United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Palin Women Masterfully Call Out Erick Erickson, Fox News On Trump-Kelly Flap
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... -fox-news-on-trump-kelly-flap/
Published: Aug 11, 2015
Author: Kevin Scholla
Post Date: 2015-08-12 13:18:51 by lana
Keywords: None
Views: 7610
Comments: 82
After being disinvited from a RedState event over the weekend, Donald Trump called RedState’s Erick Erickson “a major sleaze and buffoon who has saved me time and money.” The Donald may be on to something. Erickson, a RINO on steroids could best be described with an old Ralph Kramden line. “I’ve seen some hypocrites in my day but he is the hippiest critic I have ever seen,” Jackie Gleason once quipped on The Honeymooners. Now Erickson’s latest comments are being taken to task by Bristol Palin and her mom, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The two completely expose the ridiculousness that is political correctness with a big Bang, Zoom. In her popular blog, Bristol Palin blasts Fox News for its Republican presidential debates last week and she chides Erickson for calling Trump a sexist. Palin wrote: “It’s official. I used to use this blog to point out how liberals use the ‘outrage industry’ to manipulate people and keep their power. Now Republicans are just as bad.” By now you’ve undoubtedly heard that there’s a guy named Erick Erickson, of RedState, who disinvited Donald Trump from a gathering of conservatives because, as he put it, “there are even lines blunt talkers and unprofessional politicians should not cross. Decency is one of those lines.” Erickson bumped Trump from the event after a war of words between Mr. Trump and Fox News host Megyn Kelly. After the second GOP debate Thursday, Trump said, “you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her whatever.” Some took that as a dig at Kelly’s menstrual cycle. Erickson used it as an excuse to dump Trump. Kelly, a former guest on Howard Stern’s program, who also posed for pictures in GQ magazine while scantily clad was suddenly the poster woman for the fictitious war on women. That liberal logic was picked apart masterfully by Palin. She wrote : Want to learn some “lessons in sexual and political decency” from Erickson? Here are three: Palin listed just a sample of Erickson’s hypocritical comments and actions over the years. His use of a fake picture of her mother wearing a revealing shirt with Santa Claus, his profanity laced description of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and a tweet from 2007 in which Erickson seemed to get his kicks off of Trump bashing Rosie O’Donnell on Fox–one of the very things Trump was slammed for in the recent GOP debate. Palin also gave specific examples of Fox hypocrisy. She ripped the network for host Chris Wallace joking about hoping Sarah Palin would sit on his lap, and included a quote from Fox News President Roger Ailes in which he said he hired the former vice presidential candidate “because she was hot and got ratings.” As for that former veep nominee, she is on board with her daughter evidenced by her promotion of Bristol’s Blog through social media. Sarah Palin provided a link to her daughter’s blog on Facebook with the intro of – “Rocks and glass houses don’t go together when you’re playing PC gotcha games, so please spare us the holier than thou routine. Read Bristol’s post on how hypocritical this ‘trumped up’ outrage is.” Both Palin women agree Fox should be ashamed to have asked Mr. Trump about his history of demeaning comments on women during the debate. It’s hard to argue with their commonsense stance. Bristol Palin’s blog gives a tidy wrap-up of just how ridiculous so many so-called Republicans and “fair and balanced” news outlets have become. “We only have so many opportunities to hear from the fifty million candidates who are apparently running for President. And we get the Fox moderators asking questions that the New York Times applauds?” Palin said. “Please. Let’s don’t use the Democratic ‘war on women’ talking points when we have ISIS to worry about.” “Fox and Erickson need to get off their high horse on how outraged they are NOW about sexism and decency,” Palin added. “Let’s focus on winning the election, not winning accolades from The New York Times.” We will surely see and hear plenty more from the PC brigade and “outrage industry” as Palin puts it before the 2016 race is decided, but on this day the score is clear. Mama grizzlies- 1 RINOs- 0. Read More Stories About: Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race, FOX NEWS, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Megyn Kelly, Sarah Palin, GOP Debate, Erick Erickson, Bristol Palin, RedState
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-42) not displayed.
.
.
.
