Jump to content

Howard Dean's Candidacy


maplesyrup

Recommended Posts

Howard Dean is starting to campaign like he aready is the Democratic choice for President, staying above the fray, and acting in a more conciliatory fashion towards his Democratic opponents.

Last month Dean picked up the support of former Vice-President Al Gore, and yesterday he acquired the backing of former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, giving the former Vermont governor the backing of both of the leading candidates for the last Democratic presidential nomination.

Bradley in making his announcement of support for Howard Dean stated that Dean's candidacy is the best thing that has happened to American politics in decades. Picking up Bradley's support just adds more to the Dean momentum. Dean is leading in the Democratic primary polls, fund-raising, and the American public for their choice of Democratic candidate in the upcoming American election.

One wild card is how involved the Clintons are going to get with the campaign of their candidate, Wesley Clark.

Their priority one presumes, is the 2008 election, and the Clintons might be a bit concerned about Dean's success so far. I don't think they necessarily want someone to win the presidency for the Democrats this time around, so everything they say must be taken with a grain of salt.

If Dean does follow through and win the Democratic nomination, it shows all the signs of being one barn-burner of an election.

The Republicans are already feeling the Dean heat, and know Dean is by far the biggest threat to their stranglehold on American national politics. But instead of having a healthy debate about issues and policy, the Republicans are already spending large sums of money on attack ads to defeat his progressive ideas. Great principled behaviour from the so-called moralists.!

This time around it looks like Americans will be offered a real choice. And maybe this time around the candidate who gets the most votes from the American voters, will will win the presidency.

Edited by maplesyrup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Klintons dropped the ball. Wesley Clark's name isn't even on the ballot in NH! he is counting on Arizona and some southwest states, but by then it will be too late.

The republicans are already preparing for a Dean nomination, and are salivating. They will absolutely pummel him. Dean will win a handful of extremely liberal states, such as new jersey, Minnesota, massachusetts, Vermont.... not many more than that. The only reason he might do better than Mondale or McGovern is that he has a bit more of a personality! (Mondale only won his home state of Minnesota, while McGovern only won Massachusetts)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This time around it looks like Americans will be offered a real choice. And maybe this time around the candidate who gets the most votes from the American voters, will will win the presidency.

The election of an American President is not decided by a plurality of votes. There are a number of scenarios under our Electoral College voting which result in an elected President without a plurality of votes - the majority of States allocate electoral votes on a 'winner-take-all' system so the determining factor is the number of votes per State rather than the national popular vote.

Candidate Dean has clearly established himself as a member of the post-modern elite and should he be the Democratic Candidate, there will indeed be a real choice. President Bush as the candidate of "God" and "Country" versus Dr. Dean as the candidate of the "UN" and "EU". It will be "No Contest!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FastNed....thanks for the political science lesson, however what I stated previously still stands.

Al Gore received the most number of actual votes, or popular votes, but because of the Electoral College system he lost. I was just trying to make a point about the unfairness of your system, just like Canada's, that's all. I know, I know, life isn't fair. It's what you make of it, and all that stuff.

We have an unfair system here in Canada too with our first-past-the-post system, whereby political parties have obtained majority governments with only high thirties, low forties percent of the popular vote.

Many provinces, but not our federal government yet, in Canada are, or will be shortly, exploring some kind of a proportional representation system to make the system more FAIR.

By-the-way, whether you are stating that God is for the Democrats, or for the Republicans, either one is an absurd comment.

Edited by maplesyrup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just trying to make a point about the unfairness of your system

The Electoral College system was instituted precisely to create greater fairness in Presidential elections.

This is true for several reasons:

1.

The Electoral College requires a distribution of popular support to be elected President. Without it, presidents would be elected either through the domination of one populus region over the others or through the domintation of large metropalitain areas over rural ones.

This is particularly crucial in such a geographically large nation such as the United States.

Because no one single region contains the absolute majority of electoral votes, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States rather than to exacerbate regional differences. Without the EC, a cadidate's campaign trail, for example, would never venture beyond New York, California, and Florida.

