The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Matt Drudge: ‘Hello Colorado Republicans, even Iraqis get a vote’
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... ublicans-even-iraqis-get-vote/
Published: Apr 12, 2016
Author: Alex Swoyer
Post Date: 2016-04-12 17:02:39 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 11832
Comments: 72
Matt Drudge: ‘Hello Colorado Republicans, even Iraqis get a vote’ by Alex Swoyer Matt Drudge is weighing in on the results in Colorado, where Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) received at least 30 of the 37 delegates following the state Republican Party Convention last weekend. “Does George Bush have to invade Colorado to make it a Democracy? STUNNING Republicans had NO PRIMARY or CAUCUS. At least Dems are faking it!” Drudge posted on Twitter. Hello Colorado Republicans, even Iraqis get a vote! http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/trump-erupts-as-cruz-sweeps-colorado-without-votes/ 8:48 AM - 11 Apr 2016 When Republican party leaders decided not to hold a primary or caucus in Colorado, The Denver Post reported: During a campaign rally on Monday night, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump called Colorado “a fix” because instead of holding an election, the GOP decided to do it through delegates.
12 Apr 2016
Washington, DC MATT DRUDGE
@DRUDGE The Colorado system often favors anti-establishment candidates who draw a dedicated following among activists — as evidenced by Rick Santorum’s victory in 2012 caucus. So the party’s move may hurt GOP contenders such as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who would have received a boost if they won the state.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-32) not displayed.
.
.
.
#33. To: SOSO (#31)
How so? You were entirely free to participate in the CO GOP conventions. There will be an election in the fall. As a voter you will be able to exercise your right. If you want a party that allows you to vote for primary candidates, change the CO GOP (and the Dims who have the same system). Or go start your own party. Then try to convince the D's & R's in the CO legislature to spend the money to stage expensive primaries again as they did before the 2004 election year.
What was the result of the popular vote of the people?
Yes, minus the bullshit being spun, it is, by design, a system that says f*ck you to the voter. The system went around the voter becuase if there were a vote of the people, it would have been mandatory to bind the delegates for the first round of the convention in accord with the vote of the people. They couldn't have that, so they created a system where they could select delegates with no regard for the will of the people. They can then just lie about what they did. Their only problem is Trump (and now Drudge) is telling everybody what they did.
Yes, and I am entirely free to run for Congress, the Senate, Governor, even POTUS. Wow, lucky me. It is just my own damn fault that I didn't run for any of theses offices that I free to do. "There will be an election in the fall. As a voter you will be able to exercise your right." There was just an election in CO in which as a voter I did not have the chance to vote for the candidate of my choice. The RNC will do to all of the voters what the CO REP Party did to those of us in CO. F*ck the REP Party, f*ck the RNC, f*ck all those "elected" REP federal officials that lied to us every bit a much as the Emperor Obama and gave Obama everything he wanted. F*ck them all. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
WHAT Colorado did, WHY they did it, and an EDITORIAL ABOUT it. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28700919/colorado-republicans-cancel-2016-presidential-caucus-vote Move makes Colorado only state to date to opt out of early nomination process By John Frank EDITOR'S NOTE: This story was first published on Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2015 at 2:06 p.m. Please see Angry Donald Trump blasts Colorado GOP results as "totally unfair," published on Sunday, April 10, 2016. Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may diminish the state's clout in the most open nomination contest in the modern era. The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state's delegates to support the candidate who wins the caucus vote. The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule. "It takes Colorado completely off the map" in the primary season, said Ryan Call, a former state GOP chairman. Republicans still will hold precinct caucus meetings in early 2016 to begin the process of selecting delegates for the national convention — but the 37 delegates are not pledged to any specific candidate. The Democratic Party still will hold a presidential straw poll March 1 — a Super Tuesday vote in a key swing state that is attracting attention from top-tier candidates. For Republicans, no declared winner means the caucus will lack much of its hype. The presidential campaigns still may try to win delegate slots for their supporters, but experts say the move makes it less likely that candidates will visit Colorado to court voters. The Colorado system often favors anti-establishment candidates who draw a dedicated following among activists — as evidenced by Rick Santorum's victory in 2012 caucus. So the party's move may hurt GOP contenders such as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Rand Paul, who would have received a boost if they won the state. State Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party's 24-member executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members were absent — to skip the preference poll. The move, he said, would give Colorado delegates the freedom to support any candidate