#43. To: CZ82 (#38)
Hmmmmmm, what? Unless you live in a cave, you see it everywhere in your own life. Most people have become quite tolerant of this. One can say "brainwashed!" but the same public education has sought to brainwash people into quite a few other activities, like recycling, but has not really succeeded. On this subject, though, on the gays, the majority of the country is not gay, and doesn't want to be. But the majority of the country jokes about it with benign jokes, and really hates people who get bent out of shape about the gays much more than it does the gays themselves. Most people do not care who other people sleep with, or how. And most people find people who go insane with rage over that sort of thing to be far more disturbing than the unhappy souls who call themselves "gay". This is why corporations extended the benefits, and campuses, everywhere, and people just shrugged their shoulders or quietly agreed. Me? I see the steady advance of Satan through libertinism, but this is just a rearguard action to sweep up a lower rank of sinner. This nation ALREADY damned itself, starting in 1973, by slaughtering 2 million babies a year. Having gays hold hands and make wedding cakes is small beer compared to mass murder. Put to a vote - a plebiscite - in state after state voters have approved gay marriage now. It started with the courts moving it aside, but the more it exercised itself, the more people shrugged their shoulders and did not care. Essentially, gay marriage followed the path of black civil rights, and the holdouts are stigmatized with the same brush as racists. None of the Republican candidates is going to campaign for an amendment to the Constitution to abolish gay marriage. Abortion? Yes - people still stand up to that. But gays? The country has accepted them and moved on, and will bring the crowbar down on those who become too belligerent in holding out. Biden got on the right side of history, from a political perspective, with that move. I personally see a great deal of tragedy here, moral decay. But then I look at our economic system, see how un-Christian it is, and see "Christians" standing against whole chapters of Scripture regarding money, interest, debt, release, relief for the poor, etc., and I realize that the moral foundations of the country have simply rotted away. So I expect nothing. Trump is entertaining. The other dwarves standing up there on the GOP stage are not, and none of them have any hope of being President. It will be Trump or Biden, the Republicans are going to take out Trump, so it will be Biden. And then the Republicans can spend eight years grousing about him. Whatever.
No.
He has at least started trying. He's saying non-conservative stuff or just recycling standard fare from the GOP playbook. It isn't impressing much yet. And it is quite shallow. He can only manage a few sentences of content on any policy matter.
If it's so damn popular then why does it always get voted down by about 70-30% at the state level??
It hasn't been. It was voted up by the people in direct ballot initiatives in Maine, Washington and Maryland. In Minnesota, a referendum was proposed to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. The people rejected it. That's four states where the majorities of the people voted directly to authorize same sex unions, or to ban them, where the ban failed (Minnesota). In several other states, the normal system of a republic, of elected representatives voting on legislation, enacted same-sex marriage laws. There was a time when the numbers you cite are true. But that was a decade ago. In more recent years, people have changed their minds. The pattern of behavior is very similar to the pattern of behavior regarding black segregation and prejudice. It started out as normal and people resisted integration. Then came court cases that forced the issue. There were gales of outrage, but tolerance grew and the shoulder shrug "I don't care either way" grew. Then came affirmative legislation. And as the culture changed, the segregationists became increasingly marginalized, and then finally fell silent, in public, for fear of the retaliation they would suffer if they expressed their racism. One of the legacies of slavery and segregation, as it turns out, is gay marriage as a constitutional right. Because the degree of power that had to be applied to break the will of the racists required a whole political and judicial power structure, and once that was erected, it was not dismantled but left in place to be used as the instrument to break public resistance on other matters, gay marriage being the next. It's a pity our ancestors were so ate up about keeping slaves and keeping blacks and whites apart, because if they hadn't been we probably wouldn't have to look at "Caitlyn" Jenner parading in a dress on the magazine covers.
That's all that is required. Example: The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1873, and 1964, the Voting Rights Amendment of 1964, all the supporting legislation, regulation and legal opinions would fill a library wall. Lots of words and 'content'. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." 11 non-political, non- judicial words. Same content. Expressed more clearly and without ambiguity. Trump said we need a common market in health insurance. That's right. We do. He doesn't need to say more. Smart legislative staffers need to sit down and write out legislation, when the time comes, that achieves that. But the few words of vision that give the orders and set the lower ranks to work - that is what we need. Another example: build the wall, stop the illegal immigration. That means: build the wall and stop the illegal immigration. Talented underlings can prepare the blueprints and floorplans and bring different designs to the chief for his view. Trump does not have to know how to operate each rifle and grenade launcher on the battlefield. He need to stand back and say "Take that hill." That is what you need in a commander in chief.
