del
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
Kirk to be named interim senator - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe
what a fucking joke the commonwealth is.
what a fucking joke the commonwealth is.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kirk to be named interim senator - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe
what a fucking joke the commonwealth is.
I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.
It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.
Send your application here:I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.
It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.
i wouldn't mind living here in a banana republic if the weather in the winter was better.
I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.
It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.
I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.
It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.
that's politics....
the supreme court changed the rules and overruled the determination of the highest court of a state on a matter of election law.
sometimes you win. sometimes you lose.
and did you think that they'd appoint someone who opposed kennedy? at least you don't have to worry about them running for election when the time comes since that was part of the deal, i believe.
I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.
It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.
I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.
It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.
What makes it even more halarious is the democratics defending this "change it - ooops, change it back - ooops, change it again" hipocracy...lol
Do people vote for a person or a party?I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.
It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.
What makes it even more halarious is the democratics defending this "change it - ooops, change it back - ooops, change it again" hipocracy...lol
So you think it would have been proper for Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican to the Senate to replace John Kerry in the event he won the presidency, even though the Massachusetts voters had elected to have a Democrat represent them?![]()
Do people vote for a person or a party?What makes it even more halarious is the democratics defending this "change it - ooops, change it back - ooops, change it again" hipocracy...lol
So you think it would have been proper for Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican to the Senate to replace John Kerry in the event he won the presidency, even though the Massachusetts voters had elected to have a Democrat represent them?![]()
You are saying party, ergo why bother even putting a name on a ballot, just have everyone vote either 'd' or 'r'.
What you and Jill both did here is something i often speak about, you tried to make an excuse for something you know is wrong because it helps the party you like.
That is exactly why i reject political parties.
What was done here is unethical.
Changing the rules so you can have your way all the time is not a way the USA should operate.
Sometimes those democrats are as sneaky as the repubs. Go figure.
I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.
It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.
I find it halrious, they changed the rules so Romney could not name a replacement making it a special election, and now when Dems need it they change it again to get a dem appointed.
It has a wonderful 'banana republic' feel to it.
What makes it even more halarious is the democratics defending this "change it - ooops, change it back - ooops, change it again" hipocracy...lol
So you think it would have been proper for Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican to the Senate to replace John Kerry in the event he won the presidency, even though the Massachusetts voters had elected to have a Democrat represent them?![]()
Do people vote for a person or a party?So you think it would have been proper for Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican to the Senate to replace John Kerry in the event he won the presidency, even though the Massachusetts voters had elected to have a Democrat represent them?![]()
You are saying party, ergo why bother even putting a name on a ballot, just have everyone vote either 'd' or 'r'.
What you and Jill both did here is something i often speak about, you tried to make an excuse for something you know is wrong because it helps the party you like.
That is exactly why i reject political parties.
What was done here is unethical.
Changing the rules so you can have your way all the time is not a way the USA should operate.
No, I'm not making an excuse for what I know is wrong at all. I'm asking what is wrong with making sure the people of Massachusetts are represented by the ideology they voted for?
This is only until the special election is held...the people of MA deserve a voting member in the Senate. I don't see an issue here.