Jump to content


Photo

The IL GOP head learned from the dems


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,857 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 03 December 2019 - 01:37 PM

https://www.wcia.com...impression=true

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WCIA) Senator Bill Bradys tenure as Minority Leader faces new uncertainty after Senator Jason Plummer, Bradys former 2010 gubernatorial running mate, accused Brady of offering him an appointment to sit on the Joint Commission on Ethics and Lobbying Reform in exchange for muting his criticism of Bradys side gig working to promote video gaming terminals in bars.

It was said multiple times that he would not appoint me if I followed through on filing that legislation that I had worked on, or if I spoke publicly about it, Plummer told WCIA on Monday night. I was kind of surprised that he was as forward as he was. I said to him, I said, Geez, Bill.'

I recall the conversation with great detail because it wasnt just one conversation, Plummer added.

Several Senate Republicans, who asked to speak anonymously, said Plummers explosive allegations could make it incredibly difficult for Brady to keep enough votes in his camp to win re-election to keep his post in 2021.

I tried to handle this in a professional manner, Plummer said. I went through the proper channels.

On Monday, Plummer sent a letter to Brady and the Senate Republican leadership team informing them he would not comply with Bradys restrictions. Senator Brady promptly responded with a letter of his own, and replaced Plummer with Senator Dan McConchie, a Republican from Hawthorn Woods. McConchie says the appointment came as a surprise, and he claims Brady would only tell him at first that Plummer had resigned for whatever reason.



#2 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,039 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 03 December 2019 - 02:03 PM

It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent. 


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#3 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,857 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 03 December 2019 - 02:06 PM

It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent.

Now he actually gives money to GPAC to send mailers out for anti-gun GOP legislators that are endorsed by ICHV and MDA. Dont question him about that though.....

Attached Thumbnails

  • 15315645-E1B2-4E2C-8FCC-652365DD534D.jpeg

Edited by steveTA84, 03 December 2019 - 02:10 PM.


#4 Nod

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 15

Posted 03 December 2019 - 02:25 PM

I have always said that Bill Brady was a RINO, I never voted for him and never will.



#5 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,832 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 03 December 2019 - 03:08 PM

It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent.

Now he actually gives money to GPAC to send mailers out for anti-gun GOP legislators that are endorsed by ICHV and MDA. Dont question him about that though.....

You should sue him for blocking you. Don't even bother with a lawyer, just follow the blueprint they used to force Trump to stop blocking people.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#6 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,857 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 03 December 2019 - 03:17 PM

It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent.

Now he actually gives money to GPAC to send mailers out for anti-gun GOP legislators that are endorsed by ICHV and MDA. Dont question him about that though.....
You should sue him for blocking you. Don't even bother with a lawyer, just follow the blueprint they used to force Trump to stop blocking people.

I got Morrison too (for being vocal on her comment about confiscation). Both parties covered in the Senate :)

Attached Thumbnails

  • 32C8AEDB-AFB6-4053-9EF7-C6E8AB7B131E.jpeg


#7 spu69

    Firearm and Motorcycle Enthusiast

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,133 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 13

Posted 03 December 2019 - 04:53 PM

It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent.Now he actually gives money to GPAC to send mailers out for anti-gun GOP legislators that are endorsed by ICHV and MDA. Dont question him about that though.....


Hey, isn’t an elected official blocking someone on Twitter a violation of the 1st Amendment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

#8 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,857 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 03 December 2019 - 05:28 PM

It is truly sad how at one time we wanted this guy to be our next governor as he was on board to pass a carry law that at the time was non existent.Now he actually gives money to GPAC to send mailers out for anti-gun GOP legislators that are endorsed by ICHV and MDA. Dont question him about that though.....


Hey, isn’t an elected official blocking someone on Twitter a violation of the 1st Amendment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

https://www.american...locking-social/

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is facing two lawsuits over blocking critics from her Twitter account, @AOC. The complaints were filed last week and allege First Amendment violations, and they came within hours of the Second Circuit’s opinion in Knight Institute v. Trump—in which the appeals court held that President Trump engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when he blocked critics from his own Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump.

As Judge Barrington D. Parker, writing for a unanimous panel, put it: “[T]he First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.” Parker went on to conclude: “[W]e remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users