You mean, he lifted the standard lines from the GOP playbook and holds the position of all other GOP pols. You don't perceive a problem there? As soon as Trump starts to sound just like all the other GOP pols, his appeal starts to decline as people realize they are the same policies, just uttered by a self-promoting bombastic New Yorker with a long checkered political history. I remind you again of Giuliani's approval running about 65% in August 2007. By the time his personal history, his positions on gun control and abortion were hammered home by the gun tribe and the pro-lifers, he was toast. Due to changes in the GOP primary calendar, Trump will face some hard defeats much sooner, before he can get into a big-media state. How do you suppose Donald will enjoy interviews that ask why he keeps losing across the South, declining crowds or just attracting looky-loos who don't intend to vote for him at all. Trump will run into the special interest buzz saw of the GOP very soon. Wait until NRA/GOA and the pro-lifers go after him. You suppose the vets have forgotten what he said about POWs (and the Stain)? How's that going to play in South Carolina? Not so well, I think.
Thank you for proving my point...
I perceive the Republican Party engineering another defeat for itself. Therefore, my attention has turned to the drama in the Democrat Party. We're going to get Jeb. It's a foregone conclusion. It is made manifest here on this board, where rock- ribbed Republicans either desperately want Trump - a sentiment shared by independents - or they hate Trump with a passion and consider those following him hobbits. Republicans are a minority party, and getting more minoritarian with every day that Border is open., but Republicans are concentrating on who is going to have power within the GOP, rather than winning. Which means that Jeb wins the nomination, and loses the election. Therefore, what happens in the Democrat party is of greater interest, for that is where the next President will be coming from. Hillary Clinton is in the toils, and may soon be at bay. And if that happens, another Democrat will step in, probably Biden. One of those two will be the next President. Watching that unfold, then, is watching the preparation for the election. Whomever the Democrats nominate, wins. Jeb is inevitable on the GOP side. And therefore the Democrats win. The question is: which Democrat?
LF is closer to a nest of third-party voters. Is there a single Republican who could be described as rock-ribbed? Aren't you the closest thing we have to a northeastern liberal type? I don't agree. Jeb is likely but not inevitable. He isn't a very good candidate, barely any better than Hitlery. You discount the tick-tock of the American electorate who tends to get sick of either party after 8 years. There is a reason why GHW Bush was the first sitting VP who won the office in 150 years and no one has done it since. So, barring a truly terrible GOP candidate, Republicans are not that badly positioned due to voter restiveness than their positions on issues. Keep in mind, the GOP isn't very popular in each of the recent elections as they've gained more statehouses, legislatures and grown in Congress. Yet they have a strong winning record since 2010, despite having made poor choices to primary some incumbents in safe seats and lost the seat in the process.
A Catholic military veteran who talks to angels? No. I'm the closest thing you have to Saint Paul.
That is because of restlessness over Obama and Obamacare. The Republican Supreme Court has twice ratified Obamacare, it's here to stay but he isn't. The 2014 vote was not a vote FOR the Republicans. It was a vote AGAINST Obama. But Republican partisans will hear none of this. Like Southern fire-eaters, they're going to march to the guns and give their yells. And lose. Would the GOP lose with Trump? Who can say? The nominee will be Jeb Bush. And he will lose. I'm going to repeat that over and over again, a steady drumbeat, until November of next year. Then on the first Wednesday of November, 2016, I will start writing "He was the nominee, and he lost. It was inevitable all along. Have you learned anything yet?" And the answer will be "No." And the cycle will continue, with Republicans screaming about Biden, and another 3000 Democrat voters coming across the Border every day. "You can't teach a sneech." - Suess
I'm going to repeat that over and over again, a steady drumbeat, until November of next year. Yeah, I kinda figured that out. While you pine for Trump/Oprah or Biden/Sotomayor or some other silly ticket that will never happen.
