If McLachlan is scratching his head, then it's painfully obvious that he either not paying attention to his opposition, or not taking his opponent seriously.
I'll have my take on what really happened Tuesday, and why the defeats of McLachlan and Boucher should not be as a shock to many...and why newly elected Democrats in Greater Danbury would be wise to get to work for the common good of all their constituents in their districts...the Presidential 2020 cycle is closer than you think.
Newtown State Rep Duff stumbles to explain pro-gun voting record
Tuesday, November 06, 2018 Time: 8:29 AM
To say that Newtown State Representative Will Duff is out of touch with the will of his constituents would be an understatement...and there is no greater example of the FAR-right Republican ignoring his community than his vote AGAINST banning bump stock gun attachments.
As a representative for a community that is still dealing with the after-effects of the Sandy Hook tragedy, when questioned about his bump stock stance, Duff has routinely ignored the topic while using "mental health" as a scapegoat for his pro-NRA voting record.
At a recent debate in Redding, while Duff stumbled to defend his bump stock vote, Raghib Allie-Brennan set the record straight about the state lawmaker's willingness to ignore his community.
On Election Day...in the 2nd district...the choice is clear...
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.