Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 7 of 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7431
Reputation: 297.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think what tends to be understated about the 2016 Presidential win is how Michigan (for example) was won.

The President won Michigan by around 11,000 votes;

When he campaigned in Detroit on August 7th and when he attended service at Great Faith Ministries Church in Detroit in September he was hammered by Republicans who felt he was campaigning in an unwinnable area and Democrats for having the audacity to campaign in such a consistent Democrat area.

What makes it so interesting is while the President got hammered in Wayne County (Detroit) as was expected (777,838 Clinton, 228,993 Trump) he still did better than Romeny did in 2012 (213,814 Vs. 228,993) and basically 15,000 votes better than Romeny which is larger than the margin he won Michigan by.

While a Republican may not win Wayne country for a long time;
The growth in an area that was overwhelmingly Democrat was largely enough to win 16 electoral votes for the President.


Last edited by cosmostein on Fri Aug 18, 2017 4:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4134
Reputation: 238.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's worse than that. There is, to date, no direct evidence of any collusion whatever between the Republican campaign and the Russian government. The story has evolved, and they claim now that the Russians were behind the Wikileaks revelations the most damaging of which was proof that they DNC threw the nomination to Hillary, and that Bernie was cheated.

The Democrats refused to let the FBI examine the server in an investigation. To date, no agency of the US government has examined the possibly hacked server.

On top of that, there seems to be an orchestrated campaign of 'leaks'against the Trump gang, which play on this theme. Most of these leaks, and particularly those that reveal names, are felonies. Many of these leaks appear to be coming from inside the intelligence community and the DoJ and FBI.

These are widely accepted as facts. Is it too early to be concerned that this is a criminal conspiracy to depose a duly elected President? It is, after all, exactly the kind of things some of these intelligence agencies do, from time to time, in foreign countries. These are some of the techniques of regime change.

Let's just let our minds go one more step down that path. If there is such a criminal conspiracy, it means the heart of the American state is corrupt, perhaps even treasonous. It means President Obama was likely involved. That's a frightening thought. I don't know this is the case, but let's face it -- it's one of about three plausibly possible scenarios, and I don't know what the other two would be.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7431
Reputation: 297.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Michigan Senate Race certainly just got interesting;

Quote:
Could Kid Rock really have a chance at becoming a U.S. Senator? A new poll suggests it’s possible.

The poll, by the Trafalgar Group, shows that Kid Rock, whose real name is Robert Ritchie, actually has a lead in the race against Democrat Debbie Stabenow when you count leaning voters, although it’s in the margin for error. And he hasn’t even started campaigning yet. Trafalgar Group, a small polling company based in Atlanta, correctly predicted that Donald Trump would win Michigan and Pennsylvania when most pollsters said otherwise.


http://heavy.com/news/2017/07/.....t-ritchie/
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4134
Reputation: 238.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is frightening. I don't mean that Kid Rock is particularly threatening. I mean the power of celebrities at the polls is getting out of hand. Imagine Lady Ga Ga proceeding along Hillary's path to the presidency!

Some of them may pan out, but if Donald Trump inspires Wolf Blitzer to wonder what it'd be like to be the President ... maybe we should turn back from this particular precipice soon.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7431
Reputation: 297.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
This is frightening. I don't mean that Kid Rock is particularly threatening. I mean the power of celebrities at the polls is getting out of hand. Imagine Lady Ga Ga proceeding along Hillary's path to the presidency!

Some of them may pan out, but if Donald Trump inspires Wolf Blitzer to wonder what it'd be like to be the President ... maybe we should turn back from this particular precipice soon.


Your point is very well taken;
I saw a poll the other day that had "The Rock" polling at over 50% for the Presidency in 2020 for goodness sake.

The reason I found this entire Kid Rock thing interesting is that its seemingly another seat in play.

While we are more than a year out and its certainly early, its a situation where in terms of seats up for grabs you have North Dakota, West Virgina, Montana, Missouri, and Indiana on the Democrat side as generally "Toss Up" seats.

Whereas you have Nevada on the GOP side that is in play;

If any polling in Michigan is to be believed is this fairly safe Democrat seat now in play?
Even early this month we started seeing pretty consistent polling that Sherrod Brown is polling behind Josh Mandel in Ohio.

