a clear party that wants to make those bare minimums and more, and one that is absolutely resistant to any changes to the system at all. It's the "conservative" party, and their ideology is "Reactionary" for a reason, those words have meanings lol.

Edited by ItsTommyBitch
私自身もこの世の中も誰もかれもが, どんなに華やかな人生でも, どんなに悲惨な人生でも, いつかは変貌し, 破壊され、消滅してしまう. すべてがもともとこの世に存在しない一瞬の幻想なのだから
  • Like 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faysalaaa
42 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I mean, this is a really big picture way to look at things and also strips all individuality and free will of thought from the equation, but sure :shrug: If this isn't some generic conspiracy theorist talk, (I know your post history enough to bet that its not a profound sociological observation either... ) then it sounds like you are saying Capitalists exist to accumulate capital, and the Two American political parties both help to perpetuate that system because they are made in a capitalist image. I can accept that framing.

The problem with this kind of zooming out however is that it refuses to see marginal progress as important or part of any potential sort of transition to change the "system" and thus makes things quite black and white. We're either all resisting the system, or doomed for existing under it with this framework unless every single person is fighting against it 24/7 at all levels of society :rip: 

Even if you're a socialist or a communist, and even if you see the fundamental existence of capitalism as a problem, it doesn't mean you must deny that things like passing regulation on governments to limit the corruption of capitalism, making public goods publicly funded, fighting corruption in government, affirming equal rights and protections, etc. are worthy goals. Those are bare minimums to be more equitable societies, and in that light, there is a clear party that wants to make those bare minimums and more, and one that is absolutely resistant to any changes to the system at all. It's the "conservative" party, and their ideology is "Reactionary" for a reason, those words have meanings lol.

Sorry it was hard for me to understand some of what you are saying as English is not my first language, but ill try to respond.

America is an Oligarchy controlled by a small group of people who fund both parties. Saying one is better than the other means you are playing into their game. Democrats supporting good things is invalid because its all talk. Yes they might give small changes every couple of decades like allowing Gays to join the military, but they wont offer actual change. They will lie and use fear to get you to vote for a Democrat who will offer no change for 8 years, then elect a republican for 8 years, that is almost 20 years gone with no change because you accepted to play into the system.

Im not a Progressive or a Socialist, im a Libertarian so im not against Capitalism. Im against crony Capitalism which is what America is today. Crony capitalism means socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor. Libertarians and Progressives both agree on the same reality but have different solutions. This is why I love progressives and will always support them over the system that exists today.

Edit: not sure what you mean by saying conspiracy theory and the sociological observation thing.

Edited by Faysalaaa

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Franch Toast

Not knowing her personally, I can only guess here, but I feel like she's naïve when it comes to politics. For example, when someone at Enigma was wearing a "feminist" T-shirt, she made a remark about how she's a a "humanist" instead. (To me, this is the equivalent to saying "all lives matter" in response to "black lives matter.")  I think she's progressive when it comes to LGBT+ rights, but that's about it. She seems to have a very naïve understanding of issues related to race, socioeconomic divisions, and even feminism (you can see her naiveté with regards to race in the simplistic lyrics of "Born This Way" or some of her tweets). As others have said, she grew up with a lot of privilege as part of a white upper-middle-class family on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. She attended an elite private school from K–12, had piano lessons from a young age, private vocal lessons with one of the best vocal coaches when she was a teenager, attended expensive programs like the Johns Hopkins Center for Gifted Youth, etc. Of course, she cannot help this privilege, but I think it makes it harder for her to be aware of the world beyond her bubble, especially because she became famous at such a young age and is now in an even more exclusive bubble. I think she is well-intentioned but not all that aware. 

Like most celebrities, she also has a huge carbon footprint and doesn't seem hugely bothered by it. 

In the end, I think she'll come out and support whoever the Democratic nominee happens to be, but I don't expect her to be campaigning for anyone during the primaries. We know she loves Biden from their earlier collaboration (she does love her some creepy men), but hopefully she won't come out and endorse him during the primaries given his problematic behavior. 

Anyway, I wouldn't label her a progressive, but it wouldn't surprise me if she thinks of herself as a progressive. I love her to pieces, but a true progressive she ain't (in my opinion). 

 

Edited by Franch Toast
She/Her/Hers
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
River

Even the progressive democrats are pretty conservative in the US :ladyhaha: 

Gaga is not progressive, she’s an old school democrat..

