The coming Democratic civil war

mdgator05 · May 28, 2025 at 6:11 PM

g8orbill said: ↑

no I actually gave her koodos for finishing- but her art degree did nothing to prepare her for the real world. then she came and asked me for a job- I made her start at the bottom- after she learned how to be a worker(10 months) I promoted her to assistant manager and taught her what I like to call the business of people and time management. After a year as the 2nd assistant, she was promoted to 1st assistant and 10 months after that I promoted her to GM of one of my 4 stores. She knew that was as far as she would go working for me. After another 4 years she left to go work for a different Restaurant Chain- we were very proud of her- 2 years after she left her then boyfriend best her up and threw her down a flight of stairs- it ruined her back and the Dr’s gave her oxy for the pain. She got addicted and 4 years later she got clean and rededicated her life to Christ- unfortunately during her days of drug addiction she got MRSA and about 8 months after she got clean she got pneumonia and the MRSA came back with a vengeance and on Dec20, 2016 she passed away. I miss her every single day.
Click to expand...

First, obviously, I am so sorry for your loss and wish that she was still here with you.

I think that goes to my overall point with the notion of "useless degrees." The fact that her degree didn't give her some credentials that immediately boosted her salary doesn't mean that the degree was useless. Setting aside happiness, self-esteem, self-worth, etc. even from a purely financial standpoint, college degrees have a positive ROI almost universally if you look at salary changes in the future. College degrees are an investment in the people of a country.

That said, not everybody is going to have something that works out as well as hoped or expected. Half the population is going to fall below median. And my argument is that people that need loans shouldn't be treated as less deserving of the investment simply because mom and dad can't pay for it. And their experience shouldn't be viewed as wasteful or useless and they shouldn't be viewed as lazy or morally less than somebody else if their investment doesn't work out and they can't ever fully pay back the loans. We started bankruptcy for just this sort of a.situation because debtors prisons were a ridiculous policy, as is permanent and essentially unforgivable debt.

Broadly, I'm not sure that the country is really better off like India, where the college population almost all become engineers based on central state planning, compared to the more flexible system that we have, where those suited to engineering go that route and those suited for history or philosophy go that route. Narrowly, I don't like the notion that poorer people should have less opportunity for their kids or that their kids need to be held to some higher standard than those of parents who paid for their kids to finish school and are rightly proud of their accomplishments.

vaxcardinal · May 28, 2025 at 6:29 PM

mdgator05 said: ↑

Time is an important component of finance. If you forgive loans and don't change the interest rate, that may have no difference in effect. But if you drop interest rates to zero, a borrower never has incentive to pay back the loan. Regardless, it is just loan forgiveness reframed.

Again, it is about reframing to make people feel better about it than anything else it seems. We will forgive you if we think you are worthy, essentially.

To tie all of this back into the thread, democrats face the problem that they are likely right from a policy standpoint (the debt burden on college loans is restricting activity and destabilizing the economy and the political system), but older folks, especially those with more money, have bad feelings about forgiving loans without some sort of emotional tie to the recipient, so we just saddle younger generations with debt (except their kids, of course- essentially, a way to lock in a socio-economix hierarchy- kids from well-off families get college, kids from less well-off families don't and can hope they can get enough money through trades, which is beneath the college kids of the college-educated).

Downright false.

We push the kids your kids knew because they are likely the kids of college-educated families. Most younger Americans never graduate from a 4-year college. But it isn't as if the college-educated parental population looks at those kids and tells their kids to emulate them.

Which has been the system now, 20 years ago, 40 years ago, etc.

Holding a 17-18 year old to their plan because that is what they said 5 years ago seems like an awful idea. If anything, kids tend to firm up plans and come up with better ones over time. The fact that some plans didn't work out is not evidence that the entire path was wrong from the start.

Most kids pay back their loans in full. The fact that it didn't work out for everybody doesn't mean that giving loans to those that didn't work out was wrong, in the same sense that business failures don't mean that the loan was wrong initially.
Click to expand...

