Jump to content

Ford or Corker?


idlewild

Ford or Corker?  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. Ford or Corker?

    • Harold Ford Jr.
      36
    • Bob Corker
      14
    • Anyone but these two
      4


Recommended Posts

- Ford has been in congress for 4 years longer than Bush has been in the WH, and Ford has voted FOR the un-balanced budget EVERY YEAR. Why am I to think that suddenly he will vote no on un-balanced budgets?

Oh, since I provided the statistical link to the actual voting record, I thought I'd mention that Ford was part of the group that voted FOR the Clinton balanced budgets of the 1990's. I think you forget that Bush inherited a budget surplus that was very well balanced. :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Somehow "labels" get placed on people that really don't mean much when you get right down to it. For example:

"Pro-Choice" gets turned into "Pro-Abortion". I suspect if you ask a Pro-Choice supporter if they favor abortion, they would say "no". We would rather have a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies rather than put women in the position of having to choose abortion. But we do support their right to make a choice.

"Christian" is a label that, I guess, is suppose to make someone better than a person who is Jewish, Muslim, or whatever. I think not.

"Liberal" does not mean socialist. And "Conservative" does not mean "right-winger". The labels get put on some of the most vocal liberals and conservatives and then get slapped on the rest of us. I consider myself a Liberal Democrat, but I vote for the candidate, not the party.

And just for the record, "Playboy Bunnies" are not, by definition, women of loose morals. I dined at a Playboy Club many years ago while attending a trade show at a hotel where one was located. I found the Bunnies to be ladies in every way. They just waited table in costume. Just for the record, I'm female and was in my late 20s at the time, and was glad I had lunch there -- the food and service was excellent. Don't mistake "Bunnies" for "Playmates". "Bunnies" keep their clothes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^LOL I think its funny you mention that because the Republican "party of moral values" is now protesting a straight single male who hangs out with straight single women.

So what does the Repubilcan party believe this election cycle? That straight available men shouldn't be hanging around straight available women?

The Republican party sends so many mixed signals you don't know what to expect...

*Preach about being morally superior, but they have a pedophile in the ranks they protected

*Get vile and upset that gay people even exist, let alone ask for rights, but are against a straight bachelor having a dinner around attractive ladies??

I gotta point this stuff out, its too funny!

Really none of this stuff matters to me. I don't think Foley represents the Republican party, and all these TV ads are crap and fluff.

The real deal is what I've already discussed before. And its all the more reason to vote Ford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberal does not equal more government intrusion. These arent liberal christians that want more government intrusion, they are conservative christians. Conservatives love tradition, they love government regulation of personal lives and social order.

I know we have had our fair share of discussions in the past, but never have I ever heard you say that liberal christians are the government intrusion types.

Liberal christians are the ones that want a clear separation between church and state.

I am completely thrown by your comments and really dont understand.

I define liberals as those who put their trust in government and government regulations. They are in favor of a liberal application of government power. They are generally opposed to restrained, or conservative, governing. Do you dispense government power and regulations liberally or conservatively? A restrained federal government that defers a lot of government power and regulation to the states is a fundamental tenet at least in theory of the GOP. Of course it's easier said than done in the beltway.

The Christian right wants to dispense government power when it comes to morals liberally. Hence, liberal Christians. Not Christian Democrats, necessarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I define liberals as those who put their trust in government and government regulations. They are in favor of a liberal application of government power. They are generally opposed to restrained, or conservative, governing. Do you dispense government power and regulations liberally or conservatively? A restrained federal government that defers a lot of government power and regulation to the states is a fundamental tenet at least in theory of the GOP. Of course it's easier said than done in the beltway.

The Christian right wants to dispense government power when it comes to morals liberally. Hence, liberal Christians. Not Christian Democrats, necessarily.

Simply put, your definition is not the proper definition. Liberal Christians advocate a clear separation of church and state and highly believe in a secular government. Conservative Christians prefer tradition (as they see and interpret it), and the use of government to enforce that tradition.

http://www.m-w.com/

Look up the words liberal, conservative, liberalism, and conservatism. Look at the noun and adjective descriptions alike.