While the obvious play is that the Democrats want to take the House and the Senate in 2018, based on what we are seeing with early numbers the Democrats really need to concern themselves with the potential of the GOP securing a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in 2018.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4134
Reputation: 238.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As an illustration ...

Quote:
Michael Moore: “Who Wouldn’t Vote For Tom Hanks For President?” – Watch “The View” Video

By Shari Weiss | 12:22 pm, August 3, 2017

Michael Moore said on “The View” on Thursday that Democrats should run a celebrity in the 2020 presidential election. He even suggested Tom Hanks and other stars.

Moore began his appearance on the ABC talk show by stressing that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, and it was the “archaic” electoral college that prevented her from actually becoming president. He went on to say, “We need to run a beloved American in 2020.” That led Whoopi Goldberg to hilariously interject and exclaim, “No, I won’t!”

But Moore actually didn’t think that was such a bad idea, telling her, “You run and Michelle Obama as your running mate!” When Jedediah Bila questioned whether Donald Trump has proven that celebrity isn’t enough to govern, he responded, “The celebrities on our side, first of all, are smart. If we ran Al Franken, ran Tom Hanks — who wouldn’t vote for Tom Hanks for president of the United States? C’mon! Or Oprah!”
https://www.gossipcop.com/michael-moore-tom-hanks-president-celebrity-video-the-view-interview-watch/
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7431
Reputation: 297.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In Theory I am sure Tom Hanks would do very well in areas that Hillary Clinton did very well; However that isn't going to help you win the Presidency.

The challenge the Democrats and their supporters are going to have to face shortly sooner or later you need to bury the rhetoric and realize the electoral system isn't going to change in order to accommodate them. We get it, Hillary Clinton would have won an election to be President of California by more than 4.2 votes, however outside of that California margin you have a candidate that lost the rest of the country by more than a million votes, 10 States, and nearly 80 Electoral votes.

If they want to win within the system as it will be in 2020 its time to stop talking down to middle America and this Tom Hanks, Dwayne Johnson, Hollywood nonsense is largely why they are so popular around the edges of the country but why they are losing support in the middle of it.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4134
Reputation: 238.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sadly, I think you underestimate the power of celebrity. I remember Margaret Wente's gush over Justin, and how she didn't care if he had no background ... he just looked so good! Margaret Wente, the G&M common sense, middle-of-the-road feminist opinion writer!

Not all celebrities are the same, of course. I don't think Trump's celebrity got him much past name recognition, but name recognition on a national scale is no little thing. It's probably a good head start on non-celebrity entries into the field. But some celebrities have much longer coattails, and their supporters are 'fans' more than voters.

I suppose we can be comforted with the thought that leftist celebrities are smarter than those with more conservative leanings.

The thing these creeps ignore is that Trump had some celebrity, but he also had a platform that was developed in the rallies. He noticed where people cheered loudest.
As things turned out, Hillary didn't have much platform at all. (Oh, yes, there was some boilerplate on the website, but who reads that crap? It's just there to fill the space.) She went with insults, smears,and releases of old videotapes.

There is a lot in the mainstream media about the chaos in the administration. It is, of course, being actively sabotaged by the Democrats and some establishment Republicans, John McCain being an obvious example. And they have set up a rogue prosecutor to harrass the administration even though its clearly a fishing mission -- they are looking for a crime, not investigating one.

But what about the Democrats? I think they are in danger of splitting. The Bernie people aren't happy. There is a lawsuit hanging over the DNC, from Bernie supporters who are pointing out the corruption. They claim Bernie supporters had $200 million stolen from them -- money Bernie raised and which passed to the DNC after he lost -- because it wasn't a real election. But that's just one problem. There is a deep state problem as well -- the rogue prosecutor, etc. If that fails, there are going to be a lot of Democrat operatives facing jail time. Add to that, there is no clear spokesperson for the Democrats, and their own leadership, going into the future, isn't clear. They have no strategy other than going for impeachment.

It's pretty chaotic on that side of things as well.


Last edited by Bugs on Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7431
Reputation: 297.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

But what about the Democrats? I think they are in danger of splitting. The Bernie people aren't happy.