If I had a zero interest loan I would drag the payments out as long as I can since I can invest and get a higher rate of return. That’s what I did when I got a car loan.

g8orbill · May 28, 2025 at 6:37 PM

Trump has been in office 4 months and all we hear from the left is negative, negative, negative. The hole Biden dug will take a while to dig out of, but Trump has a plan and he is working his plan, which is what good business people do. If 2 years down the road his plan has failed then I would say you were correct but I do not think that will happen. The left and even some on the right hate Trump - the media amd the dems are going to try and do what they did under Trump45 - lie and distort hoping he will have to spend too much time trying to snuff out the BS. He trusted people in Trump 45 he should have not- this time around he has brought in people he knows and trusts- he is full steam ahead and it is driving the left and the left stream media and the Rino’s crazy- they will still try but I do not think the left will be successful

g8orbill · May 28, 2025 at 6:38 PM

vaxcardinal said: ↑

If I had a zero interest loan I would drag the payments out as long as I can since I can invest and get a higher rate of return. That’s what I did when I got a car loan.
Click to expand...

my only debt is on my 2019 F150 and only because they gave me 0% interest - so I am playing with Ford’s money

WC53 · May 28, 2025 at 6:43 PM

It is a math, math, world. We have to do better for everyone.

citygator · May 28, 2025 at 7:38 PM

g8orbill said: ↑

Trump has been in office 4 months and all we hear from the left is negative, negative, negative. The hole Biden dug will take a while to dig out of, but Trump has a plan and he is working his plan, which is what good business people do. If 2 years down the road his plan has failed then I would say you were correct but I do not think that will happen. The left and even some on the right hate Trump - the media amd the dems are going to try and do what they did under Trump45 - lie and distort hoping he will have to spend too much time trying to snuff out the BS. He trusted people in Trump 45 he should have not- this time around he has brought in people he knows and trusts- he is full steam ahead and it is driving the left and the left stream media and the Rino’s crazy- they will still try but I do not think the left will be successful
Click to expand...

Biden inherited a toilet bowl full of crap from Trump. Biden turned it into the world’s best economy. 4 months into Trump he broke it so badly magas have to act like Trump had to break it to save it. You aren’t American anymore. You’re Trumpican. Trump first.

reboundgtr · May 28, 2025 at 9:23 PM

VAg8r1 said: ↑

Let's not forget this "businessman" who declared bankruptcy six times and ended up paying his creditors pennies of the dollar.
Fact Check: Has Trump declared bankruptcy four or six times?
Trump’s companies have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which means a company can remain in business while wiping away many of its debts. The bankruptcy court ultimately approves a corporate budget and a plan to repay remaining debts; often shareholders lose much of their equity.

Trump’s Taj Mahal opened in April 1990 in Atlantic City, but six months later, “defaulted on interest payments to bondholders as his finances went into a tailspin,” The Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow found. In July 1991, Trump’s Taj Mahal filed for bankruptcy. He could not keep up with debts on two other Atlantic City casinos, and those two properties declared bankruptcy in 1992. A fourth property, the Plaza Hotel in New York, declared bankruptcy in 1992 after amassing debt.

PolitiFact uncovered two more bankruptcies filed after 1992, totaling six. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy again in 2004, after accruing about $1.8 billion in debt. Trump Entertainment Resorts also declared bankruptcy in 2009, after being hit hard during the 2008 recession.
Click to expand...

Cool stories…

l_boy · May 28, 2025 at 11:31 PM

mdgator05 said: ↑

I object to the framing of this as "left-wing" vs. "moderate." Honestly, I think those terms as a whole are outdated 20th Century notions around the role of government when the split was between bigger and smaller government. That isn't the split any longer.
Click to expand...

I still think left wing vs moderate is relevant. Left wing tends to be somewhere between skeptical and hostile to capitalism and still at least somewhat invested in identity politics and social justice, equality and equity. Moderates still believe in capitalism, the ability to be rich and successful, and serving for equality of opportunity. As a former 1990’s republican I’m definitely in the latter camp

I think the best way forward is not to attack either part of the party. In the article, there is a brief mention of the warfare that exists within the party between "factions." That is, ultimately, counter-productive. Perfection shouldn't be the enemy of getting things done.
Click to expand...

Of course warfare is not a precursor to success, but the party has to put some sort of markers that it does not believe in the ridiculous irrelevant issues like trans in sports and socialistic notions if it wants to capture the middle again.

I would broadly fall into the "abundance" camp politically. I tend to lean libertarian on a whole host of economic issues. But there are issues on which I think a left-wing position is popular and warranted. But I agree with the abundance people that those left-wing positions are almost impossible with the sclerotic government of today.
Click to expand...