Even in a close election such as in 2000, the practical value of requiring a distribution of votes outweighs any sentimental value that may be attached to winning a bare majority of popular support. In other words, in the event of a close election, the election defaults to the candidate with the best distribution of popular votes.

Algore may have had a couple hunderd thousand or so more popular votes that GW, but those who voted for Bush depict a more geographically diverse representation of the voter population.

2.

The EC contributes to political stability by encouraging a two party system. This is because it is next to impossible for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in enough states to have a chance of wining the election. As a result, third party movements are effectively forced into one of the two major political parties.

Likewise, the major political parties have an incentive to incorporate third party movements in order to expand their coalitions. The effect of this asslimation process is that third parties are forced to compromise their more radical views if they hope to accomplish any of their more generally accepted objectives.

The result is that we end up with two large, more or less mainstream parties that cater to the relative center rather than dozens of smaller political parties that cater to divergent and extremist views (i.e. Canada). In other words, the EC system forces political coalitions to occur within the politcal parties rather than within the government.

This system may seem confusing and unfair to an outsider or laymen but I assure you, it's conception is nothing short of brilliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KrustyKidd........lots of people don't see much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, just different elites in society vieing for power.

It is the same in Canada where the perception is that there basically is not any significant differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

One result of this is the low voter turnout in both countries.

That is why you will always see a certain amount of support for the NDP or Ralph Nader where there are real contrasts. Chances are they will never take power because they don't have the money that's required to buy elections. It is interesting to note though that Nader got almost 3% of the vote last time around.

A reoccuring problem for the Democrats is the threat of another Nader candidacy. He is making noises about running again so it complicates things for the Democrats who will have to take that into consideration when planning their election strategy.

Another big problem in both countries, is the concentration of media ownership, so effectively we have a closed media. If you ever want confirmation of that just do a goole search about some current event, and you will see, literally hundreds of media outlets, flogging identical stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maplesyrup said:

lots of people don't see much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, just different elites in society vieing for power.

Huh? Support that comment, please.

PC's under the leadership of Red Tory, Joe Clark, were similar to the Liberals, under Jean Chretien.

But I very much doubt that people saw the Republicans, lead by George Bush, having any similarity to the Democrats, led by Alcoresky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't see much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans because they see them simply as parties. Actions taken, realistic policies and counter arguments against the polcies of each's beliefs tell me that there is a vast difference. It's not my problem that these idiots are unecucated and unwilling to learn enough to see the different shades of color in the rainbow.

Chances are they will never take power because they don't have the money that's required to buy elections.

No, chances are that they will never take power because they have silly views on the problems of the world, no experience and have such dynamic bimbos as Audry Mcgluaghlin and Svend Robinson as their front runners. Case in Point: Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnisota - independant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lots of people don't see much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, just different elites in society vieing for power.

It is true that both parties are influenced by special interests, but that's the nature of our republic. You and I both are represented by special interest whether you realize it or not, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Those who view the two parties as indistinguishable are essentially numb to the political climate in this country. The Republicans and Democrats adopt philosophies that are diametrically opposed to one another.

This is reflected in the types of special interests that influence each party, for example:

Dems:

-organized labor

-tort lawyers

-environmentalists

-homosexuals

-victim minority groups

-fringe marxists (moveon.org)

-gun control advocates

-teachers unions

-atheists

-abortionists

In contrast to...

Reps:

-small business

-energy

-developers

-tobacco

-gun manufacturers

-law enforcement

-defense contractors

-Christian groups

-timber industry

-anti-abortion advocates

...in both cases, the list goes on.

So, which special interests best represent what you stand for? That's what it comes down to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great point Morgan! Right or Left we are all represented by groups of some kind. No matter how much you want to be free of money it is always there, no matter how much you want to not be a victim of something you always are. The first step in solving or changing something is to recognise that it exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dems are represented by Teachers and Trial Lawyers - that is who pays the most cash.

