Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
The Regressives would have stood a fair chance at getting the White House back IF they had run John Kasich as their candidate instead of Trump.
Their field of candidates was pitiful. Trump, Huckabee, Walker, Fiorina, Carson, Rubio, and Cruz.
IF the heirarchy of the party could have seen the disaster that Trump is, and offered him some concession to drop out, the Regressives would have been better off.
They need a moderate such as Kasich who has Washington skills - but instead they have a losing candidate - TRUMP.
|
You should learn the meaning of your vocabulary before parroting someone else's words. Regressive is more in line with your antiquated socialism. And everyone knows that Democrats are today's socialists. So, you are only making a fool of yourself by calling conservatives "regressives."
You think that the GOP had "pitiful" candidates? Are you a fool or what? Hillary is a criminal, liar, disloyal, tax cheat that has failed at every job she has ever had. Bernie is an ancient washed up old perverted socialist. And you think we had bad choices? What does that say for you when the best the Democrats have to offer is two nasty old people, a criminal and a commie?
You would be funny if not so pathetic. You should seek professional help. Somebody that will help you accept reality. Sure, Clinton could win. After all, they elected Obama a second time after all his failures. I'm sure that Clinton does have a good chance. That does not make her a good person, leader or American. It just means that she has fooled enough voters, live and dead, legal and illegal to get elected. Pretty soon there will be enough takers, leaches off the gov that there will be no other party but the socialist party. What is ironic is that YOU will be paying for it, not the seniors. Seniors are hardly affected by socialism in it's infancy. It will be everyone else that will have to pay for it, or become another Greece.