What you are referring to is the non-political definition of liberal meaning "give more" and conservative to "use less" rather than its political definition.

And please don't get upset by my saying you are wrong. I don't think you are "wrong" as much as you are inaccurate. Conservation and conservatism (the non-political definitions) does mean to "use less" or "do less" or "conserve" as that is a root of the word. Liberal as a non-political adjective does mean to "give more" or "do more of" in a literal sense.

You are applying the non-political definition to a political topic. Therefore its highly inaccurate.

Every political scholar will repeat what I'm saying, regardless of philosophy. Just ask rocky top, he disagrees with my viewpoint, but he'll agree that he doesnt' agree with Liberal Christians because they advocate less religion in government and more secular beliefs. I.E. they don't want government and church mixed at ANY level. Conservative traditionalists and Conservative Christians believe in an active government where the wall between church and state are considered "myth" and that we are founded upon the principles of the Bible and Jesus's teachings as they see fit.

They believe in a clear moral authority for this nation to follow, and they believe government should use its power to achieve the moral clarity they see and believe in.

This is a no-brainer. Do you see what I'm saying?

Christian Conservatives do not believe in individual liberty (aka. liberalism) when it pertains to social policy.

I was raised in an evangelical church that is quite popular in the Nashville region, the Church of Christ. I was raised around social conservatives. Social conservatives do not trust individuality pertaining to God and Country. Strong adherents to these evangelical churches such as Church of Christ, Baptist, etc. believe that in order for the society to grow healthy, it must have a government that promotes Jesus' teachings, through prayer in school, the social laws of the Bible, and that the foundation of society cannot be based on loose morality where people freely do whatever. They believe the cornerstone of society is social order based around a Man marrying a Woman and having children that are to be taught the moral code they grew up with to continue this conservative tradition.

These moralists believe that if people have individual freedom to vary from this traditional conservative belief, it is the breakdown of society. The moralists believe that culture can change sexuality and "create" more homosexuality and increasing groups of people who oppose their social norms. This is seen as a threat, therefore government has a purpose to ensure this traditional society view through force.

This is one of the cornerstones of the religious conservative movement: they are afraid that if their values are not followed by a majority of America, that this nation will fall into some death trap like Sodom and Gomorroah.

This is serious business, and I think it needs to be understood that these are not liberal Christians, they are conservatives.

One of the reasons why some of the strongest supporters of the Iraq war still in 2006 is Southern Baptists, the largest single protestant sect in the USA, is because they see this war as protecting Christianity from Islam, a false religion in their eyes. They do not care about the facts of the Iraq war, or that Iraq was not a terrorist state that sponsored the acts on 9/11. They care about the fact that they see all of Islam with one view: bad, anti-christian, and willing to attack us again. They support the Iraq cause, because they see the attempt as lessening the power of Islam and Muslims abroad.

These are the core values this society is arguing with on a daily basis. They are pretty simple values when you get down to the basics and root meanings of the word.

Bush is a conservative in every way, except he does not fiscally restrain himself when it pertains to his moral vision of society and friends of his movement (i.e. the Halliburton contracts).

In other words, Bush is not a fiscal conservative in the non-political definition. He's not exactly a fiscal liberal, because he cuts programs that I find necessary. He's a conservative opportunist who will spend all he can to keep power within his ranks. If that means giving untold contract money to friends of his movement, so be it. Loyalty is 100% important to conservatives.

Just ask Rocky Top, he's a genuine christian conservative. He'll laugh in your face if you call him a liberal Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put, your definition is not the proper definition. Liberal Christians advocate a clear separation of church and state and highly believe in a secular government. Conservative Christians prefer tradition (as they see and interpret it), and the use of government to enforce that tradition.

http://www.m-w.com/

Look up the words liberal, conservative, liberalism, and conservatism. Look at the noun and adjective descriptions alike.

What you are referring to is the non-political definition of liberal meaning "give more" and conservative to "use less" rather than its political definition.

And please don't get upset by my saying you are wrong. I don't think you are "wrong" as much as you are inaccurate. Conservation and conservatism (the non-political definitions) does mean to "use less" or "do less" or "conserve" as that is a root of the word. Liberal as a non-political adjective does mean to "give more" or "do more of" in a literal sense.