Reps receive on average $50 per donation. That is middle America. You want to know the average Dem contribution - about $3000.

The idea that Dems defend the little man is a nonsense. They defend primarily two groups, and 2 little areas - West Ca. and New England/NY.

The choice is between 'reality' and 'liberalism'. The Dems and their little pockets of protest are for liberalism.

Pray they lose and lose large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that Dems defend the little man is a nonsense

Aren't they always pushing to raise the minimum wage ? Isn't a minimum wage earner, by definition, a "little man" ?

Unless you're talking about the roots of these people, which is always the NE. Like they say, Dean's gramma was bridesmaid to Bush's gramma.

The family compact...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardner,

Is increasing the minimum wage a good thing for the "little man?" It's good political posturing that's for sure because you fell for it line and sinker but many economists including Dr. Walter Williams feel that " the minimum wage law discriminates against low-skilled people. "So how can that be representing the interests of the little guy?

The Walter Williams Interview Sept.11, 2001

First, Congress can indeed legislate that people get a higher wage. But, they can't legislate that people are more productive. For the most part, in a free market economy, wages are related to a workers productivity. For example, if a worker can produce six dollars worth of productivity per hour, if that's all he can produce, and you legislate that he must be paid eight dollars and hour, then it's a losing proposition to pay someone eight dollars an hour when he can only produce six dollars worth of value.

So the employer may have several different responses. Either he's going to discriminate against the employment of low skilled workers who can only produce six dollars worth of value and hire someone who can produce eight dollars worth of value or he's going to automate. Both responses mean lower employment for low skilled people. So, the minimum wage law discriminates against low-skilled people.

Minimum prices in general tend to discriminate against the lesser skilled person or the less preferred item. Let's say ten workers show up and you only can hire five. Well, you can't discriminate based on price because you have to pay them all eight dollars an hour. So you may hire according to what you like. So if you prefer Catholics to Jews or whites to blacks, you'll have a tendency to indulge your preferences. You can apply that phenomena to anything.If we made a law, let's call it a "minimum steak law", that is, fillet mignon and chuck steak both sell for $10. Well, the cost of discriminating against chuck steak would be zero, because you have to pay $10 anyway.

The way that less preferred things compete with more preferred things is by having a lower price. Even though people prefer filet mignon to chuck steak, chuck steak doesn't have any problems selling at all. As a matter of fact, I wrote a book a number of years ago called "South Africa's War Against Capitalism" and in that book I give quotation after quotation from white, racist, unions that would never have a black as a member of their unions. Yet, they were the major supporters of minimum wage laws for blacks. Their stated reason for doing that was because they said they wanted to protect white workers from having to compete with low wage, low skill, black workers. Of course, the rhetoric behind the minimum wage in the United States is different, but it has the same effect.

Btw, Craig is right on about the donors to the DNC and the Republicans. In fact I read a research article with those very findings a couple of months ago. If I have time I'll try to find the url link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'American anger finds a prophet'

by Gordon Barthos

http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/Conte...ol=968350116795

'"His supporters are . . . revitalizing politics, showing a way to escape the grip of big money and to confront the shame of forgetting those in need."

To cap it all, Dean appears to be doing strikingly well against Bush among all likely voters, not just among his party faithful. Bush still leads, but not by a huge margin: 51 per cent to 46 per cent.'

This is turning into a real David and Goliath story and we all know who God backed in that biblical tale.

Edited by maplesyrup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your dreams. Get serious. Bush will win 35-40 states and the popular vote. Dean will implode and so will the Dumbo party - which will set the stage for Hitlery in 2008. The Dems are not a national party but a plaything for Trial Lawyers, Do Gooders and Teachers Unions.

They are irrelevant and the US is NOT as divided as the media makes it out to be. Only the thoughtless and cowardly could rally to Dean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is turning into a real David and Goliath story and we all know who God backed in that biblical tale.

Oh yes, God is on Dean's side. He is just waiting until 'Dr Flip Flop' lands so he can figure out what side is actualy Dean's.