eligible at the Cleveland convention in July. Republican National Committee officials confirmed that the change complies with party rules. "If we do a binding presidential preference poll, we would then pledge our delegates ... and the candidates we bind them to may not be in the race by the time we get to the convention," House said in an interview Tuesday. The caucus is likely to occur in February, but party officials will meet next month to finalize the date. In 2008 and 2012, die-hard Republican voters gathered at caucus meetings to begin the delegate-selection process of selecting delegates to the national convention and voice support for presidential candidates in a straw poll. The votes, however, didn't require Colorado delegates to support any particular candidate at the national conventions. This allowed for delegates that supported a losing candidate to vote for the nominee and demonstrate party unity at the convention. But the freedom also opened the door for political mischief, as Colorado saw in 2012 when Ron Paul supporters managed to win a significant portion of the delegate slots, even though Paul finished far behind other candidates in the Colorado caucuses. The RNC tightened the rules in 2012 to eliminate nonbinding straw polls and help prevent similar stunts in the future, forcing Colorado Republicans to re-evaluate their process. An effort earlier this year to switch to a presidential primary system failed amid party infighting. "It's an odd scenario," said Josh Putnam, a political science lecturer at the University of Georgia who runs a popular blog on the presidential nominating process. "It's not to say the campaigns won't be there. ... But you won't have a good reflection of support at the caucuses, much less Colorado Republicans as a whole." Other caucus states are grappling with the rule change in different ways as they finalize their plans before the deadline at the end of September, Putnam said, but he is not aware of any state that has abandoned the presidential caucus vote. With the change, the only way Colorado Republican delegates would remain relevant is the remote chance that no candidate emerges as a clear winner in the primary contest. In this case, the state's unbound delegates would receive significant attention and may hold the key to victory in a floor fight. "If there's the potential for a brokered convention in any way, the unaffiliated delegates become extremely important," said Joy Hoffman, the Arapahoe County GOP chairwoman who attended the party meeting. "If there is someone who becomes a front-runner, ... then nobody's important. So I think the view became that if we were not bound, it's not the worse thing that could happen." http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_29563108/colorado-gop-blundered-2016-presidential-caucus Colorado GOP blundered on 2016 presidential caucus Republicans made big mistake in abandoning presidential tally By The Denver Post Editorial Board Posted: 02/27/2016 05:00:00 PM MST The Colorado Republican Party's decision last summer to jettison a presidential poll at its caucus on Tuesday looks worse with every passing day. Except for the actual delegates to July's national convention, Colorado Republicans who want to have a say in the future of their party have mostly been stripped of a role in the most interesting and surprising nominating struggle in decades. They'll stand on the sidelines on Super Tuesday while other states determine whether Donald Trump continues his march toward a possible nomination or whether his rivals can slow him down. Meanwhile, local airwaves have been featuring ads on behalf of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, since the Democrats are still holding a traditional caucus at which participants get to signal their support for a candidate. It's known as democracy. The Colorado Republican executive committee needs to reacquaint itself with the concept. GOP leaders have never provided a satisfactory reason for forgoing a presidential preference poll, although party chairman Steve House suggested on radio at one point that too many Republicans would otherwise flock to their local caucus. Imagine that: party officials fearing that an interesting race might propel thousands of additional citizens to participate. But of course that might dilute the influence of elites and insiders. You can see why that could upset the faint-hearted. By contrast, far-sighted party leaders should have welcomed the extra attention to their caucus and the potential activism on the party's behalf it would have spawned. Admittedly, one thing has changed since the GOP executive committee made its decision on a preference poll: It appears somewhat more likely today that no candidate will have wrapped up the nomination by convention time. But even if that ends up being the case, it will be no great boon to Colorado's uncommitted delegates. If no candidate has enough votes on the first ballot to secure the nomination, delegates will be free to vote for anyone they like anyway. It's bad enough the two parties in Colorado don't have presidential primaries in which many more voters would participate. The caucuses already limit participation to a narrow slice of the electorate. But the fact that the Republican leadership then took matters a step further and deprived even that narrow slice of voters a voice in one of the most competitive, consequential political nominations in memory - and perhaps in history - is mindboggling. It's likely that some Republicans who show up Tuesday will be surprised to learn their presidential preference is of no consequence. Perhaps someone should be on hand to explain to them why party democracy is apparently too disruptive and unpredictable to be trusted.