You are applying the non-political definition to a political topic. Therefore its highly inaccurate.

Every political scholar will repeat what I'm saying, regardless of philosophy. Just ask rocky top, he disagrees with my viewpoint, but he'll agree that he doesnt' agree with Liberal Christians because they advocate less religion in government and more secular beliefs. I.E. they don't want government and church mixed at ANY level. Conservative traditionalists and Conservative Christians believe in an active government where the wall between church and state are considered "myth" and that we are founded upon the principles of the Bible and Jesus's teachings as they see fit.

They believe in a clear moral authority for this nation to follow, and they believe government should use its power to achieve the moral clarity they see and believe in.

This is a no-brainer. Do you see what I'm saying?

Christian Conservatives do not believe in individual liberty (aka. liberalism) when it pertains to social policy.

I was raised in an evangelical church that is quite popular in the Nashville region, the Church of Christ. I was raised around social conservatives. Social conservatives do not trust individuality pertaining to God and Country. Strong adherents to these evangelical churches such as Church of Christ, Baptist, etc. believe that in order for the society to grow healthy, it must have a government that promotes Jesus' teachings, through prayer in school, the social laws of the Bible, and that the foundation of society cannot be based on loose morality where people freely do whatever. They believe the cornerstone of society is social order based around a Man marrying a Woman and having children that are to be taught the moral code they grew up with to continue this conservative tradition.

These moralists believe that if people have individual freedom to vary from this traditional conservative belief, it is the breakdown of society. The moralists believe that culture can change sexuality and "create" more homosexuality and increasing groups of people who oppose their social norms. This is seen as a threat, therefore government has a purpose to ensure this traditional society view through force.

This is one of the cornerstones of the religious conservative movement: they are afraid that if their values are not followed by a majority of America, that this nation will fall into some death trap like Sodom and Gomorroah.

This is serious business, and I think it needs to be understood that these are not liberal Christians, they are conservatives.

One of the reasons why some of the strongest supporters of the Iraq war still in 2006 is Southern Baptists, the largest single protestant sect in the USA, is because they see this war as protecting Christianity from Islam, a false religion in their eyes. They do not care about the facts of the Iraq war, or that Iraq was not a terrorist state that sponsored the acts on 9/11. They care about the fact that they see all of Islam with one view: bad, anti-christian, and willing to attack us again. They support the Iraq cause, because they see the attempt as lessening the power of Islam and Muslims abroad.

These are the core values this society is arguing with on a daily basis. They are pretty simple values when you get down to the basics and root meanings of the word.

Bush is a conservative in every way, except he does not fiscally restrain himself when it pertains to his moral vision of society and friends of his movement (i.e. the Halliburton contracts).

In other words, Bush is not a fiscal conservative in the non-political definition. He's not exactly a fiscal liberal, because he cuts programs that I find necessary. He's a conservative opportunist who will spend all he can to keep power within his ranks. If that means giving untold contract money to friends of his movement, so be it. Loyalty is 100% important to conservatives.

Just ask Rocky Top, he's a genuine christian conservative. He'll laugh in your face if you call him a liberal Christian.

While that might be the traditional view, I don't subscribe to those definitions. I interpret government and judge its actions based on the application of government power. Power corrupts. There's a problem with corrupt governance from both parties. And I believe that stems from an expansionist central national government. And my voting decisions and judgments about representation are based accordingly. Many, many conservative voters agree with me and are tempted by the Libertarian party for those reasons. It's time to recalibrate the political spectrum and the definitions of the rhetorical jargon.

The traditional definitions are another reflection of the collusion among the parties to confuse the populace and distract them from demanding and making choices based on the distribution and application of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^And Clobber, I agree with you 100%.

You don't sound conservative to me, you sound libertarian. It fits your personality far more than conservatism, which as most people define sounds nothing like what you want.

The only kind of "conservatism" you agree with - it sounds - is the non-political definition of fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is about conserving, and its not a political definition of philosophy.

You sound fiscally conservative, politically libertarian to me.

I also agree that people like you deserve a voice. You should vote libertarian and support your cause if that is what you believe. If the Republican and Democratic party does not offer what you are looking for, Libertarians sound like a fine choice.