FLIPPITY FLOP, FLIPPITY FLOP .............

The Flip-Flops of Howard Dean

What he said then. What he says now. What happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like it's buns up for Howard Dean. The Clintonestras are pulling out the stops to backstab Dean, so Wesley Clark can move ahead. I've got to hand it to Democrats...they have the art of dirty fighting down pat. NBC is airing snipits from 90 videotapes it acquired of Howard Dean yacking as a guest political pundit on the show"The Editor" from 1996-2002. Here are some nuggets of Howie talking about the the negatives of the Iowa caucas, a major flaw of Al Goresky, the virtues of Hamas running Palestine, praising George Bush as a moderate,etc. Too bad for George Bush, but I think these tapes will be Howie's ultimate undoing and will cause Bush to face off against Wes Clark and Hilary as VP mate.

Old videotapes of Howard Dean pontificating on a TV show re-surface, Jan.08/04 ,MSNBC.com

Aired in Canada and PBS stations in the United States, “The Editors” is a public affairs TV show that most Americans probably haven’t seen.

It features a roundtable panel of politicians, journalists, and policy wonks who discuss American and Canadian politics, foreign affairs, and social issues.While governor of Vermont, Howard Dean was a regular guest on the show, and the NBC News Investigative Unit has now obtained the videotapes of 90 of his appearances from 1996 to 2002.

They help answer one of the race’s biggest questions: Just who is Howard Dean?As reported by Lisa Myers on NBC's “Nightly News,” Dean comes across in these tapes as having a wide-ranging intellect, a sharp tongue, and shifting views on some key issues. In fact, the most newsworthy revelations from these tapes are more examples of Dean speaking his mind, sometimes making statements that could arguably come back to hurt him.

For instance, in a show that aired almost exactly four years ago, Dean made some less-than-flattering comments about caucuses in the presidential nominating process — the very same type of caucuses that will occur in Iowa on Jan. 19, where some polls show him to be leading.“If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests in both parties,” he said. “[And] the special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They represent the extremes. And then you get a president who is beholden to either one extreme or the other, and where the average person is in the middle.” He added, “Here's what happens: Say I'm a guy who's got to work for a living, and I've got kids and so forth. On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours? … I can’t stand there and listen to everyone else’s opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world.”

Regarding Al Gore, the very man who endorsed him in December, Dean said back in a January 1998 show: “He has a lot of attributes, but … there are some things that I am concerned about. One of them is being quick on your feet. He is not.

”In another January 1998 episode, he also speculated that there “will probably be good and bad” if Hamas takes control over the Palestinian leadership.  Yasser Arafat, he said, “is going to leave the scene. ... When that happens, I think Hamas will probably take over. There will probably be good and bad out of that. The bad, of course, is that Hamas is a terrorist organization. However, if they have to run a quasi-state they may actually have to be more responsible and start negotiations. So who knows what will happen.”

But then he said this in February 1999 appearance: “The next great tragedy is going to be Arafat’s passing, believe it or not. I’m not a fan of terrorism or Arafat. 

In an appearance after the 2000 presidential election, Dean made this comment about his former fellow governor, George W. Bush. “George Bush, I believe, is in his soul a moderate.” That’s certainly a contrast from this remark, which he said this November: “I believe that George Bush's philosophy in life is, if you're rich you deserve it and if you're poor you deserve it.”

And Dean seemed to display a sharp tongue a few times on the show. In an April 1998 discussion on welfare policy, one panelist remarked that 80 percent of children who are born to single mothers end up on welfare. Dean lashed out at that statement. “That is absolute crap. This is absolute unmitigated garbage.” (Welfare experts at the Brookings Institution and at the Center for Economic and Policy Research say Dean is most likely correct, certainly according to welfare rolls in the 1990s.)