The CO REP Party has a history of screwing the pooch in recent U.S. Senator and Governor races. There was no way that Senator Bennet should have won in 2010 but the REP f*cked up and put up a total loser to run against Bennet. They did even worse with their candidate for Governor that year. CO easily could currently have two REP Senators and a REP Governor. It would be charitable to believe that they were just the gang that couldn't shoot straight but there is something fundamental wrong, if not corrupt, with the CO REP Party PTB. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Trump didn't win Colorado because he was too lazy to go there and too disorganized to field a qualified ground team. So now the entire GOP is corrupt and evil and the RNC is plotting against poor Donald.
Wasn't that the Tancredo disaster where the CO GOP lost major party status for an election cycle? You're leaving a lot out of your account of the CO GOP.
There is only one election this year and it will be held in November, just as it always has been. You chose not to participate in Colorado's GOP caucus, unlike 65,000 Colorado Republicans who did choose to participate. But that caucus is not and never has been an election. And it was not an election even in 2000 and earlier Colorado primaries where the entire public was allowed to vote.
These caucuses are private events by a private party, the Republican party of Colorado. Voters have no right to intrude on a private party's functions. The voters will, as always, be entitled to participate in the election which will be held, as always, in November. Primaries and caucuses are not elections. They are private party events. In most states, the parties do allow the public to participate. In some states, they are closed (Republicans-only), partially-open (to Republicans and indies) , or fully open (to Republicans, Dems, indies). In others, they have caucuses which are private party events.
you like Trump and Hillary because there is very little difference there. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
you are backing Trump which means you definitely want a Dem. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
I've been labeled all over the spectrum by people who don't know what they are talking about . In the other forum I was on ,they thought I was to the right of Ghengis Khan. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
I heard estimates that up to 60,000 Republicans participated in the conventions around the state . "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Trump was certainly suprised by the process . Completely unacceptable from someone who is running on a record of winning and competent leadership. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Did you attend your precinct caucus and vote for your precinct's delegates to the state convention in Colorado Springs?
That was part of the same election. The CO REP Party appears to be tightly controlled by a handful of people that do not want We The People looking over their shoulder or bothering them in any way. The process is what it is. Trump screwed the pooch here, that's on him. But as for the REP Party representing the people, that is a farce. CO's population is about 5.6 million. Even if only 1/4 are registered REPs that's 1.4 million. If only 1/4 of those would actually vote that would be 350,000 - far more than the reported 65,000, which is less than 1.2% of the state's population and less than 5% of the state's registered REPs. IMO that is pure BS. It is a process designed to keep tight control on the doings of the party, nothing else. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
"TRUTH IS GREAT AND WILL PREVAIL" Stupid American founders - what did they know about building brothels in Moscow anyhow.
How did they control your neighborhood caucus?
The result was that we sent our neighbors to represent us as per the framework of laws/rules set in place to govern the process. It's a REPUBLIC - not a Tyranny of the Majority, Comrade.