I'd rather be dead but I guess I'm alive ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Queen Bitch
46 minutes ago, River said:

Even the progressive democrats are pretty conservative in the US :ladyhaha: 

Gaga is not progressive, she’s an old school democrat..

True. Very few politicians in the US are actually progressives.

  • Like 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
ItsTommyBitch
3 hours ago, Faysalaaa said:

Sorry it was hard for me to understand some of what you are saying as English is not my first language, but ill try to respond.

America is an Oligarchy controlled by a small group of people who fund both parties. Saying one is better than the other means you are playing into their game. Democrats supporting good things is invalid because its all talk. Yes they might give small changes every couple of decades like allowing Gays to join the military, but they wont offer actual change. They will lie and use fear to get you to vote for a Democrat who will offer no change for 8 years, then elect a republican for 8 years, that is almost 20 years gone with no change because you accepted to play into the system.

Im not a Progressive or a Socialist, im a Libertarian so im not against Capitalism. Im against crony Capitalism which is what America is today. Crony capitalism means socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor. Libertarians and Progressives both agree on the same reality but have different solutions. This is why I love progressives and will always support them over the system that exists today.

Edit: not sure what you mean by saying conspiracy theory and the sociological observation thing.

It is true that the Dems offer incrementalism and they do very little to dismantle oligarchy or oligarchical tendencies, at least since mid 1900s (they were staunchly more anti-corruption, anti-trust, anti-monopoly, etc. in the past!) BUT it is also true that some current Democrats have platforms that are critical of the way past Democrats have run and been elected, so yes this party is the clearly better choice.

It's like choosing between a 0% or a 5% success rate, and noting that the 5% is also increasing steadily. (See: Bernie Sander's anti-establishment politics and policies are clearly becoming the future of the Democratic party, - even if it never happens in our lifetimes, a democratic socialist future seems very possible to me, and I could not say the same in 2015 or 2012 or 2008)

Choosing 0% (republican) is accepting defeat, and while individually doing something like voting third party, or not voting is also an option, those are essentially 0% success rate options as well. To me, its logical to support the 5%, and the incremental changes they do (they have done a LOT more than just let gays serve in the military lol) STILL positively change lives. That's what I meant about zooming out too far. It's not fair to say - "The whole system is broken, so it doesn't matter what you pick since it wont change the system"  It ignores that there are still material benefits to one party over the other, even if the victories are small. Civil Rights movement, (fun fact, MLK was pretty socialist!) Women's vote, gay rights, etc... all of these things aren't neglectable victories just because they didn't dismantle oligarchy or capitalism or whatever, lives are more than theoretical things we play with in thought experiments :emma:  There's a reason for example that Older African Americans are highly pragmatic voters and have been for a very long time. They have an appropriate lack of faith in institutions like the Democratic party, but they also are informed by their experience that choosing the Republican party is choosing no CHANCE of improvement.

Spoiler

To clarify though, I do think being morally opposed to the positions of a candidate is a valid position to have, and to critique all people that don't vote as being "complicit in oppression" or something like " they can't complain since they didnt vote" or even "its their fault X won" is all really gross and wrong. Most people in America are politically disengaged because of the inefficiency and corruptness of our system, not because they don't actually care about making their lives or other people's lives better. Literally, if they thought voting would change something, they would vote. But they don't think it will. AND most people that don't vote are poor, uneducated, uninformed, etc.... not progressives or highly educated people who choose not to. I personally would very begrudgingly vote for Joe Biden if he is the nominee, but I know people that wouldn't and there is no benefit in demonizing them, or blaming them as voters instead of Joe Biden and the Democrats for actively choosing a losing strategy of "vote against the opposition" instead of "vote FOR the candidate" - its the politicians job to get your vote, not for them to not even try, and then get mad when you don't vote for them.

~~

Libertarianism and socialism can co-exist, but It's my experience that raw libertarianism is really very susceptible to taking this kind of privileged position - it doesn't acknowledge that *revolution* will never be a feasible path for people who don't have the basic rights, liberties, acceptance, education, etc. to even conceive of it as possible, let alone join the kind of resistance and upheaval you would need to become a more libertarian or even full on socialist society. That literally cannot be just a coalition of white men (the majority of devout libertarians in the West) alone :rip: They are a shrinking minority in many places already.

