Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Take that, dirty GOP special election schemers!
We got your Scalia seat ;p
Pardon? You mean you got a liberal SC justice? Wow, how soon we forget!![]()
um, no. Schultz apparently was referring to the way they were planning to get this seat through dirty politics "Scalia seat"
Low voter turnout didn't turn out in the republicans favor as they intended because people were PISSED about having a special election when a few days could have put it into the november general election and saved us $250K
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/17/1681138/-This-School-Board-Race-Is-So-Critical-the-GOP-Is-Playing-Dirty-Tricks-to-Keep-It
Yet somehow, spending $1 million to change the name of a high school is not cause for disgust?![]()
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Take that, dirty GOP special election schemers!
We got your Scalia seat ;p
Pardon? You mean you got a liberal SC justice? Wow, how soon we forget!![]()
um, no. Schultz apparently was referring to the way they were planning to get this seat through dirty politics "Scalia seat"
Low voter turnout didn't turn out in the republicans favor as they intended because people were PISSED about having a special election when a few days could have put it into the november general election and saved us $250K
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/17/1681138/-This-School-Board-Race-Is-So-Critical-the-GOP-Is-Playing-Dirty-Tricks-to-Keep-It
Yet somehow, spending $1 million to change the name of a high school is not cause for disgust?![]()
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yay!!! Bad idea by GOP running some dude with no kids. Actually creepy IMO.
And would you find it creepy if a woman with no kids was running?
Anonymous wrote:Yay!!! Bad idea by GOP running some dude with no kids. Actually creepy IMO.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Take that, dirty GOP special election schemers!
We got your Scalia seat ;p
Pardon? You mean you got a liberal SC justice? Wow, how soon we forget!![]()
um, no. Schultz apparently was referring to the way they were planning to get this seat through dirty politics "Scalia seat"
Low voter turnout didn't turn out in the republicans favor as they intended because people were PISSED about having a special election when a few days could have put it into the november general election and saved us $250K
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/17/1681138/-This-School-Board-Race-Is-So-Critical-the-GOP-Is-Playing-Dirty-Tricks-to-Keep-It
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Take that, dirty GOP special election schemers!
We got your Scalia seat ;p
Pardon? You mean you got a liberal SC justice? Wow, how soon we forget!![]()
Anonymous wrote:Take that, dirty GOP special election schemers!
We got your Scalia seat ;p