Well, she does have experience in abandoning a family, being henpecked by a new family full of women, penis removal and mentally screwing up her kids.
I feel a great disturbance in the force. Almost as if 50 million liberals suddenly hate the transgendered people they pretended to like last week.
I'm absolutely sure that the woman in the first photo has come out and said that she was completely comfortable there. As for the second photo, I doubt he will be in politics in the near future, and he isn't exactly enjoying a lot of support.
I had family in another state and had no real familyleft in California and there wasn't anything that could keep me there.
Bill Clinton did not have consensual acts. Why do you think he payed Paula Jones $850,000 in court? I hope you are not referring to Bill. He set the bar pretty low for politicians.
I am speaking of sexual acts vs rape allegations. She never said he raped her. With Anthony W. I was referring to the act of him sending photography which was consensual, if if it was to be used against him later.
All jokes aside, this put the left in quite the conundrum... ... and as well all know, there's nothing more entertaining that leftists forced into a conundrum.
Only because California is part of the US. If that ceased to be the case,its economy would shrink faster than its population.
It was a joke. Chuckle chuckle. Like many other posts here. Tongue in cheek. Sarcasm with a bit of truth. Plus, I never said anyone HERE said that, if you want to be anal retentive about my comment. So there.
One can certainly be an advocate for transgender rights, w/o being elected governor. There are a lot of other, important, issues, over which a governor must preside.
Agreed. I find it very frustrating that so many people completely overlook a candidate's TOTAL platform and just vote on one issue. I know so many people that have voted against their own best interests by doing this.
Aren't you getting ahead of yourself-- it hasn't yet been decided who will be the Republican nominee, has it? Are we assuming that Republican Primary voters won't be able to say no to anyone with a degree of notoriety? From what some are saying, Jenner may have the funds for an independent run, but that would make her all the more of a long-shot.
For anyone not intimately acquainted w/ California politics, "CA," is not an, "example." How much trouble would it be to cite/describe the specific law which is supposedly the genesis of your post? When one skates so lightly over their main point, it gives rise to the suspicion (in me, anyway) that there is less to the claim than it is being made out to be.