While there may be some issues perhaps I lean libertarian it isn’t how I’ve ever described myself. I’ve always viewed most libertarian positions as impractical and unworkable.

So I would propose something less interesting for thought-pieces (one could make the argument that thought-pieces run the Democratic Party more than even "the groups") but more useful from a policy standpoint and more constructive for a long-term party. Here would be my planks, taken from each "side:"

1. Affordable housing: This is a complex goal, but I think it can be accomplished through a set of policies that come from a variety of perspectives. Start with the libertarian call for deregulation (the so-called YIMBY movement). Housing needs to be easier to construct in areas that have massive shortages. Second, there need to be local programs to promote remote work and the reallocation of people to areas with cheaper housing. This will help to normalize housing prices across the country some (raising them in areas that are cheaper now and further lowering them in expensive areas). I understand that companies don't all love remote work (and that some employees don't like it either), but many employees want it and it can be useful to solving the housing issues that have arisen as jobs have concentrated in cities.
Click to expand...

this and number 3 below sound like abundance agenda and really the only way you make progress on this is to scale back traditional democratic notions - NIMBY, DEI in hiring, made in America, union labor, environmental regulation etc. otherwise you can be like Biden and run on the concepts but ultimately accomplish little because of these conflicting priorities.

2. Student Loan Forgiveness: Now, here come the howls of disapproval from the more moderate factions. But, the reality is, this is extremely popular for people from about 25-45. I'm not opposed to implementing some service requirements and/or some hit to credit, but there needs to be a way out of this. Bankruptcy is a massively good program that hasn't harmed us economically in just about any other domain. Student loans shouldn't just get to perpetually hang over a person's life for the remainder of their life with no options. I also think that some smart write-off policy would work here, where it is unlikely that the government will ever receive that money but the debt just hangs around the neck of the recipient. It can be paired with reforms to lower future abuses of the programs (e.g., tying it to more demonstrable outcomes, restricting access to for-profit schools, etc.).
Click to expand...

I think forgiveness is a political noose. Absolutely avoid it. Having non college educated working class people bail out college educated middle and upper middle class people is terrible policy and bad politics.

Student loan reform may be palatable - the ability to refinance, convert to income based repayment options ,maybe some sort of bankruptcy like process etc.

3. Infrastructure reform: Infrastructure needs to be easier to build, especially when the infrastructure has positive spillover benefits. Green energy and mass transit approvals need to be dramatically simplified. But roads should be as well, especially as cars are switched to electric in the coming years. It shouldn't be so hard for the government to improve people's lives, ostensibly to protect people (an obvious contradiction). This should lower energy and transportation costs and might even somewhat improve housing costs.
Click to expand...

Look at how the I95 bridge rebuild in PA worked and model after that. The creation of jobs and infrastructure is more important than all of these other special interest policies that ultimately kill the implantation of the projects.

I think some subsidies for green energy is appropriate but I’m not sure we need to do massive credits for EVs etc. ultimately let the market decide.

If we are really serious about climate and going electric, let some Chinese EVs in.

4. Healthcare reform: ACA has been very successful. It is a good foundation for future healthcare plans (if you doubt this, notice the lack of alternatives being proposed by Republicans). The rate of inflation on healthcare has dramatically decreased since the passage of the law. But there are always going to be issues in profiting off of the medically crucial procedures. When people are forced to pay for a life-or-death procedure, they are not going to choose the "outside option" (death) very often. And local provision of these services have been concentrating into monopolies (many areas now have 1-2 hospital systems). Families will pay whatever it takes to keep their loved ones alive if they have a reasonable quality of life. One solution: creating a basic life/death insurance plan that is paid for by the government. Hospital systems would then need to be regulated and, at times, potentially assisted, to make sure that they have the resources to provide the care. What I would term "quality of life care" should remain market-based utilizing ACA frameworks.
Click to expand...

I’d like the idea of something a Medicaid public option, or maybe something like that, and or maybe something like what you are talking about that anybody would automatically qualify for. Maybe there would be premiums maybe not. At a minimum I think people should be able to at least get similar out of pocket rates as those negotiated by private insurance or maybe even Medicare.