I consider myself fiscally moderate and politically liberal, so the Democrats happen to be a good fit for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^And Clobber, I agree with you 100%.

You don't sound conservative to me, you sound libertarian. It fits your personality far more than conservatism, which as most people define sounds nothing like what you want.

The only kind of "conservatism" you agree with - it sounds - is the non-political definition of fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is about conserving, and its not a political definition of philosophy.

You sound fiscally conservative, politically libertarian to me.

I also agree that people like you deserve a voice. You should vote libertarian and support your cause if that is what you believe. If the Republican and Democratic party does not offer what you are looking for, Libertarians sound like a fine choice.

I consider myself fiscally moderate and politically liberal, so the Democrats happen to be a good fit for me.

You might be right, but I don't know if there's a chance for libertarians. It might be more appropriate to try to infect one of the two main parties with this mindset. It exists in moderation in both parties: both parties have beliefs that revolve around getting the government out of your life, but then turn around and want to pass more regulations for other things. A lot of rhetoric is used from both parties trying to win the "keep the government out of our lives" argument. But both parties have ample ammo to use to contradict their opponents' efforts. But the fact that the use of such arguments is so visible makes me believe that both parties see it as a battleground.

But it goes beyond fiscal, it's about power in general, and how empowering soulless entities, whether they be government or church, disempowers the individual and corrupts the entity, regardless of what the purported motive is in empowering the entity.

You're right that it doesn't mesh perfectly though with either party. I'm perfectly ok with a weaker or disempowered national government (weak in terms of involvement in internal affairs, not so much weak militarily; perhaps deferential would be a better term) and a diverse selection of local governments ranging the spectrum from the left to the right. But the GOP in the recent past has made a lot of hay about states' rights, something that Rove hasn't put into reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^And Clobber, I agree with you 100%.

You don't sound conservative to me, you sound libertarian. It fits your personality far more than conservatism, which as most people define sounds nothing like what you want.

The only kind of "conservatism" you agree with - it sounds - is the non-political definition of fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is about conserving, and its not a political definition of philosophy.

You sound fiscally conservative, politically libertarian to me.

I also agree that people like you deserve a voice. You should vote libertarian and support your cause if that is what you believe. If the Republican and Democratic party does not offer what you are looking for, Libertarians sound like a fine choice.

I consider myself fiscally moderate and politically liberal, so the Democrats happen to be a good fit for me.

Today's Republican party is consumed with social conservatism, a major departure from the fiscal conservatism of Barry Goldwater and the Republicans of yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have known this was a liberal website. I can't understand why anyone would want to vote for a liar that doesn't even know what he stands for! He may say nice things on TV and try to say he supports conservative views but if he got in the senate, which I'm sure he wont, he would do the exact opposite!

GO Corker! :thumbsup:

More people should listen Rush and Hannity. You can get the real truth of what is going on rather than having to listen to the liberal crap that the liberal drive-by-media puts out! Examples of that is ABC, CNN(Clinton National News), NBC and even our local stations like the ones in Memphis. Probably the most liberal here (even though the rest mostly are too) would be News Channel 3. You best bet for National would be FOX.

Come on conservatives don't let the cut and run, drive-by-media, lying and cheating, bush bashing, raise taxes, say they are going to help the African Americans but they don't (and theres much more) democrat liberals screw this nation up like they did when under the table Clinton was in office!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think again, fellowmann. Check out this article from the National Review (the leading Conservative weekly magazine).

Ford Cracks the Code?

Harold Ford could better center Senate Dems.

By Rich Lowry

One of this fall’s biggest controversies over mixing politics and religion came courtesy of Tennessee Democratic Rep. Harold Ford. No, he wasn’t the one yelling about the inappropriate expropriation of faith for political ends, as you would expect of most Democrats. He’s the alleged offender. This fact alone goes a long way toward explaining why Ford could win a race for a Republican-held Senate seat in Tennessee and help tip control of the body to the Democrats.

