Comment: comment #53 also "awaiting moderation"

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: comment #52, "awaiting moderation" (see in situ)

comment #53 also "awaiting moderation"

"Jordan McGrain’s statements sound like threats and an attempt to intimidate those peasants that don’t believe elections require you to agree to the demands of higher-ups. Don’t we have laws against voter intimidation?

McGrain accuses Paul supporters of having a “potential for trouble”, being “rowdy guests”, likely to cause a “ruckus”, “all-out anarchy”, “disruptions”, and a “free-for-all”. He also implies that they are cheaters(!) not “interested in a straight-up fight” and complains that they are “floating beneath the radar”. He offers no facts to support these accusations other than more unsupported accusations from the sore-losers in Nevada and Louisiana.

Goodness! With that kind of contempt coming from fellow Republicans professing to support the same ideas as you – why would Paul supporters feel inclined to “float beneath the radar”? (sarcasm)

He further complains that they want to “take by party rules what they couldn’t on election day.”

You mean they want to FOLLOW PARTY RULES TO A T and win delegate seats to a partially TAX-PAYER FUNDED CONVENTION? Delegate seats which were not decided by, or even part of the primary election?

Yet the party has-beens can’t understand why they aren’t popular enough to win votes without threats, hired bullies, ignoring their own existing rules and creating spur-of-the-moment rules to ensure that they get their way!"

NJ