Biden/Somebody will beat Jeb/Somebody.
Hillary is still more likely than Biden unless Obama decides to prosecute her.
Fresh today. Trump paints a Biden scenario. Given your predictions and preferences, I thought you'd like to browse it.
Given your predictions and preferences, I thought you'd like to browse it. Great minds think alike.
He is prosecuting her already. She's toast.
A Xlinton just laughs until they're indicted. Even that doesn't slow them down much.
In an Arkansas or Washington they control by controlling the Executive Branch, that's right. But today they're in a Washington that is controlled by their enemy, Obama, and Obama has had command of the IRS and its files, and the FBI and its files, for 7 years, but the Obama's have been out of power without access to those files for fifteen. And 7 years ago, when the Clinton dirt was a lot fresher, and there was no other powerful Democrat of any stature beyond them, Obama came out of Chicago (Chicago...a not insignificant fact) and beat Team Clinton outright. Since then, Obama has been a more successful President than Clinton. He came in popular, he will leave popular, with his team intact. The Clintons don't stand a chance against Obama.
And this time the leaks and innuendo will be coming from within the government, and they will have Obama's blessing. Hillary will not be the nominee. There will be no fight. She is old and has undisclosed illnesses. She needs to spend time with her family. She will discover this all soon.
If she doesn't discover it until after a primary or two, she will transfer any delegates she wins to Biden.
I just can't believe I finally found America's lone Biden fan. : )
Polls say lots of Democrats like Biden.
Maybe. His past presidential runs, not so much. But being a sitting VP has some advantages.
Being a sitting VP who has Team Obama in the White House working every candidate, and who inherits Team Hillary's organization intact (and gives them hope of winning) is very valuable to him. Biden will unite the Democrats, and he will not offend the Independents. He'll win. Unless you guys choose Trump. Trump will choose Rubio, and that ticket will win.
Rubio is a piece of shit. That is a losing ticket. Trump doesn't like the wuss Rubi Rubio. Neither do I. Palin would be great. You're coming from a democrat perspective. I'm coming from a Conservative perspective.
That wuss Rubio will deliver lots of Latino votes, the state of Florida, and it seems like the ladies have a thing for him. It's politics. As a running mate, he can help someone. An odd thought is that Dr. Ben Carson might make a good counterpoint to Trump. A very different personality, but a very sharp and likeable guy.
Doesn't matter. Trump isn't going to pick Rubio or Palin. If he picked Rubio I wouldn't vote for that.
I am not and never been a Democrat. I am coming from an independent perspective. Rubio is young and impressionable. Trump wants the support of the GOP Establishment. There are three Establishment candidates of impact: Jeb, Walker and Rubio. Jeb brings nothing. Walker brings something, but he's not dynamic. Rubio is young and dynamic, and the thing that Rubio has infuriated conservatives over - immigration - will be handled by Trump's policies. So, Rubio won't get his way on immigration. On other things, Rubio is quite conservative. He shores up any questions about Trump and Hispanics. Bringing Rubio on board will unite the Party. And Trump will be Yoda to the impressionable young Padwan Rubio, who will fall right in and enthusiastically support Trump. Rubio is Hispanic: he wants a solution to the problem bedeviling Hispanics. Trump will come forth with a reasonable immigration policy that will work, and Rubio will buy it. Trump/Rubio will reunite the party, and it will be the ticket. You will reconcile yourself to it in the end because you will not want Biden/Warren, because it will be Trump/Rubio, not Rubio/Trump, because Trump's immigration policy will make sense to you, and because that policy will have been in place and working for 8 years before Rubio will get close to power. Rubio will accept the policy and will campaign for it, and you'll decide that for reasons of pro-life, military strength, immigration control and taxes that you will accept Rubio as second banana to Trump. So will the other conservatives. You're not going to reject Reagan because H.W. Bush will be Veep - not even with 20/20 hindsight. Same thing here.
Republican conservatives, with 20/20 hindsight, would not reject Reagan because H,W. Bush was the running mate. They'd reject H.W. when his term turn came. Same with Rubio.