In addition, while Dean has been critical about free trade on the campaign trail, some of his opponents have blasted his earlier support of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Yet in a February 1998 episode of “The Editors,” Dean said he was already having second doubts about that support. “I’m a little nervous about NAFTA. I was a big supporter four years ago. I’m worried about the condition of Mexican workers around the maquiladoras. And I had hoped that NAFTA would boost the Mexican standard of living.” Such a statement seems to contradict Gephardt’s current argument that Dean’s doubts about NAFTA and free trade are an “11th-hour conversion.”

Although in 1995 he once said that affirmative action should be based on class rather than race — a statement that rivals like Al Sharpton and Dick Gephardt have pounced on — Dean was extolling the virtues of affirmative action back in a 1997 appearance. “I think that this country needs affirmative action in order to succeed as a diverse society,” he said.

Impressed by Dean’s performance during this episode, host Keith Morrison said, “I think the governor should be the secretary of state.”  Dean’s reply was certainly diplomatic. “I’ve got plenty of trouble in Vermont.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some trash here, about Clark, the Clintons and Waco.

CLARK AND STUFF

Even Clark’s vaunted fourth star as a general was unearned, according to Robert Novak. It was twice rejected as undeserved by Pentagon brass, but then was awarded by his patron Bill Clinton after Clark begged the President for it.

“Clark,” wrote Novak, “is the perfect model of a 1990s political four-star general.” The Clintons love him. The troops he has commanded, by contrast, call him the “Ultimate Perfumed Prince.”

But his promotion to a four-star general, and now to a Presidential candidate, must have involved more than Clark’s slavish obedience to the Clintons and their agenda, and more than his background as a fellow Little Rocker Arkansan. The Clintons, as their use of private detectives and secret police attests, like to use people they can blackmail – people over whom they hold some dark secret as a threat.

Perhaps General Wesley Clark was more intimately and directly involved in the deaths at Waco than anybody has reported. Perhaps he has some other secret shame or disgrace. For whatever reason, the Clintons seem confident that they have him under their complete control.

This megalomaniacal, manipulative couple would not be advancing the candidacy of General Wesley Clark unless they were sure that they control him – and that his candidacy will serve their own selfish interests.

Having read this column, please take a moment to re-read my August 25 previous investigation into General Wesley Clark. Can you imagine any decent American, right-wing or left-wing, voting for such a person?

I can see a powerful combination of Clinton and Clark. Many can see it as well but can't figure out who is on top LOL.

Here, if truth would dictate that the Karma is that she is in contro,l and he, like the lap dog, is taking Cheny's place in the Bunker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. KK, Great article. Whereas Howie Dean is a motor mouth loose cannon, Wes Clark is a self-centered arrogant buffoon. What a painful choice for the Democrats.

2. Here's an evaluation of Wes Clark by military folks who know him:

Clark stirs criticism about integrity Jan.07/04

Wherever he goes, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark is asked the same questions: If your military career was so great, why were you relieved early of your NATO command? What did Gen. Hugh Shelton really mean when he said that it happened because of "character and integrity issues?"

In "Waging Modern War," his book about the Kosovo campaign, Clark writes that Hugh Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called to tell him that his command was ending as Clark was having a late dinner with the president of Lithuania.

Since he announced his candidacy for president in late September, military men who knew him well have been among his sternest critics.

Shelton was asked about Clark and his presidential campaign during a college forum last fall, according to the Los Altos, Calif., Town Crier. Shelton paused, took a drink of water, said he wished it was vodka and then said: "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues."

He also said: "Wes won't get my vote." Shelton has since refused to elaborate and declined a request for an interview.

Retired Lt. Gen. Marc Cisneros, who was the Army's nominee for a job he lost to Clark as commander of the Southern Command, echoed criticism of Clark that is widely shared among his military peers, although Cisneros was one of the few willing to say it on the record with his name attached.

"He was a training-focused leader but did not appear to care about people - only himself. I value honesty and integrity in a person … and I felt that Wes was lacking in this. He is extremely competent but self-serving to a fault," Cisneros said. 