I don't have a problem with "libertarianism" by its own merit, but I have a problem with most people I know personally who call themselves one, because they are so invested in individual freedom, liberty, etc. economically and financially and property wise that they reduce the importance of social equality to 0 in the process, and regardless of your beliefs, you're shooting yourself in the foot by taking that stance, it assumes too much and as many propose it, a truly libertarian society would in my vision be highly unequal, discrimination would be just as rampant if not more, etc. I'd hope Libertarians wouldnt' be *just* Libertarians (there are many forms) if they knew it would result in a future that is the same, but with only white men being liberated basically. Though many would be okay with that and have a very self-centered worldview that goes beyond mere free individualism, so I'm skeptical of them :emma: I'd say Libertarian-Socialist or some variation of that is a bare minimum to really be on the same side as Progressives, I don't think being anti-establishment is enough personally, but you do you.

 

Also, some people aren't interested in marxism or marxist analysis or class based analysis at all, and think "the system" is just that "the system" like they use "the man" - That's what I meant by conspiracy theory. When I talk about systems, I have specific ones in mind that I am talking about that are objective truths about our reality - Capitalism, Kyriarchy, etc. 

 

Edited by ItsTommyBitch
私自身もこの世の中も誰もかれもが, どんなに華やかな人生でも, どんなに悲惨な人生でも, いつかは変貌し, 破壊され、消滅してしまう. すべてがもともとこの世に存在しない一瞬の幻想なのだから
  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faysalaaa
5 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

It is true that the Dems offer incrementalism and they do very little to dismantle oligarchy or oligarchical tendencies, at least since mid 1900s (they were staunchly more anti-corruption, anti-trust, anti-monopoly, etc. in the past!) BUT it is also true that some current Democrats have platforms that are critical of the way past Democrats have run and been elected, so yes this party is the clearly better choice.

It's like choosing between a 0% or a 5% success rate, and noting that the 5% is also increasing steadily. (See: Bernie Sander's anti-establishment politics and policies are clearly becoming the future of the Democratic party, - even if it never happens in our lifetimes, a democratic socialist future seems very possible to me, and I could not say the same in 2015 or 2012 or 2008)

Choosing 0% (republican) is accepting defeat, and while individually doing something like voting third party, or not voting is also an option, those are essentially 0% success rate options as well. To me, its logical to support the 5%, and the incremental changes they do (they have done a LOT more than just let gays serve in the military lol) STILL positively change lives. That's what I meant about zooming out too far. It's not fair to say - "The whole system is broken, so it doesn't matter what you pick since it wont change the system"  It ignores that there are still material benefits to one party over the other, even if the victories are small. Civil Rights movement, (fun fact, MLK was pretty socialist!) Women's vote, gay rights, etc... all of these things aren't neglectable victories just because they didn't dismantle oligarchy or capitalism or whatever, lives are more than theoretical things we play with in thought experiments :emma:  There's a reason for example that Older African Americans are highly pragmatic voters and have been for a very long time. They have an appropriate lack of faith in institutions like the Democratic party, but they also are informed by their experience that choosing the Republican party is choosing no CHANCE of improvement.

  Reveal hidden contents

To clarify though, I do think being morally opposed to the positions of a candidate is a valid position to have, and to critique all people that don't vote as being "complicit in oppression" or something like " they can't complain since they didnt vote" or even "its their fault X won" is all really gross and wrong. Most people in America are politically disengaged because of the inefficiency and corruptness of our system, not because they don't actually care about making their lives or other people's lives better. Literally, if they thought voting would change something, they would vote. But they don't think it will. AND most people that don't vote are poor, uneducated, uninformed, etc.... not progressives or highly educated people who choose not to. I personally would very begrudgingly vote for Joe Biden if he is the nominee, but I know people that wouldn't and there is no benefit in demonizing them, or blaming them as voters instead of Joe Biden and the Democrats for actively choosing a losing strategy of "vote against the opposition" instead of "vote FOR the candidate" - its the politicians job to get your vote, not for them to not even try, and then get mad when you don't vote for them.

~~

Libertarianism and socialism can co-exist, but It's my experience that raw libertarianism is really very susceptible to taking this kind of privileged position - it doesn't acknowledge that *revolution* will never be a feasible path for people who don't have the basic rights, liberties, acceptance, education, etc. to even conceive of it as possible, let alone join the kind of resistance and upheaval you would need to become a more libertarian or even full on socialist society. That literally cannot be just a coalition of white men (the majority of devout libertarians in the West) alone :rip: They are a shrinking minority in many places already.