I think this a point that gets lost in the background far too often,
The conspiracy surrounding the events of the 2016 election and its lead-up that has the most credibility was that the DNC was actively trying to get Clinton the nomination at the expense of the other candidates.

Then to make matters worse, she lost.

At the moment both sides of the party are largely uniting against what they see as a common enemy, but when primaries roll around will be when we see how united the party is.

In Montana for example Rob Quist (Who got the Democrat nomination) and Amanda Curtis who finished second primary were not Clinton supporters during the primary and the amount of help Quist got during that special election was a fraction of what Jon Ossoff in Georgia who was a more establishment candidate

To ultimately end up losing by a similar margin.

If we see this more broadly during primaries where the Democrats spend more energy backing candidate that fits the party mold best over one who best represents the electorate they are seeking election from, its could end up being a long lonely road to 2020.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4134
Reputation: 238.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a theory about this, based on history.

The Americans have been following (since Reagan) a foreign policy based on expanding trade, on the theory that trade increases prosperity and reduces the prospects of war between nations. Both Republicans and Democrats have accepted this.

But there are unintended consequences. One of them is that Washington has become the regulatory hub of the growing 'commercial émpire'. (Brussels could be another.) But what follows from this, in our over-regulated world, is that powerful international corporations have a political interest in the politics of the USA. And they are willing to use money to get what they want.

Bill Clinton was the one who saw a way to exploit this situation, because the tool of international corporations is money. And money is the mother's milk of politics. He started transferring American assets to China ...
Quote:

Clinton Approves Technology Transfer to China
By JOHN M. BRODERMAY 11, 1999

The Clinton Administration notified Congress today that it had approved the export of technology to China to permit the launching of a communications satellite aboard a Chinese rocket next month.

President Clinton said in a letter to Congress that the transfer would not harm national security or significantly improve China's military capability ... [....]
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05.....china.html


It was a lie, of course. This materially improved Clinton's fund-raising abilities. (The claim that the transfer has no military consequences is the lie. It may be that guidance system that North Korea plans to use to target LA.) Read "The Clinton Crack Up" by M. Emmett Tyrell Jr if you want to learn more.

When Clinton retired, he set up the Clinton Foundation as a charity associated with his library. Or so it seemed. The Clintons were clearly 'selling influence' and collecting huge 'donations' that have probably been funnelled back to politicians that are pliable enough to bend over when told to.

The Clinton Foundation has become a way that international corporations can have the regulatory needs responded to. Nobody knows how much money is involved, but it is felt to be in the hundreds of $billions.

The Obama administration jumped right in, and put Hillary in a position where she could continue to sell influence for a high price. For eight years, it was full speed ahead. This is probably where the corruption comes from.

If you compare this to the development of the Roman Empire, we are at the point where Julius Caesar ends the Roman Republic, and takes it into an Empire, with its bread and circuses. It is clear that the foreign money takes power away from the American electorate and sacrifices their interests to those of international bankers

That's what Democrats can't explain or defend -- their own corruption. They are ÿthe swamp'.

Trump wants reform, but a chunk of the Republican Party is probably also getting a little of the grease. (Why else would McCain vote against scrapping Obamacare? To spite Trump?)

So there is a lot at stake in this battle. The Democrats -- at this point -- are determined to go to any lengths necessary to ruin Trump's presidency. The "Russian collusion" issue is bogus. They can't defend themselves factually, so they have to go after Trump as illegitimate, somehow, and ... oh yeah ... orange hair.

They are not interested in reforming themselves. They want to get back to the good old days before Trump appeared on the scene.

There's a lot at stake in this struggle. If the Democrats win, the world will continue on its present corrupt course.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7431
Reputation: 297.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We are about a year out from the start of campaign season for the 2018 Midterms;

As such the "prediction meters" are starting to refresh;

Senate is interesting;
The GOP only has 8 seats up with really only two ever considered in play (Arizona & Nevada). However a year out Nevada appears to be in play with a general consensus that Arizona is a Tint R

The Democrats on the other hand have 23 seats up and a year out Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and West Virginia appear to be in play with Wisconsin, Montana & Florida as Tilt D.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4134
Reputation: 238.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This will be a test of Trump's success. On the face of it, Republicans should come back with more Senate seats, although deposing a Senator is seldom easy.