5. Immigration: The immigration system is not a mess because of "the border" or not spending enough on the border. We spend billions of ever increasing dollars on the border. The issue is that immigration is completely detached from markets. When you disconnect from markets, black markets develop. The central government has implemented an absurdly onerous and bureaucratic nightmare of a system (e.g., immigrants today need to declare that they weren't supporters of Nazi Germany in the pre-war and World War II era). The last 100 years of immigration policy has failed. We need to build a modern system building on the basis of free markets. I'd suggest a massive exchange. If you are an employer and need employees, you register for the exchange. Then, potential immigrants sign up for the exchange and are vetted for anything that would deny them entry (e.g., major criminal infractions such as violent crime or fraud). They can do so in their home countries or at facilities on the border. Upon receiving an offer for a job, the employer is responsible for transporting the worker to their desired location. Fees from employers would fund the system (allowing the savings of billions per year on "security"). Wage floors are a complicated question (I would favor them in general and think they would dispel notions of "they are takin' our jerbs," but they run the risk of incentivizing illegal immigration even with the new system in place).
Click to expand...

Immigration is probably one to tread lightly on. You have to support a “secure border”. Instead support a process where we pick who we want to come in, and then perhaps assess an employee and employer non citizen immigrant tax. This way you allow labor to come in, but existing citizens can feel they aren’t being disadvantaged.

Something has to be done about the asylum process.

6. Maintain popular policies around gun ownership (push background and mental health checks hard) and abortion.
Click to expand...

I think abortion is a good issue for them but at the same time you have to acknowledge the complexity of the issue and be open to some sort of compromise - be willing to say you don’t support abortion on demand in all cases (which in reality mostly doesn’t exist )

Europe generally has earlier restrictions than Roe v wade, but has pretty liberal exceptions.

That is all that could be done in the short-term. In the long-term, I would love to see them push on issues that unite libertarian and left positions, such as substantially diminishing or getting rid of the war on drugs altogether.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what getting rid of war on drugs means. Experiments and legalization and decriminalization have generally failed. I’d prefer to see a sort of carrot and stick approach - offenders be given ample opportunity to recover via rehab or other medical interventions, and preventing a criminal record if one is successful. However having homeless meth and fentanyl addicts on the streets is unacceptable and if they are unwilling to give recovery a try then I don’t think prison should be off the table. I’ve known and talked to several recovered addicts / alcoholics that going to jail was what it took to motivate them to change.

As to fighting distribution from other countries, I’m almost sympathetic to Trumps POV - playing hardball. If terrorists were coming across the border and killing 100,000 a year we would bomb the offending country off the map.

G8tas · May 29, 2025 at 1:21 AM

g8orbill said: ↑

If 2 years down the road his plan has failed then I would say you were correct but I do not think that will happen.
Click to expand...

No you wouldn't

92gator · May 29, 2025 at 3:02 AM

I'll be damned....

Dems actually looking introspectively at what's wrong with their own bucket of shit party, rather than what's wrong with the party that cleaned their clocks and stole their mojo...

A good start, gentlemen.

Props.

reboundgtr · May 29, 2025 at 4:17 PM

92gator said: ↑

I'll be damned....

Dems actually looking introspectively at what's wrong with their own bucket of shit party, rather than what's wrong with the party that cleaned their clocks and stole their mojo...

A good start, gentlemen.

Props.
Click to expand...

Twice in one decade....

mdgator05 · May 29, 2025 at 5:12 PM

l_boy said: ↑

I still think left wing vs moderate is relevant. Left wing tends to be somewhere between skeptical and hostile to capitalism and still at least somewhat invested in identity politics and social justice, equality and equity. Moderates still believe in capitalism, the ability to be rich and successful, and serving for equality of opportunity. As a former 1990’s republican I’m definitely in the latter camp

Of course warfare is not a precursor to success, but the party has to put some sort of markers that it does not believe in the ridiculous irrelevant issues like trans in sports and socialistic notions if it wants to capture the middle again.

While there may be some issues perhaps I lean libertarian it isn’t how I’ve ever described myself. I’ve always viewed most libertarian positions as impractical and unworkable.

this and number 3 below sound like abundance agenda and really the only way you make progress on this is to scale back traditional democratic notions - NIMBY, DEI in hiring, made in America, union labor, environmental regulation etc. otherwise you can be like Biden and run on the concepts but ultimately accomplish little because of these conflicting priorities.