I don't have a problem with "libertarianism" by its own merit, but I have a problem with most people I know personally who call themselves one, because they are so invested in individual freedom, liberty, etc. economically and financially and property wise that they reduce the importance of social equality to 0 in the process, and regardless of your beliefs, you're shooting yourself in the foot by taking that stance, it assumes too much and as many propose it, a truly libertarian society would in my vision be highly unequal, discrimination would be just as rampant if not more, etc. I'd hope Libertarians wouldnt' be *just* Libertarians (there are many forms) if they knew it would result in a future that is the same, but with only white men being liberated basically. Though many would be okay with that and have a very self-centered worldview that goes beyond mere free individualism, so I'm skeptical of them :emma: I'd say Libertarian-Socialist or some variation of that is a bare minimum to really be on the same side as Progressives, I don't think being anti-establishment is enough personally, but you do you.

 

Also, some people aren't interested in marxism or marxist analysis or class based analysis at all, and think "the system" is just that "the system" like they use "the man" - That's what I meant by conspiracy theory. When I talk about systems, I have specific ones in mind that I am talking about that are objective truths about our reality - Capitalism, Kyriarchy, etc. 

 

I dont care about the 5% success rate specially that it is a very slow process that could take decades with changes that only effect a fringe group of people. And it all could easily be reversed by someone like Trump! Going on the streets and demanding your rights is what Americans should do in my opinion. If over 70% of Americans support something like Medicare for all (including republicans), why cant Americans have that? why do you have to wait a lifetime for the possibility of it? who even knows what would happen to America in that future? I understand your choice, but its not something I would accept.

Its important to create a culture that exposes the system instead of participating in it. People now vote Democrat based on fear and being against Republicans instead of a voting for whats good for the American people. The Democratic party now feels extremely entitled to get your vote and demands it without offering any change, and if you dont vote for them, you will be shamed and attacked. That alone is very dangerous, there is no incentive to change and stop corruption.

Another way is for someone as popular as Bernie to create a third party which could easily happen. Or allow ring choice voting which is a great solution. I dont know, anything but accepting the possibility of a "5%" success rate after I die.

As a Libertarian, I dont agree with progressives only for being anti establishment! I agree with progressives on literally everything, we just believe in different solutions to reach our goals. I obviously prefer Libertarianism but if thats not an option, id love to live in a progressive system. Any step forward from what we have today would be great even if its not Libertarian. Im not even sure a Libertarian society would work, but I would hope so as I morally agree with it.

Edited by Faysalaaa

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
LilyLark
12 hours ago, Franch Toast said:

Not knowing her personally, I can only guess here, but I feel like she's naïve when it comes to politics. For example, when someone at Enigma was wearing a "feminist" T-shirt, she made a remark about how she's a a "humanist" instead. (To me, this is the equivalent to saying "all lives matter" in response to "black lives matter.")  I think she's progressive when it comes to LGBT+ rights, but that's about it. She seems to have a very naïve understanding of issues related to race, socioeconomic divisions, and even feminism (you can see her naiveté with regards to race in the simplistic lyrics of "Born This Way" or some of her tweets). As others have said, she grew up with a lot of privilege as part of a white upper-middle-class family on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. She attended an elite private school from K–12, had piano lessons from a young age, private vocal lessons with one of the best vocal coaches when she was a teenager, attended expensive programs like the Johns Hopkins Center for Gifted Youth, etc. Of course, she cannot help this privilege, but I think it makes it harder for her to be aware of the world beyond her bubble, especially because she became famous at such a young age and is now in an even more exclusive bubble. I think she is well-intentioned but not all that aware. 

Like most celebrities, she also has a huge carbon footprint and doesn't seem hugely bothered by it. 

In the end, I think she'll come out and support whoever the Democratic nominee happens to be, but I don't expect her to be campaigning for anyone during the primaries. We know she loves Biden from their earlier collaboration (she does love her some creepy men), but hopefully she won't come out and endorse him during the primaries given his problematic behavior. 

Anyway, I wouldn't label her a progressive, but it wouldn't surprise me if she thinks of herself as a progressive. I love her to pieces, but a true progressive she ain't (in my opinion). 