As I understand events, the group that briefly took shape as the Tea Party has taken other forms in a kind of resistance to the high-spending ways of both of the old-line parties.

It's probably about a third of Americans and it includes former Democrats and Republicans as well as Independents. This group, by and large, has continued to back Trump. So far, the only kind of thing that cost Trump was where he went over the line in challenging racial political correctness. That was true with the Khan thing, that was true of Charlottesville.

I think this group sees that Trump is being thwarted by Congress, and in some cases by people that some of them voted for because they promised to end Obamacare, for example. This is the group that has caused the biggest change of seats during Obama's time, and if they decide they have to continue the cull in Congress, the Democrats will have a very bad day, and so will RINO Republicans.

That's the overview of what I think would happen, were it not for the media and the ability of the system to create interpretations of social events that are far from concrete reality. 'And intervening events can be engineered, particularly in a tag-team with the media, as we're seeing now with the leaks.

But I think fatigue has set in. I wonder how much people follow the Hillary email problem in Canada. Only the highlights get printed in Canada, and that from the New York Times or Washington Post. The facts are that more and more emails are being released and studied, and there is the possibility of arrests of people like Wasserman-Schultz, Obedin, Podesta, and Hillary herself. And if they go after the Clinton Foundation, it could be more. Comey himself could face charges.

The charges are widespread violations of security laws, tax laws, financial laws, etc. And there are all the lesser fish who have leaked the info. All of these people could (and should) have an encounter with a judge in their near future.

It's a mega-scandal. Comparing this pile of crime and corruption to Watergate is like comparing a nuclear explosion to a hand grenade. I invite people to check out what I say for themselves, understand that the bulk of the mainstream media is suppressing the facts. (And I haven't even mentioned the IRS scandal.)

This can be unravelled for public consumption over the next few months -- at the option of the Trump administration, it seems to me.

But there is also another trump card that can be played, and it is on the economy. The normal business cycle is probably heading into the down phase. The Federal Reserve and the banking system could play politics by crashing the stock market and the economy. This starts to get into the Illuminati if you aren't careful, but I think that is a possibility. Particularly if it gets harder and harder to stop a 'correction' anyway.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6263
Reputation: 228.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Republicans who won't be coming back to congress after 2018 midterm elections


By Kaitlyn Schallhorn, Fox News



While Corker’s announcement might have caught some off guard, fall retirement announcements are nothing new. On average, 22 House members retire each cycle without seeking another office, Roll Call reported.

Here’s the list of Republicans, in the House and Senate, who have announced they will not seek reelection.




Bob Corker


FILE - In this April 5, 2016, file photo, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. Republican Donald Trump has narrowed down his vice presidential shortlist to a handful of contenders that he's met with including Corker. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., announced he would not seek reelection in 2018 this month. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., announced on Sept. 27 that he will not seek a third term in 2018.

Corker, 65, had previously said that he “couldn’t imagine” serving more than two terms.



Dave Trott


In this Aug. 5, 2014 file photo, Republican David Trott, a candidate for Michigan's 11th congressional district, stands next to his wife, Kappy, during an interview at his election night party in Troy, Mich. In a statement Monday, Sept. 11, 2017, Rep. Dave Trott, R-Mich., says he will not seek re-election. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Rep. Dave Trott, R-Mich., announced earlier this month that he would retire at the end of his second term. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Rep. Dave Trott, R-Mich., announced on Sept. 11 that he would not seek reelection.

Trott, 56, will retire at the end of his second term. His district is Republican-leaning, but analysts told the Detroit News that a Democrat could flip the seat.

Charlie Dent


FILE - In this March 23, 2017, file photo, Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. Dent, leader of an influential caucus of GOP moderates in the House, announced he will not seek re-election to an eighth House term next year. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., said he would not seek an eighth term as a congressman. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent said on Sept. 7 that he would not seek reelection. The seven-term moderate congressman told Fox News that he made the decision both from personal reasons and because “the polarization around here is pretty severe.”

Dent, 57, has been openly critical of Trump. He voted against party lines and a repeal of ObamaCare earlier this summer.

