You can look at his reply. Just click his name and go to “in forum” on his home page. His post comes up quickly.
He basically says that Stockman is not electable. He says he prefers Stockman over Cornyn, just that Stockman is not electable so Cornyn will beat Stockman.
I think he is just wishing for a stronger candidate to beat Stockman.
For that, he got slammed because a lot of people seemed to miscontrue his post “Stockman is not electable” to mean “I don’t like Stockman.”
It is typical on these forums. Tons of misunderstanding, ego, needless arguing, leaping to conclusions, and knee-jerk responses. If not for that, there would only be 4-5 posts in every thread. :D
Why did you just call me a child-pornographer??!? I am so much better than you, that you should know better than to make baseless accusations! You must be a Tourettes sufferer, and that makes me so superior to you. I don't know why you hate Reagan.
And even yet much can be avoided if concerns are framed in a positive voice. Taking the issue here, and I have no dog in this fight personally: “I wish Stockman would improve, or I wish someone better would step up. I fear we are getting too comfortable with the status quo so let’s try to do something about it.”
And maybe it’s worth pressing a candidate who might lose this time around, if that candidate really is better. The lost battle may prove great training for a later victorious war. Putting this kind of philosophical view on (and it’s more than spin because it’s based in God’s own modus operandi) could greatly help.
I read the thread. Heck, I posted on the thread prior to this poster. He didn't get slammed.
Toughen up cupcake.
/johnny
I love those that claim others are “not electable.” Many said the same about Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, etc.