Taking the example in front of us, let's assume that the GOP in Colorado (and elsewhere) are faced with 1/3 of their voters who are dead-set on nominating an idiot who is unelectable. I'm not sure what argument you can muster. More than that, all of those Colorado GOP voters did have a chance to participate. They chose not to. And now, when it's too late, they want to whine about it.
How did they control your neighborhood caucus? Are you that naïve? The REP Party makes the rules. They count on the inconvenience factor for one thing knowing full well that most people have other things in their life going on. Why have most states adopted early voting by mail? I remind you that only 1% of the Russian population were members of the Communist Party - and the party PTB wanted it that way. Even a place like Chicago were there is no pretense that the system isn't tightly controlled by corrupt politicians and party bosses there is a primary. I am not categorically against a caucus system, in an ideal world it may be represent a purer form of grass roots voter participation. You say that you are in CO. Then please explain to me how the REP Party lost both the Bennet and Hickenlooper elections when both were very beatable, especially Bennet who voted for ObamaCare. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I'm not sure what argument you can muster. The other 2/3 would prevail. "And now, when it's too late, they want to whine about it." I am not whining about it. If I hadn't left the CO REP years ago because of how inept and exclusionary the Party PTB are the changing of the rules this election would have done it. The people that still support the CO REP Party deserve what they get. "More than that, all of those Colorado GOP voters did have a chance to participate. They chose not to." LMAO. Riiiiiight........ You remind me of that old joke about the guy who complained about the hotel manager charging him for room service which the guy never used it. The manager said hey, the service was available to you you chose not use it. Then the guy presented a bill for the services of the guy's wife. When the manager protested saying he would not pay it the guy said hey, she was available to you you chose not to use her. Why have most states adopted early voting by mail? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You are ignorant. Trump: re-establish good relations with Russia, do not resist them in their sphere of influence in return for their not resisting us in ours - join with them in the fight on terror: we police our allies the Saudis, they police their allies the Iranians and Syrians. End the Ukraine crisis, scale American participation in European NATO way back, and require the Europeans to pay the full cost of everything that remains. If they will not, withdraw all US forces from Europe. Make peace with Russia and do not engage in another Cold War. In Asia, place the economic burden of defending Korea and Japan and Taiwan on the Koreans, Japanese and Taiwanese. Impose tarriffs on China. In the Americas: build a wall to stop illegal aliens and drug flows. Deport the aliens. Clinton: a no-fly zone in Syria, expand the Cold War vs. Russia, Israel first in the Middle East, free trade with China, keep the US fully engaged in NATO and Asia, at American expense; no wall, no enforcement, no tarriffs. In short, Clinton and Trump are polar opposites on foreign policy. Your statement that there is "very little difference between them" is ignorant. However, there IS very, very little foreign policy difference between Hillary and Cruz. They agree on Russia, on Asia, on trade.
nothing like good ole 19th century great power politics . Maybe we can have a 21st century Congress of Berlin to carve up the world . That system worked well ,until 1914. "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Clinton: Reset. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That system worked well for the two great superpowers of the age: France and Britain, in World War I and World War II. They came out the winner in both wars, and everybody who sought to upset the applecart was ultimately destroyed. The French and British suffered a lot, but they won. Had France and Britain continued their traditional fratricide, the Germans would have taken over the world. But the Germans lost in the end BECAUSE France and Britain set aside the enmity of 1000 years and became allies "in the linked and steadfast guard, set for peace on Earth" (under those two flags). The French and the British never fought again, and never will. So yes, just like before 1914. Today, the menacing forces are Communist China and the neo-Ottoman Muslims. And Russia and America need to be each other's England and France to face this. Of course England and France are also still our allies, so they can come along for the ride, as can the Germans and the Italians and the rest of our empire, if they so choose.
Clinton has neither the competence nor the goodwill of Donald Trump.