Ford’s ad had him walking between pews in Mount Moriah East Baptist Church, where he was baptized as a child. It prompted howls from ACLU-types but showed that Ford is comfortable talking about his faith. He understands that Democrats can’t hope to win in places like Tennessee unless they demonstrate active sympathy with the deepest-held beliefs of voters.

A five-term, African-American congressman from Memphis, Ford has come close in his brilliant campaign to cracking the electoral code for Democrats running practically anywhere that’s not dominated by a major urban center. It comes down to “don’t be a liberal,” or at least “don’t be a liberal in easily exploitable ways.”

Ford has sidestepped the symbolic hot-button issues. He is, for instance, against partial-birth abortion and for a ban on flag-burning. The calculation here is plain. Why should Democrats expend an ounce of credibility defending a practice that strikes most people as infanticide and is a tiny proportion of all abortions? And why seem to defend flag-burning, a practice that is highly offensive and happens only rarely anyway? (Liberal absolutists will have answers to these questions, but they never will be elected statewide in Tennessee.)

On national security, Ford voted for the Iraq War and tilted toward President Bush in his dispute with Sen. John McCain on how to interrogate terrorists. Again, even if they object to tough interrogations of a few top-level al Qaeda killers, why would Democrats make an issue of it? On the economy, Ford has supported a slew of tax cuts. Taken altogether, he has systematically eliminated his party’s vulnerabilities on culture, national security and the economy, in a performance worthy of Bill Clinton in his centrist, vote-winning prime.

If John Kerry had been half as deft, he would be president now. The deftness is key. Ford has charisma (he is one of People magazine’s most beautiful people) and knows what he is doing. When a questioner at a recent debate rattled off the issues on which Ford agrees with Bush and asked what he dissents from him on, Ford said he thinks Bush hasn’t done enough to secure the ports or the borders, cannily positioning himself to the president’s right.

When Republican candidate Bob Corker, after winning his primary, immediately ran ads attacking Ford as a liberal, they had no effect. Ford can say labeling him a “liberal” is mere name-calling (as liberals often do when it suits their purposes), and it rings true. Republicans complain that Ford’s turn right is calculated. He had a 100 percent rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action as recently as 1999, but as his ambitions turned to a statewide race, it dipped down into the 70s and 80s. Well, if Paris was worth a Mass, a Senate seat is worth some shrewd insincerity.

Many Democrats will never go as far as Ford toward the center. He has even allowed it to become a matter of ambiguity whether he’s pro-choice. But a presidential candidate had best heed the lesson of his campaign. Without picking off red states like Tennessee, Democrats will never win the White House.

Ford could still lose. Tennessee isn’t Mississippi, but it’s solidly Republican, and Ford’s race will probably count against him in a region that hasn’t elected a black senator since Reconstruction. But if he wins, Senate Democrats will get a voice of reason besides (a bruised) Joe Lieberman, another rising African-American star along with Barack Obama and, quite possibly, the majority. Not a bad payoff for some strategic repositioning.

— Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have known this was a liberal website. I can't understand why anyone would want to vote for a liar that doesn't even know what he stands for! He may say nice things on TV and try to say he supports conservative views but if he got in the senate, which I'm sure he wont, he would do the exact opposite!

GO Corker! :thumbsup:

More people should listen Rush and Hannity. You can get the real truth of what is going on rather than having to listen to the liberal crap that the liberal drive-by-media puts out! Examples of that is ABC, CNN(Clinton National News), NBC and even our local stations like the ones in Memphis. Probably the most liberal here (even though the rest mostly are too) would be News Channel 3. You best bet for National would be FOX.

Come on conservatives don't let the cut and run, drive-by-media, lying and cheating, bush bashing, raise taxes, say they are going to help the African Americans but they don't (and theres much more) democrat liberals screw this nation up like they did when under the table Clinton was in office!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard someone say in 2002 as we were drubbing the Taliban say "hey, what do you think about Clinton's army?" I wanted to respond "I like it a lot better than Clinton's economy!" Referring to the recession that began before Bush took office. (BTW, this countries economists have said that the Bush tax cuts are the only thing that kept this economy out of a depression following 9/11).

Nobody questions Ford's charisma; he is a great speaker. But the article points out exactly what Ford is doing: He isn't becoming more conservative; he is acting more conservative so he can win an election.