I think forgiveness is a political noose. Absolutely avoid it. Having non college educated working class people bail out college educated middle and upper middle class people is terrible policy and bad politics.

Student loan reform may be palatable - the ability to refinance, convert to income based repayment options ,maybe some sort of bankruptcy like process etc.

Look at how the I95 bridge rebuild in PA worked and model after that. The creation of jobs and infrastructure is more important than all of these other special interest policies that ultimately kill the implantation of the projects.

I think some subsidies for green energy is appropriate but I’m not sure we need to do massive credits for EVs etc. ultimately let the market decide.

If we are really serious about climate and going electric, let some Chinese EVs in.

I’d like the idea of something a Medicaid public option, or maybe something like that, and or maybe something like what you are talking about that anybody would automatically qualify for. Maybe there would be premiums maybe not. At a minimum I think people should be able to at least get similar out of pocket rates as those negotiated by private insurance or maybe even Medicare.

Immigration is probably one to tread lightly on. You have to support a “secure border”. Instead support a process where we pick who we want to come in, and then perhaps assess an employee and employer non citizen immigrant tax. This way you allow labor to come in, but existing citizens can feel they aren’t being disadvantaged.

Something has to be done about the asylum process.

I think abortion is a good issue for them but at the same time you have to acknowledge the complexity of the issue and be open to some sort of compromise - be willing to say you don’t support abortion on demand in all cases (which in reality mostly doesn’t exist )

Europe generally has earlier restrictions than Roe v wade, but has pretty liberal exceptions.

I’m not sure what getting rid of war on drugs means. Experiments and legalization and decriminalization have generally failed. I’d prefer to see a sort of carrot and stick approach - offenders be given ample opportunity to recover via rehab or other medical interventions, and preventing a criminal record if one is successful. However having homeless meth and fentanyl addicts on the streets is unacceptable and if they are unwilling to give recovery a try then I don’t think prison should be off the table. I’ve known and talked to several recovered addicts / alcoholics that going to jail was what it took to motivate them to change.

As to fighting distribution from other countries, I’m almost sympathetic to Trumps POV - playing hardball. If terrorists were coming across the border and killing 100,000 a year we would bomb the offending country off the map.
Click to expand...

Okay, I am going to try to be measured here, but this is the problem with "the moderates" just as much as with "the groups:" literally no give. You mention being a 90s Republican. Yep, you just outlined basically every 90s Republican position with a bit more give (but not too much) on abortion.

Frankly, that isn't a winning coalition. Heck, it wasn't a winning coalition in the 90s (as you would lose the religious right).

The notion of a "middle" is outdated because it presupposes a right and a left on every issue. You don't have to look around too much to see that isn't really the case. The right-wing is backing tariffs and an overall control economy (e.g., we literally are going to have state-owned steel apparently). And, I would argue, the 90s Republican position is hardly pure on capitalism either (e.g., drug and immigration policy being heavily based on regulations and central planning). In the end, politics isn't a one dimensional Hotelling Line, with a left and a right. It has a lot of dimensions, functional forms, and shapes.

So if you are unable to work with either the left (because you seem to have a visceral dislike of them) or the libertarians (because you think their ideas are stupid or unworkable), then how useful would you say your position is in developing a coalition of ideologies/positions that are left out by Trumpism?

So the question becomes, what is more important: a 90s Republican Party with slightly more (but not too much) abortion and gay rights flexibility (but none for Trans people) that loses or a coalition that might not match "the middle" of the 90s understanding of politics but which might win by attracting multiple ideologies left out of Trumpism?

In other words, what are you trying to win in this war? If it is a world in which the 90s sensibility of "the middle" is going to be a winning coalition, I am sorry, but it isn't going to happen.

How about, rather than a war against the people harmed by Trumpism, you instead try to reach out and find common grounds where you can and swallow a couple of issues of great importance to others in order to actually protect and save the country from authoritarianism? That sounds like a lot less than you are asking for them to do.

VAg8r1 · May 29, 2025 at 5:59 PM

Before anyone writes the obituary of the Democratic Party, remember this article from 2009 regarding the Republican Party.
Just Five Red States Left?

vegasfox · May 29, 2025 at 6:38 PM

Democrats have a plan to win back young male voters

l_boy · May 29, 2025 at 11:18 PM

mdgator05 said: ↑

Okay, I am going to try to be measured here, but this is the problem with "the moderates" just as much as with "the groups:" literally no give. You mention being a 90s Republican. Yep, you just outlined basically every 90s Republican position with a bit more give (but not too much) on abortion.

