[FreeReign]

This thread is about a candidate being endorsed for an election. Elections are about picking a candidate (or even choosing not to pick a candidate). It's perfectly appropriate on such a thread, when criticizing the endorsed candidate, to be asked who if not the endorsed candidate would you choose. The logic that you use to avoid that question that was asked of you by that poster, is "moronic".

Still can't figure it out? Your explanation of what is "perfectly appropriate" gives you the ability to change the subject, rather than discuss your candidates decision. I see that a lot with liberals.

Utter nonsense.

The comeback question, "so who do you support" gives one the ability to say, I agree that the candidate made a wrong decision, but I can't find a better candidate. Can tell me who would be better?

As I said the question is perfectly appropriate.

Your avoidance of the question tells me that you are afraid to defend your own candidate and/or that your are just being "moronic".

[Souled_Out]

The question was answered. Your ability to understand is at question now, I know you can read, but do you have the ability to comprehend?