Dave Reichert


FILE - In this July 28, 2017, file photo, Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., arrives for a House Republican Conference meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington. Reichert said Sept. 6, 2017, he is retiring from Congress after seven terms. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., said he would not seek reelection in 2018. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

After serving seven terms in Congress, Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., said he would not seek reelection on Sept. 6. A former sheriff, Reichert, 67, represents a district that is being targeted by Democrats in 2018. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton won the area in the 2016 election.

Reichert said the decision to retire from Congress was “the right one for my family and me.”

Jimmy Duncan

Rep. Jimmy Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., announced in July that he would not seek reelection.

In announcing his retirement, Duncan, 70, thanked conservatives who supported him against “recent attacks against me from the far left.”


"I love my job, but I love my family more."
- Rep. Jimmy Duncan, R-Tenn.
“I have decided I wanted to spend less time in airports, airplanes and traveling around the district and more time with my family, especially my nine grandchildren, who all live in Knoxville,” Duncan said. “I love my job, but I love my family more.”

Roll Call reported that Duncan’s sister, state Sen. Becky Duncan Massey, could launch a bid for his empty seat.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen


U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) speaks at a news conference at her office in Miami, Florida August 12, 2015. Ros-Lehtinen called the opening of a U.S. embassy in Cuba a "diplomatic charade rewarding the tyrannical Castro regime.", local media reported. REUTERS/Joe Skipper - GF10000171897

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., announced that she will not seek reelection. (Reuters/Joe Skipper)

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., announced on April 30 that she would not seek reelection. Ros-Lehtinen, 65, has been a congresswoman since 1989.

“The most difficult challenge is not to simply keep winning elections; but rather the more difficult challenge is to not let the ability to win define my seasons,” she said.

Born in Havana, Cuba, Ros-Lehtinen is considered a moderate Republican who was not a strong supporter of Trump.

Lynn Jenkins


Republican Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins speaks to supporters after winning re-election in the U.S. midterm race in Kansas, in Topeka, November 4, 2014. REUTERS/Mark Kauzlarich (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS ELECTIONS) - GM1EAB513AF01

Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., said she wanted to return to the private sector in announcing her retirement from Congress. (Reuters/Mark Kauzlarich)

Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., announced on Jan. 25 that she would not seek reelection or run for another office.

Jenkins, 54, said she wanted to return to the private sector although she was highly rumored to be a possible gubernatorial candidate in Kansas.

Sam Johnson


Longtime Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, announced his retirement from Congress earlier this year. (Reuters/Jason Reed)

Longtime Texas Rep. Sam Johnson announced his retirement on Jan. 6.

“For me, the Lord has made clear that the season of my life in Congress is coming to an end,” Johnson, 86, said.

Johnson is an Air Force veteran who was a prisoner of war at the infamous Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam.

Kristi Noem


U.S. Representative Kristi Noem (R-SD) addresses the 38th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, February 10, 2011. The CPAC is a project of the American Conservative Union Foundation. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS) - GM1E72B043M01

Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., will not seek reelection but will run for governor. (Reuters/Larry Downing)

Instead of seeking reelection in 2018, Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., announced in November 2016 that she will run for governor instead.

In her announcement, Noem, 45, said her gubernatorial campaign would officially kick off in 2017.

Raul Labrador


WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 10: Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), speaks at the Conservative Political Action conference (CPAC), on February 10, 2011 in Washington, DC. The CPAC annual gathering is a project of the American Conservative Union. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images) *** Local Caption *** Raul Labrador

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, will run for governor instead of reelection. (Getty Images/Mark Wilson)

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, announced this summer that he would finish out his current term but then run for governor of Idaho in 2018 instead of reelection, according to HuffPost.

Labrador, 49, is a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus.

Steve Pearce

New Mexico Rep. Steve Pearce opted to run for governor of his state instead of reelection in July.

Pearce, 70, has been a congressman for more than 12 years. He told the Albuquerque Journal that as governor he would focus on the exodus of young people leaving the state


http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....tions.html
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7431
Reputation: 297.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Senator Corker not running again wasn't too much of a surprise;
However it gives the GOP the opportunity to add a new Senator in a fairly safe seat.

William Hagerty is an interesting name being kicked around,
However its very early.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 7 of 7

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


2018 - US Midterm Elections

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB