Kasich does not belong in the race

[Pogo]

I disagree. People in every state should have a voice to who they prefer to represent them. Names (nor consideration) should not be removed from ballot simply based on the feelings of people who are citizens of other states.

I agree, but Gramps didn't say he should be "removed." Why do you assume that any view of what people think means they think it should be done by force?

Where'd anyone bring up "force"?

The OP could want that, or he could want Kasich to just throw up his hands and walk away in a feeble capitulation to the concept that blusterfluff prevails over rationality.

Either way, the idea is stupid. Basically the OP's saying "I've made my choice and it's not person X, therefore person X needs to go away".

I quoted the word that answers your question. You're a horrible reader, it's funny you claim to have done that for a living and corrected people. You confused a lot of reporters with your comments, didn't you?

Ummm.... no you didn't. Where do you see the word "force" in the quote? Where?

Here again-- the entire post:

I disagree. People in every state should have a voice to who they prefer to represent them. Names (nor consideration) should not be removed from ballot simply based on the feelings of people who are citizens of other states.

Fatter o' mact, it's not in the OP, or anywhere in the thread until you bring it in.
Read much?

 

[kaz]

I quoted the word that answers your question. You're a horrible reader, it's funny you claim to have done that for a living and corrected people. You confused a lot of reporters with your comments, didn't you?

Ummm.... no you didn't. Where do you see the word "force" in the quote? Where?

The word I quoted was "remove." I didn't quote the word "force," you did. So you're a former editor who doesn't know what quote marks look like or what they mean?

Here again-- the entire post:

I disagree. People in every state should have a voice to who they prefer to represent them. Names (nor consideration) should not be removed from ballot simply based on the feelings of people who are citizens of other states.

Fatter o' mact, it's not in the OP, or anywhere in the thread until you bring it in.
Read much?

Which is again why I didn't quote "force." You did. LOL. I quoted "remove." If you remove someone from the ballot, you are forcing them out

 

[Pogo]

I quoted the word that answers your question. You're a horrible reader, it's funny you claim to have done that for a living and corrected people. You confused a lot of reporters with your comments, didn't you?

Ummm.... no you didn't. Where do you see the word "force" in the quote? Where?

The word I quoted was "remove." I didn't quote the word "force," you did. So you're a former editor who doesn't know what quote marks look like or what they mean?

Here again-- the entire post:

I disagree. People in every state should have a voice to who they prefer to represent them. Names (nor consideration) should not be removed from ballot simply based on the feelings of people who are citizens of other states.

Fatter o' mact, it's not in the OP, or anywhere in the thread until you bring it in.
Read much?

Which is again why I didn't quote "force." You did. LOL. I quoted "remove." If you remove someone from the ballot, you are forcing them out

---- which is --- once again --- why I asked you where you got the word "force" ---- SINCE NO ONE USED IT.

This is all sailing blissfully over your pointy little head innit?

 

[SwimExpert]

The voters have SOUNDLY rejected him.

Kasich has not even bothered in many states, nor did he ever intend to do so. He's not trying to be a front runner. His has always been a strategic campaign.

 

[SwimExpert]

Clearly he doesn't belong in the race. He hasn't explained how big his dick is

He has by far the hottest wife of any of the candidates, and he didn't even have to buy her from overseas. So that explains it all, it seems.

Goddammit, I really have no will power anymore.

 

[kaz]

I quoted the word that answers your question. You're a horrible reader, it's funny you claim to have done that for a living and corrected people. You confused a lot of reporters with your comments, didn't you?

Ummm.... no you didn't. Where do you see the word "force" in the quote? Where?

The word I quoted was "remove." I didn't quote the word "force," you did. So you're a former editor who doesn't know what quote marks look like or what they mean?

Here again-- the entire post:

I disagree. People in every state should have a voice to who they prefer to represent them. Names (nor consideration) should not be removed from ballot simply based on the feelings of people who are citizens of other states.

Fatter o' mact, it's not in the OP, or anywhere in the thread until you bring it in.
Read much?

Which is again why I didn't quote "force." You did. LOL. I quoted "remove." If you remove someone from the ballot, you are forcing them out

---- which is --- once again --- why I asked you where you got the word "force" ---- SINCE NO ONE USED IT.

This is all sailing blissfully over your pointy little head innit?

Shame, shame, you didn't look up what quote marks mean like I told you to ...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The voters have SOUNDLY rejected him.

Yes they don't want the most qualified. Just crazy.

Hardly. He needs to placed in a state hospital.

 

[Pogo]

I quoted the word that answers your question. You're a horrible reader, it's funny you claim to have done that for a living and corrected people. You confused a lot of reporters with your comments, didn't you?

Ummm.... no you didn't. Where do you see the word "force" in the quote? Where?

The word I quoted was "remove." I didn't quote the word "force," you did. So you're a former editor who doesn't know what quote marks look like or what they mean?

Here again-- the entire post:

I disagree. People in every state should have a voice to who they prefer to represent them. Names (nor consideration) should not be removed from ballot simply based on the feelings of people who are citizens of other states.

Fatter o' mact, it's not in the OP, or anywhere in the thread until you bring it in.
Read much?

Which is again why I didn't quote "force." You did. LOL. I quoted "remove." If you remove someone from the ballot, you are forcing them out

---- which is --- once again --- why I asked you where you got the word "force" ---- SINCE NO ONE USED IT.

This is all sailing blissfully over your pointy little head innit?