But Dollar Donald will make her POTUS. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
No he won't. Trump will make himself POTUS, if he can. If he's the nominee, he'll beat her like a drum because he's a lot more likable, because his ideas are better, and because the Republicans will come to the realization that if they lose the Presidency, they lose the Supreme Court, and if they lose the Supreme Court, they lose control of the law. Or the Republicans will block Trump by cheating. Then they will ensure the election of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, because the Trump voters will vote Democrat as revenge for having been cheated out of their due. Trump, a Republican Congress and a Republican Supreme Court. Or Hillary, a Democrat Senate (at least) and a Democrat Supreme Court. Or Bernie, a Democrat Senate (at least) and a Democrat Supreme Court. Those are your choices, like it or not.
There is no hope for a Trump dupe. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I am full of hope. I'm either going to get great foreign policy and a continuation of the judicial regime (if Trump wins), or I'm going to get better economic policy (if Hillary or Bernie wins). Cruz will never get close to winning. I have no doubt whatever about that. So there is plenty of hope for me, across the board. There's none for you, because you're going to get Trump, whom you despise, or Hillary, whom you despise, or - an outside chance - Bernie Sanders, whom you despise. Anyway you look at it, I win. Anyway you look at it, you lose. And that's a very good place to be, for me. For you, not so much. I wish there were a way to persuade you to see things differently, but only bitter future experience will do so.
To you, maybe - his negatives have been consistently higher than Clinton's. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Clinton isn't the issue: she's not running for the GOP nomination. Cruz is. The GOP may cheat Trump out of the nomination and foist off Cruz on the party. Indeed, that's what I gather you want. If you get what you wish for, the next thing you will see is Cruz spiral down the toilet, overwhelmingly rejected by the American people. The people who haven't voted in years, or who never before voted Republican, will go home or vote Democrat in revenge, and you'll lose Congress for good measure. Hillary will start with a mandate and command of all three branches of government (not that Republican control of Congress has made any difference whatever), and the Democrats have already nuked the filibuster in the Senate, so at long last we will have untrammeled one party rule, something we have not seen since FDR. And Hillary Clinton will hold the reins of power. Your ilk will try to blame Donald Trump and his voters, but nobody will be listening. And things you hold dear, which Trump WOULD HAVE protected, will be washed away forever, because you decided to go on a kamikaze jihad against your own side. For my part, I won't be unhappy with Democrat rule. I'll be happier with Trump rule, and you would be too - more, at least, than you will be with the alternate. But the Republican Establishment types are hellbent on Pickett's Charge. So, charge away, into the guns, and go down, and doom your Cause forever and ever. The South never rose again, and neither will the Republican Party. I'll bring the popcorn and watch.
Sure she is - you claimed "he'll [Trump] beat her like a drum because he's a lot more likable." As I said, his negatives have been consistently higher than Clinton's. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Did you go to your caucus or not? At ours folks also voted on various resolutions to be passed up the chain. YMMV
Are you now speaking in tongues? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Your Mileage May Vary. Did you go to your precinct caucus or not?
I told you that I deregistered as a REP in CO years ago. I get fed up over how the cabal that calls itself the CO REP Party kept on screwing the pooch and losing state and federal elections that should have been run. Don't ask me again what I did instead. Just assume that I am that single Mom with 4 kids at home that would have to had pay a babysitter to participate in each of the meetings that ultimately resulted in all of the cabal committing to Cruz. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
My wife and I took our 10 year old daughter to the 1 (one) caucus meeting that was held in a High School classroom so our neighborhood could select the delegates we wanted to represent us at the state convention. There were other families with kids there too. I'll just assume you're talking out of your lazy opinionated ass from now on.
If that isn't a system that says f*ck you to the voter nothing is.
#34. To: VxH (#29)
It's an odd process, but it's not accurate to say "the people didn't get to vote".
#35. To: SOSO, VxH, A K A Stone, TooConservative (#31)
f that isn't a system that says f*ck you to the voter nothing is.
#36. To: tooconservative (#33)
You were entirely free to participate in the CO GOP conventions.