Rubio is a Bush clone. No difference. Every issue they agree on.
You're like a false prophet. You're all over the place. You're really a democrat at heart. Your saying you want Biden to win reveals yourself.
You're really a democrat at heart. Your saying you want Biden to win reveals yourself. I'm an independent. I despise the Republican party, and I think that middle and working class partisan Republicans are duped rubes, at best. I don't vote Democrat because they are babykillers. Establishment GOP are also babykillers: the GOP made the pro-abortion Supreme Court, 2:1 and they've kept it that way. Republican economics are foolish. The social welfare state: Social Security, Medicare, universal public education - these are necessities of modern life. Those who don't understand that are not serious. The Republican Party speaks as though it doesn't understand these facts, and the Republican track record of slashing taxes, increasing spending and deregulating has brought on three successful financial crises in my voting life, while the Democrats have twice pulled the country out of the mess. FDR did the same thing in his time. Democrats are much better on economic issues than Republicans. Republicans are crony capitalists. With Trump, you've got a smart capitalist who clearly understands the need for the social welfare state. He's smart about the need for universal health insurance. The rest of the Republican field are typically brain dead on the matter. I am not a Democrat: there are moral issues beyond money, and babykilling is a moral issue. I'm not a Democrat because they are babykillers and sodomites. I'm not a Republican because they are babykillers and economic fools. I have been a Republican in the past, because I used to believe their lies about pro-life. But I've opened my eyes and see what they really are. So, I prefer Biden over all of the Republicans except Trump on economic issues. And I see no difference between Biden and Establishment GOP candidates on abortion, except that Biden is honest and TELLS YOU his position. Republicans say they're pro-life, but appoint abortionists to the Supreme Court 2:1. If the Republicans run Jeb, I want to see Biden win. Because with Jeb I'm getting a pro-abort who lies about it, and an economic idiot. With Biden, I'm getting a babykiller who is honest about it, and better economics. I still won't VOTE for Biden. You talk like W Bush: "If you're not with us, you're against us." It was a dumb position by a dumb man who lost the wars and blew up the economy. If you want to follow him down that spider hole of stupidity, go ahead. What I WANT is a party that is pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-child and THEREFORE pro-quality public education, pro-support for university costs, pro-universal health insurance, pro-universal pensions, pro-border control, pro-decriminalization of drugs, anti-imperialism, and not a militarist. Neither party is that. Both are evil in their own special ways. It's always a question of the lesser of two evils. Trump looks pretty good, all in. He's bellicose, which is unfortunate, but he understands the need for border control and he understands the need for universal health insurance. And that makes him light years ahead of the Republican Party. And he SAYS he's pro-life, which is no different from the rest of the GOP, who SAY it. The difference is that the GOP has had the chance to PROVE they're liars. I am willing to take the chance that Trump is NOT lying, that his change to pro-life is sincere. My position is not simplistic enough for you. I'll make it simple: I hate both parties. I'll vote for Trump because he appears to offer what I want. The only other likely Republicans are Walker and Jeb. I won't vote for Jeb. Walker remains to be seen. I haven't invested the time to look, and won't, because Trump will be the nominee. No matter who it is, even Jeb, I won't be voting for Biden. But if it's Jeb, I will definitely prefer Biden, because Democrat economics are better than Republican economics, Democrat war policy is no worse, and Jeb killed Terri Schiavo, so he's no pro-lifer. We're just talking about a meaningless thing anyway - the vote of one obscure man in a blue state, so… "What difference does it make?" - Clinton
There are differences. Rubio is not named Bush and need not defend W. He is authentic Latino. He seems to offer a JFK-like attraction to the ladies. The VP makes no real difference in office unless the Prez is a figurehead. Trump is nobody's figurehead. Assuming Trump is nominated, he has to choose someone. That someone should bring something to the ticket. Kasich might bring Ohio. Rubio might bring Florida, latinos, and ladies.
Rubio also brings a FUTURE, because he's young, and he is part of the future demographic dominant strain in America. I'm assuming that 8 years working on the most important things in the world will Donald Trump will change any young man into something more than he was before, in terms of being a negotiator and being able to keep together really big projects.