3. Btw, I'm not sure if others have seen this article but it appears that Canadians are sticking their noses into the presidential campaign...some of them have set up a fund raising web site for Wes Clark...Canadians love American military men, don't you know...

Canada's Cash by Tony Blankley, Jan.07/04

Funding for American presidential elections is beginning to go global. From Sweden to Canada to Portugal, on international Web sites, solicitations are popping up urging the citizens of the world to contribute to advertising campaigns intended to influence our November presidential election. Of course they are not trying to re-elect George Bush. The candidacies of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark seem to be the inspiration for such efforts. There is no evidence, yet, that either of those campaigns is directly running these operations. But the Clark campaign has inched dangerously close. Perceptive reporting by The Talon News and the Drudge Report over the last three weeks has begun to reveal this unprecedented fund-raising tactic. According to Drudge, the official Web site for Wesley Clark is linked to "CanadaForClark, which advises its readers that: Non-Americans can't, by law, give money to any particular candidate's campaign. But we can support pro-democracy, progressive American organizations like MoveOn.Org, which do their best to spread the ugly truth about Bush and publicize the Democratic message. Wink, wink ... nudge, nudge. The Drudge Report goes on to report that the CanadaForClark.com Web site links to MoveOn.Org for the purpose of making contributions, and that the top referrer to that Web site is the Official Clark for President Web site. It should be noted that the CanadaForClark Web site asserts that: "This site is not affiliated in any way with the official Clark campaign." But, of course, the official campaign Web site links to the "not affiliated" Web site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a year ago 99% of the people never even heard of these two guys. Democrats were better off with Hillary and Gore.

To be fair though Morgan, Dean is the better choice of all. Every Politician Flips and Flops. I mean, I could probably dig up dirt on Cretien for cryin out loud LOL. It's the overall picture that really counts. Never heard of Dean? There's a reason. Never heard of Clark? There's a reason. Patton and Truman they ain't.

The saving grace of it is that Polititians lie to all, Left and Right. To run on a campaign of pulling troops out of Iraq is a sure way to piss the Voters off in the first year. Won't happen, and you end up with a bunch of lefties saying that Bush was at least honest and Dean or whoever is like Nixon. Common sense, realism and practicality after the rhetoric, trumps rumor mongering and disinformation.

I think that for the undecided, it all boils down to who doesn't look like they are a used car salesman and pure public recognition. Clark, being a Four Star General should carry the day, however, what if Colin Powell entered the race against him? The Dems would fold like house of toilet paper. Hillary is their best bet. She's got that public image and they know her to see her. Dean, though making sense is WHO?

I would love to see Bush face off in a debate against Hillary. It would be a dream come true. Cheny against Clark, man! That's entertainment!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean and Clarke are both morons. Dean taxed the hell out of Vermont to such an extent that Killington is threatening to secede.

First time in US history a city has wanted to secede from a state.

Clarke bombs serb civilians from 30.000 feet and claims he is a war genius. He was so smart he did not commit grand troops or heavy armour. Milosovic fell due to internal tumults and luckily for Clinton and Clarke he did. Neither one of these jackasses would have the common sense to wage a winnable war.

They would be too busy apologising to the aggrieved Europeans.

Bush will win 35 states and wipe the floor with Dean in the popular vote. The economy is booming, jobs will come on line starting March 04 and the US dollar will rebound once rates rise in spring 04.

The democrats as a national party are finished until at least 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush's economic plan is working - the fact that the Dumbo's WANT a poor economy speaks volumes about their lack of policy strength - as Jim Cramer a big time Demo supporter and TV personality and billionaire stated -'it is NOT about the economy stupid'. In other words, these clowns and losers better find some other comic material to fight an election with, or Bush will use them as mops during the election.

The US needs a Rep gov't to get the economy going [no we don't need Demo induced BUBBLES thank you], fight the war on terror [thanks Bill for doing NOTHING and causing 9-11] and reforming the tax, savings and energy codes.

These are grown up issues and should be left to adults, not penis obsessed trial lawyers and social liberals who wish to spend their time either suing or crying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...