Reince Priebus; Even Nixon didn't destroy the tapes (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2024, 06:40:50 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Reince Priebus; Even Nixon didn't destroy the tapes (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Reince Priebus; Even Nixon didn't destroy the tapes  (Read 4519 times)
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« on: March 28, 2015, 07:04:59 PM »

You guys really do want a corrupt, incompetent old hag as President dont you? Obviously there is no integrity left in the Dem party. All that matters is winning. The fact that the left sticks with Hillary rather than go with Warren or O'Malley show the Dem party is all about winning no matter what the consequences to the country or their party.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2015, 07:40:40 PM »

You guys really do want a corrupt, incompetent old hag as President dont you? Obviously there is no integrity left in the Dem party. All that matters is winning. The fact that the left sticks with Hillary rather than go with Warren or O'Malley show the Dem party is all about winning no matter what the consequences to the country or their party.

It's simple, the consequences of not winning means someone like Bush, Walker, Rubio, or Paul wins.

Cant Warren win or OMalley?

Clinton is actually my third choice. I am supporting Walker or Rubio. But I am convinced that Clinton's presidency would be such a disaster for the Dem party, we'll see the number of elected GOP officials at levels not seen since reconstruction.
Logged
bobloblaw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,018
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2015, 02:36:25 PM »

You guys really do want a corrupt, incompetent old hag as President dont you? Obviously there is no integrity left in the Dem party. All that matters is winning. The fact that the left sticks with Hillary rather than go with Warren or O'Malley show the Dem party is all about winning no matter what the consequences to the country or their party.

It's simple, the consequences of not winning means someone like Bush, Walker, Rubio, or Paul wins.

Cant Warren win or OMalley?

Clinton is actually my third choice. I am supporting Walker or Rubio. But I am convinced that Clinton's presidency would be such a disaster for the Dem party, we'll see the number of elected GOP officials at levels not seen since reconstruction.

Regardless of whether O'Malley or Warren could win, all that matters is that people think they'd have a harder time in the general than Clinton. You can't reasonably claim with such certainty that a Clinton presidency would hurt the Democrats, but you could certainly argue that a Walker presidency instead would hurt the country. I care much more about the condition of the country than of its political parties.

Yes, I can most certainly claim that Clinton will greatly hurt the Dem brand. But doesnt hurting the Dem brand from your stand point also hurt the country as it results in more GOPers getting elected?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 13 queries.