I don't think Trump would consider Rubio. I don't think he likes him. I don't think people the fence will be persuaded by him picking Rubio or pretty much a much anyone else for that matter. They are for Trump. It would make him look like a fraud on immigration. I mean Rubio and Bush are th the ones he is opposing on that issue. Just my 3 cents.
The object of the exercise is to have the running mate attract voters that are not attracted by the main candidate, and preferably deliver a significant swing state. The idea is more votes. A clone of the main candidate results in the same number of votes with a more emphatic pull of the lever. One pull, however emphatic, counts as one vote. After election day, if they do not get along, The Prez can banish the VP to attending state funerals around the world.
Reagan picked Bush. Look what happened with that.
As I recall, Reagan won twice, the second time carrying 49 states. After that, Bush won. Then Bush was Bush and lost to Clinton. JFK disliked LBJ but they got elected. It's a business decision. Trump will make a business decision.
Hmmmmm...
#44. To: CZ82 (#41)
Let me guess you also believe in Bigfoot???
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
He's going to surprise you in the next 10 days.
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#47. To: CZ82 (#46)
If it's so damn popular then why does it always get voted down by about 70-30% at the state level??
#48. To: TooConservative (#45)
He can only manage a few sentences of content on any policy matter.
#49. To: Vicomte13 (#48)
Trump said we need a common market in health insurance.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#47)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#51. To: TooConservative (#49)
You don't perceive a problem there?
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
It is made manifest here on this board, where rock- ribbed Republicans either desperately want Trump
Which means that Jeb wins the nomination, and loses the election.
#53. To: TooConservative (#52)
Aren't you the closest thing we have to a northeastern liberal type?
#54. To: TooConservative (#52)
Keep in mind, the GOP isn't very popular in each of the recent elections as they've gained more statehouses, legislatures and grown in Congress. Yet they have a strong winning record since 2010, despite having made poor choices to primary some incumbents in safe seats and lost the seat in the process.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#54)
he nominee will be Jeb Bush. And he will lose.
#56. To: TooConservative (#55)
While you pine for Trump/Oprah or Biden/Sotomayor or some other silly ticket that will never happen.
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
Biden/Somebody will beat Jeb/Somebody.
#59. To: TooConservative (#58)
Fresh today. Trump paints a Biden scenario.
#60. To: TooConservative (#57)
Hillary is still more likely than Biden unless Obama decides to prosecute her.
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
He is prosecuting her already. She's toast.
#62. To: TooConservative (#61)
A Xlinton just laughs until they're indicted. Even that doesn't slow them down much.
#63. To: TooConservative (#61)
A Xlinton just laughs until they're indicted. Even that doesn't slow them down much.
#64. To: All (#63)
#65. To: Vicomte13 (#64)
If she doesn't discover it until after a primary or two, she will transfer any delegates she wins to Biden.
#66. To: TooConservative (#65)
#67. To: Vicomte13 (#66)
Polls say lots of Democrats like Biden.
#68. To: TooConservative (#67)
But being a sitting VP has some advantages.
#69. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
#70. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#69)
Rubio is a piece of shit. That is a losing ticket. Trump doesn't like the wuss Rubi Rubio. Neither do I.
#71. To: nolu chan (#70)
#72. To: A K A Stone (#69)
You're coming from a democrat perspective. I'm coming from a Conservative perspective.
#73. To: nolu chan (#70)
#74. To: Vicomte13 (#72)
Rubio is young and impressionable
#75. To: Vicomte13 (#72)
You will reconcile yourself to it in the end because you will not want Biden/Warren,
#76. To: A K A Stone (#75)
ou're like a false prophet. You're all over the place.
#77. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#74)
Rubio is a Bush clone. No difference.
#78. To: nolu chan (#77)
(Edited)
Rubio might bring Florida, latinos, and ladies.
#79. To: nolu chan (#77)
Kasich might bring Ohio. Rubio might bring Florida, latinos, and ladies.
#80. To: A K A Stone (#79)
I don't think Trump would consider Rubio. I don't think he likes him.
#81. To: nolu chan (#80)
#82. To: A K A Stone (#81)
Reagan picked Bush. Look what happened with that.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]