sell your ride
post your service
sell your stuff
post your class
browse all jobs
post a job
homes for sale
for sale by owner
post your listing
If you're looking for "I Spys," dating or LTRs, this is your scene.
If you're looking for full-on kink or group play, you'll get what you need here.
I'll probably vote for Minter because she's likely to do less damage than her opponent Scott. Scott makes me fearful but Minter engenders little inspiration that anything will change for the better under her watch. Nothing she has ever said or done in her association with state affairs suggests otherwise. She has never indicated an awareness of any fundamental flaws in the American way. However I will reserve some hope until she has some experience as governor. Like Charlie Brown I keep foolishly believing that the person who has control of the ball will play fair. I am 70 and it hasn't happened yet. Sanders is one of the first to exude leadership along with a swelling justice and human rights based underpinning for his beliefs and intentions.
If I had just taken a job with a lot of authority and was handed a contract that, I was also told, was negotiated, written and approved by the department I was now heading all I might have done differently than Minter was check with my boss, the governor, to see if there were any new objections. She claims to have read the contract and found nothing amiss with its contents. No one has inferred that there was. If the governor was OK with the contract, and she couldn't provide specific and serious reasons to show why it was a bad contract, it would have been very bad form, especially given the fact that she was new on the job, to arbitrarily blow him off and exercise her authority to not sign it. I also haven't heard if the signing of the contract has resulted in any losses for the state. I'm not saying that Dunne should not have brought this up but he should have done so in a much more grounded and politic manner. This does come across like an immature campaign tactic.
The reporter seems a bit absent-minded. Most of the article is about the Progressive party not endorsing democratic candidates. Then she quotes the Chair of the party saying that they will reconsider after the primaries. My reading is that, among other things, the party was saying they would not endorse a person who only hoped to be the official Democratic candidate. Since the Democratic Party itself has not chosen its candidate it would be strange and confusing if not pointless and fruitless for a different party to endorse one of their hopefuls. The above comments don't sound like they're coming from people who are either a part of or well versed on Vermont political party process. Those commenters might try and explain why the Democratic Party would have welcomed an endorsement at this time and then revisit the Progressive Party decision. The commenters might also try and explain why the three Democratic hopefuls were there in the first place. Given what goes in in contemporary politics it's difficult not to suspect that the commenters are actually Republican plants trying to foment dissension.