What I find so interesting is how poorly Ford is polling in the typically democratic rural West Tennessee. These are people who have seen the Ford family blemish our state in the past and aren't going to sign off on the next generation, even if their grandaddy always voted democrat.

Remember in 04 when Bush was up by 10 points going into October, and then the wheels fell off? Well, Bush still won comfortably! Same thing is happening here, and now we are starting to see the tide stem back to Corker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not simple minded, I make straight A's 4.0 GPA and I'm a christian with moral values not someone like you who probably wants every state to be gay and ban any use of oil and blame republicans for things they haven't done even though our economy is breaking records at all time highs. Gas prices are dropping too! You think your so smart laughing when our country is doing much better than it was in Clinton days!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not simple minded, I make straight A's 4.0 GPA and I'm a christian with moral values not someone like you who probably wants every state to be gay and ban any use of oil and blame republicans for things they haven't done even though our economy is breaking records at all time highs. Gas prices are dropping too! You think your so smart laughing when our country is doing much better than it was in Clinton days!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not simple minded, I make straight A's 4.0 GPA and I'm a christian with moral values not someone like you who probably wants every state to be gay and ban any use of oil and blame republicans for things they haven't done even though our economy is breaking records at all time highs. Gas prices are dropping too! You think your so smart laughing when our country is doing much better than it was in Clinton days!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of you are just trying to get the discussion closed because you don't want the dialogue to continue. All I have done is offer support with some fairly factual stats in much of my posts, including some links backing up my claims.

Facts about Corker:

*He was Finance commissioner under Sundquist, a time when backroom deals were at a peak in state government history. While I believe every administration will have some level of corruption, Sundquist took the prize for going way overboard. Corker was in on it 100%.

*He's ineffective and will be another Bush administration rubberstamp for years to come.

*His election will possibly tilt the balance of power in the Senate either to Republicans or the Democrats. Need I say anymore about what will happen if the Senate remains in Republican hands...

-Lack of pro-science legislation regarding issues of stem cell research, education, and a continued pandering to radical conservative Christian interests while ignoring the moderate and liberal Christians as well as non-Christians alike.

-Continued special interest budgeting with huge contract deals to Republican establishment friends, predominantly in the military, while gutting needed government programs such as transportation, health care initiatives, etc.

-Does this list really need to go on? LOL

I have my own issues with Ford. I believe he's too hawkish on Iraq, I believe his balanced budget ideology is a little over the top. If the Fed. Gov't limited itself to a balanced budget every year, we would be up a creek should this nation ever come into a crisis on the level of the last depression (or worse).

But otherwise he's a pretty good guy on many issues. I realize he can't exactly campaign on a pro-gay marriage platform because of the social conservative nature of the state, but he's always been there for gay rights bills in other areas than gay marriage.

We simply aren't going to get a better politician than Ford in this election on so many levels, including one of the most important which is his support of alternative energy legislation. Bob Corker has personal and party affiliation interests that really keeps him from supporting this key area. Its a security issue as much as an efficiency and environmental issue.

I've said it before and feel like its worth mentioning again: Ford (to me) feels like a candidate who is conservative-enough for a statewide office in Tennessee. His stances on gay marriage, abortion, and his hawkish attitude on Iraq is overly sufficient. He doesn't just speak out about these issues, he has a record of voting for gay rights, but against gay marriage. He has a record of voting against late term abortion, but supporting the right to have one in the first trimester. He supports cleaning up Iraq and not leaving, which I think all three of these issues he has the attitude of a clear majority in the state.

On other issues he brings a fresh change we desperately need. Tennessee isn't a staunch conservative stronghold like Utah or Wyoming. Most people don't believe we need a 23% sales tax like the extreme conservatives, most people don't think we need to gut public education around this state, and most people admire his health care proposals that expands health insurance and tries to reduce cost through administrative cost reforms (mostly converting to electronic records).

I don't see how Ford can be considered a bad candidate for the state. I think he would represent things fairly well.

Just because he grew up in the Ford family and went to University of Penn then Michigan doesn't make him a bad guy. And it certainly shouldn't keep him from getting elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.