Shame, shame, you didn't look up what quote marks mean like I told you to ...

Actually I USED quote marks to denote the term I questioned you on ---- which was, once again, "force".
It's still up there in my first post. And it's a question you continue to try to weasel out of.

Howzat working out for ya?

 

[kaz]

I quoted the word that answers your question. You're a horrible reader, it's funny you claim to have done that for a living and corrected people. You confused a lot of reporters with your comments, didn't you?

Ummm.... no you didn't. Where do you see the word "force" in the quote? Where?

The word I quoted was "remove." I didn't quote the word "force," you did. So you're a former editor who doesn't know what quote marks look like or what they mean?

Here again-- the entire post:

I disagree. People in every state should have a voice to who they prefer to represent them. Names (nor consideration) should not be removed from ballot simply based on the feelings of people who are citizens of other states.

Fatter o' mact, it's not in the OP, or anywhere in the thread until you bring it in.
Read much?

Which is again why I didn't quote "force." You did. LOL. I quoted "remove." If you remove someone from the ballot, you are forcing them out

---- which is --- once again --- why I asked you where you got the word "force" ---- SINCE NO ONE USED IT.

This is all sailing blissfully over your pointy little head innit?

Shame, shame, you didn't look up what quote marks mean like I told you to ...

Actually I USED quote marks to denote the term I questioned you on ---- which was, once again, "force".
It's still up there in my first post. And it's a question you continue to try to weasel out of.

Howzat working out for ya?

I didn't use quote marks because it was paraphrasing, if you "remove" someone you are forcing them out. You really aren't a bright guy

 

[rightwinger]

Too bad Republucans did not select Kasich
He would actually have a chance to beat Hillary

But.....I guess you know best
Trump....Trump.....Trump

 

[percysunshine]

.
One year ago, Trump was an unborn Republican.

Shit happens

 

[Militants]

New alert in 2020 if Trump lose in 2016 for Kasich. Against Clinton how we promise want to go in finish line for the winner nominate. Sanders are cleaner than Clinton against Trump I wondering now and if I wonders rights now Trump can win over Sanders if jewish Sanders are nominate for second half of two half. I will Sanders but it is Clinton how are stronger against Trump.

I will say Clinton as president elections. Over Trump in finish line up.

 

[foggedinn]

Hmm, remove the only GOP candidate still in the race who could win in the national election.
Looks like a closet Dem.

 

[mamooth]

At this point, I think Kasich is running for the 2020 Republican nomination. After the Trump fiasco plays out, the kook wing of the Republicans will lose a lot of influence, and Kasich will be around to promote himself as the sensible choice. And in 2020, he won't have the "nobody has heard of me" handicap to start out with.

 

[rightwinger]

At this point, I think Kasich is running for the 2020 Republican nomination. After the Trump fiasco plays out, the kook wing of the Republicans will lose a lot of influence, and Kasich will be around to promote himself as the sensible choice. And in 2020, he won't have the "nobody has heard of me" handicap to start out with.

Be nice to see a Republican who does not have to pander to the batshit crazy part of the party

 

[BluesLegend]

Maybe Kasich could get some traction with conservatives if he started talking about the size of his dick.

Kaisch doesn't have a prayer.....and never did

Kasich was part of the GOP establishments plan to win the White House without the base, talk about your plan for failure. Lets be honest there's no freaking way the base was going to vote for Illegal amnesty and infringing on the 2nd amendment. I love his experience, I respect actual experience and accomplishments but the guy belongs in the Democratic party on key issues.

What you fail to understand is that if you ever want to see anything get done on the immigration front then you are going to need common sense proposals that will pass a vote. The extreme positions that the two blowholes take on many issues is just pandering to the base but they will gain no traction in congress without major compromise. Kasich is the only one being honest about this... Trump actually touched on it when he said his policies are negotiating positions... You'll see him get cozy right in the middle during the general election

Trump has proved you wrong, securing the border and deporting illegals has cross party support among the people. There is a hell of a lot of pent up anger at government for allowing this illegal mess. Government and the media have intentionally not reported on the illegal murders, rapes, assaults, robberies, fraud, but the information is getting out and the people are pissed.

The only thing Trump proved is that the "rapist" "murder" act pisses off the majority of the world. I know you fridge wingers love it but that's not the way to productively address the issue. In the end the grown ups will prevail... You'll see

Illegals kill over 3,000 American citizens each year, go crawl back under your rock.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The voters have SOUNDLY rejected him.

Kasich has not even bothered in many states, nor did he ever intend to do so. He's not trying to be a front runner. His has always been a strategic campaign.

He's on the ballots and no one checked his name. He has been soundly rejected.

 

[TooTall]

BS...get informed

I am. He is realistic on the issues. You prefer fairytale land.

Evidently you're not...but nice try

You think trump is really pro gun?

I'm not a Trump supporter...stay on point

But shouldn't trump being anti gun have killed him?

Donald Trump Thinks You Should Be Able To Bring Guns Anywhere, Except His Own Hotels

And trump even imported his wife so I don't believe he is anti immigration either.

Why did you think Trump was anti-immigration to begin with? Unlike Obama, Trump is anti-illegal immigration.

 

[Rustic]

He definitely doesn't have much of a place right now, a reflection of the state of the party.

...and he's a RINO

 

[Rustic]

The voters have SOUNDLY rejected him.

Yet he stands the best chance of winning.

The reasons he's electable are the same reasons Republican voters don't like him

He's a spineless politician what's there to like?