Posted on 11/28/2016 3:21:02 PM PST by MNDude
The co-conspirators, the creeps, the unipartarians, the cucks????
NO WAY, Jose.
Kasich could have beaten her with his father’s mailbag.
I wouldn’t have bothered voting for another establishment neocon hack. I said no more and I meant it!
Perhaps they have hit rock bottom and things will change now?
Not even close.
I can’t and won’t listen to a guy who was fool enough to believe the exit polls.
I mean really, didn’t he learn anything from 2004?
No.
No
Kasich? Bush?
“... the former was a lulu and the latter was a fake...”
(Line taken from “Casey at the Bat”)
It would be interesting to see this question put to a national poll.
No. Although it would have been interesting for the debates to have her matched up with Cruz. I think he would have drilled into her on actual topics and made her look more foolish than Trump did. But it had to be Trump in the end...convincing a lot of independents and some Democrats that he would deliver on jobs.
I agree with your assessment of Cruz. He would have made a good president, but did not have the broad appeal of Trump. However, God chose Trump - therefore it was not possible for any other to win. The RNC plan was to knock out both nonconformist. Trump was supposed to run away early, but didn’t. Then they sicked Kasich on both Trump and Cruz, with the idea that he would knock Cruz out. The DNC preferred to run against Trump or Cruz and not any of the others, but lost because of their arrogance and Trump’s resilience. But in the end, God chose Trump for his own purpose in my opinion.
spot on. And I say this, with Cruz still my #1 man... but God thankfully has other plans for us, cause Ted would not have broken through the blue wall like DJT did.
The JG
No.
If it had been a civilized debate on the issues, probably Cruz.
But against the Marxist agitprop streetfight backed up by the Enemedia? No, probably not.
No, because none of the others would have had the cajones to hit back against the Hildebeast’s attacks.
Does that mean the candidates that lost to romney in 2012 would have lost to Obama?
The latter was a Bush. No wonder why he ran with his first name
Trump has set new bar for our political leadership standards.
There will be few who will be able to follow in his new standards. Maybe an offspring of his if we can be so lucky.
Hillary would have destroyed cruz on economics. Did you know his tax plan was a VAT?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/01/15/ted-cruzs-business-flat-tax-is-a-vat/#4ac00e3a580f
He is not running for supreme court. He is a good vote in the Senate and can filibuster bad bills but he doesn’t understand economic policies
No.
But that’s why the RINOs wanted anyone but Trump:
They wanted to lose. Then they would be off the hook (in their warped, corrupt minds), and would go on crying crocodile tears over how much they wished they could execute a truly conservative agenda, if only - if only! - they had the White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.