Frankly, that isn't a winning coalition. Heck, it wasn't a winning coalition in the 90s (as you would lose the religious right).

The notion of a "middle" is outdated because it presupposes a right and a left on every issue. You don't have to look around too much to see that isn't really the case. The right-wing is backing tariffs and an overall control economy (e.g., we literally are going to have state-owned steel apparently). And, I would argue, the 90s Republican position is hardly pure on capitalism either (e.g., drug and immigration policy being heavily based on regulations and central planning). In the end, politics isn't a one dimensional Hotelling Line, with a left and a right. It has a lot of dimensions, functional forms, and shapes.

So if you are unable to work with either the left (because you seem to have a visceral dislike of them) or the libertarians (because you think their ideas are stupid or unworkable), then how useful would you say your position is in developing a coalition of ideologies/positions that are left out by Trumpism?

So the question becomes, what is more important: a 90s Republican Party with slightly more (but not too much) abortion and gay rights flexibility (but none for Trans people) that loses or a coalition that might not match "the middle" of the 90s understanding of politics but which might win by attracting multiple ideologies left out of Trumpism?

In other words, what are you trying to win in this war? If it is a world in which the 90s sensibility of "the middle" is going to be a winning coalition, I am sorry, but it isn't going to happen.

How about, rather than a war against the people harmed by Trumpism, you instead try to reach out and find common grounds where you can and swallow a couple of issues of great importance to others in order to actually protect and save the country from authoritarianism? That sounds like a lot less than you are asking for them to do.
Click to expand...

I think you’ve kind of exaggerated and contorted my positions, but I’m not going to spend a lot of time rebutting them.

Of course you need a coalition to win. But if the Democratic Party must continue to surrender to those who stand in the way of tangible progress, it will have a hard time replicating those wins because it won’t accomplish anything.

You have people like Ezra Klein staking out similar positions.

mdgator05 · May 29, 2025 at 11:52 PM

l_boy said: ↑

I think you’ve kind of exaggerated and contorted my positions, but I’m not going to spend a lot of time rebutting them.

Of course you need a coalition to win. But if the Democratic Party must continue to surrender to those who stand in the way of tangible progress, it will have a hard time replicating those wins because it won’t accomplish anything.

You have people like Ezra Klein staking out similar positions.
Click to expand...

The problem is: the "moderates" are just as guilty of standing in the way of progress. Talk to young voters about what they need/want in regards to the economy. They will almost inevitably say "Housing is too expensive" or "Student loans are killing us" or both. Harris (housing) and Biden (student loans) tried to deal with each issue. The knives sticking out of their back the second they tried to do so didn't belong to some environmental justice organization. They belonged to the moderates who were outraged that Democrats were trying to meet the needs of younger voters. And, in turn, when Gaza happens, they have no goodwill built up among younger voters to prevent them from turning their back on the party. Which they did. In mass. And not because of trans sports. Because the party's "moderates" wouldn't hear of the party trying to help them.

Log in

Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community

The coming Democratic civil war

mdgator05 Premium Member

vaxcardinal GC Hall of Fame

g8orbill Old Gator Moderator VIP Member

g8orbill Old Gator Moderator VIP Member

WC53 GC Hall of Fame

citygator GC Hall of Fame

reboundgtr VIP Member

l_boy 5500

G8tas GC Hall of Fame

92gator GC Hall of Fame

reboundgtr VIP Member

mdgator05 Premium Member

VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

vegasfox GC Hall of Fame

l_boy 5500

mdgator05 Premium Member

Log in

Chat

Forums

Insiders Only

Free Sports

Plaza

Members

Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community

The coming Democratic civil war

mdgator05 Premium Member

vaxcardinal GC Hall of Fame

g8orbill Old Gator Moderator VIP Member

g8orbill Old Gator Moderator VIP Member

WC53 GC Hall of Fame

citygator GC Hall of Fame

reboundgtr VIP Member

l_boy 5500

G8tas GC Hall of Fame

92gator GC Hall of Fame

reboundgtr VIP Member

mdgator05 Premium Member

VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

vegasfox GC Hall of Fame

l_boy 5500

mdgator05 Premium Member