#37. To: SOSO, VxH, A K A Stone, TooConservative (#31)
Colorado Republicans cancel presidential vote at 2016 caucus
The Denver Post
Posted: 08/25/2015 02:06:20 PM MDT
Updated: a day ago [captured 4/12/2016] Editorials
Updated: about a month ago [captured 4/12/2016]
#38. To: nolu chan, VxH, A K A Stone, TooConservative (#37)
Imagine that: party officials fearing that an interesting race might propel thousands of additional citizens to participate. But of course that might dilute the influence of elites and insiders. You can see why that could upset the faint-hearted.
#39. To: nolu chan, VxH, SOSO (#34)
(Edited)
What was the result of the popular vote of the people?
#40. To: SOSO (#38)
They did even worse with their candidate for Governor that year.
#41. To: SOSO (#36)
There was just an election in CO
#42. To: nolu chan (#35)
Yes, minus the bullshit being spun, it is, by design, a system that says f*ck you to the voter.
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
And y'know what? I'm good with that. Because, you see, I like Trump a lot, but I agree with a great deal of Hillary's economics, and I've always said I don't care about gun control either way.
#44. To: A K A Stone (#21)
The Republican party is dead to me. I will not vote for any of them. You guys want deomcrats
#45. To: buckeroo, A K A Stone (#24)
blah blah blahblah. You're [tomder55] a soviet wannabe.
#46. To: tooconservative (#33)
If that isn't a system that says f*ck you to the voter nothing is...... How so? You were entirely free to participate in the CO GOP conventions.
#47. To: nolu chan, TooConservative (#37)
It's likely that some Republicans who show up Tuesday will be surprised to learn their presidential preference is of no consequence.
#48. To: SOSO (#31)
I live in CO and the CO REP Party did not provide me and every other person that may have been inclined to vote in the state party's party a chance to vote for the candidate of my choice..
#49. To: tooconservative (#40)
Wasn't that the Tancredo disaster where the CO GOP lost major party status for an election cycle?
#50. To: tooconservative (#39)
(Edited)
Trump didn't win Colorado because he was too lazy...
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786
#51. To: SOSO (#49)
The CO REP Party appears to be tightly controlled by a handful of people
#52. To: nolu chan (#34)
(Edited)
What was the result of the popular vote of the people?
#53. To: SOSO (#49)
#54. To: VxH (#51)
The CO REP Party appears to be tightly controlled by a handful of people
#55. To: tooconservative (#53)
Taking the example in front of us, let's assume that the GOP in Colorado (and elsewhere) are faced with 1/3 of their voters who are dead-set on nominating an idiot who is unelectable.
#56. To: tomder55 (#43)
you like Trump and Hillary because there is very little difference there.
#57. To: Vicomte13, TooConservative, Redleghunter (#56)
do not resist them in their sphere of influence in return for their not resisting us in ours
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
Trump: re-establish good relations with Russia,
#59. To: tomder55 (#57)
That system worked well ,until 1914.
#60. To: SOSO (#58)
Clinton: Reset.
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
Clinton has neither the competence nor the goodwill of Donald Trump.
#62. To: SOSO (#61)
But Dollar Donald will make her POTUS.
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
Trump will make himself POTUS, if he can. If he's the nominee, he'll beat her like a drum because he's a lot more likable, because his ideas are better, and because the Republicans will come to the realization that if they lose the Presidency, they lose the Supreme Court, and if they lose the Supreme Court, they lose control of the law.
#64. To: SOSO (#63)
There is no hope for a Trump dupe.
#65. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
he's a lot more likable
#66. To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
(Edited)
To you, maybe - his negatives have been consistently higher than Clinton's.
#67. To: Vicomte13 (#66)
Clinton isn't the issue
#68. To: SOSO (#54)
The REP Party makes the rules
#69. To: VxH (#68)
YMMV
#70. To: SOSO (#69)
#71. To: VxH (#70)
Did you go to your precinct caucus or not?
#72. To: SOSO (#71)
(Edited)
Just assume that I am that single Mom with 4 kids at home that would have to had pay a babysitter to participate in each of the meetings
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]