 

To be fair, Gaga appears to have become a bit more educated post BTW on some social justice issues (she obviously always meant well, but...she was pretty clueless at times). I remember she tweeted or posted on Instagram some support for Black Lives Matter at a time when a lot of white celebrities were ignoring it (I think she reposted some posts from activists).  And she's always mentioned POC at Stonewall like Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera (in particular, how Marsha was the driving force), when a lot of white celebs who are LGBTQ (cough cough Jesse Tyler Ferguson) ignore them when talking about Stonewall.

Then again, she asked someone to explain something to her on twitter (again, she meant well but it was cringe...can't even remember what the subject was about at the time) and people had to tell Gaga that it's not on POC to educate her about those issues and that she had to learn herself. She's been weird about feminism, too. She's absolutely identified as a feminist numerous times after not initially doing it back in the day, but occasionally she calls herself a "humanist."

 She's a wealthy white woman who grew up upper middle class in NYC—she undoubtedly was and is going to make some mistakes. This isn't a popular opinion, but I kind of feel like she should stay out of politics outside of her established place in the LGBTQ activist community where she knows her sh*t—one misstep gets blown up in the twitter sphere. For example, Alyssa Milano is downright clueless (far more than Gaga) although she does try...but people act like her mistakes are far worse than they actually are....

Anyway, we know for sure that she's a Democrat. I agree that she probably sees herself as progressive, but in reality is more center or center-left.

Edited by LilyLark
  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
LilyLark

Okay, first of all people can like other candidates than Bernie and that doesn't make them "corrupt" or "wealthy" and it doesn't mean that candidate (if it's not Bernie) only has white supporters.  I'm a WOC who is a  grad student and I'm a strong supporter of Warren.

While I strongly dislike Biden, I am very frustrated with the idea that everyone supporting him is awful because that is basically bashing most Black voters who tend to support him far more than other candidates. Those voters have reasons (reasons I disagree with, but understand) for supporting him, and it doesn't make them "bad." By the way, Joe has far more of the Black vote than any other candidate (polls range from  him having 45-55%, and the nearest is Bernie at about 15-20%), and while Bernie has most of the Black vote under 35 Joe has him beat in every age demographic in SC.  Joe is almost on the same level with Bernie when it comes to Latino support.

That said, Gaga ain't a progressive Democrat. She means well and she's liberal, but she's absolutely a capitalist and she's a bit clueless on some social justice issues outside of the LGBTQ circle. I'd love it if she was supporting Warren (or Bernie or Castro), but I suspect she's more of a Booker supporter. Cory's "love all, be kind" schtick would absolutely work on her imo, and he's socially quite progressive while pretty moderate when it comes to economic issues.  One thing I will say in defense of Cory is that he the best criminal justice platform by far of any of the candidates running—even Bernie and Warren.

Whoever ends up being the nominee, she'll support them tho. Pretty much every Dem is going to "vote blue" no matter what.

Edited by LilyLark
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
LilyLark
19 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

I don't expect Bernie to be her first choice. Hell, she might even endorse Biden with the whole "we just have to beat Trump!" message that hes basing his entire campaign on.

That being said, - and this isnt definitive or anything - most leftists I know are very involved in social movements in general, and care about class consciousness and class based oppression in a way that most liberals don't really.  A lot of social activism on the internet is very focused on race, gender, sexuality, abledness, mental health, and appearance. Very little of it is about class :shrug: So, this combined with the fact that she is rich and wasn't entirely poor growing up from what we know... It seems unlikely that Gaga is a huge class crusader(tm) and I can't see any personal reason in her life that she would see things like urgency in taxing the rich, wealth redistribution/reducing income inequality, getting money out of politics, medicare for all, etc.

Then again, she's a very empathetic person, and class consciousness IMO has its roots in empathy and economic awareness. Even if shes not a progressive, I could see her becoming one easily. Get to work kids :green: 

I would bet money on Gaga supporting Cory Booker or possibly Warren. Maybe Gillibrand, before she dropped out.

That said, unless she's a Republican(and we know she's not a Republican) or ends up supporting Marianne (anti-vaxxer) Williamson, I don't give a f*ck which Democrat she supports.

LOL Watch Gaga turn out to be a part of the Yang Gang and we'll all be "wtf?"

Edited by LilyLark
  • LMAO 1
  • Shook 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilmonzter

Won't put anything past Gags 

But celebrity endorsements are overrated and doesn't really amount to anything 

Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...