I agree he was the best possible candidate and I’m kind of confused how you interpreted me arguing against any of that with what I wrote. You said Carney wasn’t the incumbent, he was and that’s what I took issue with as well as explaining the background of why he was the incumbent. You never specified MP in the post I responded to.
I agree he was the best possible candidate and I’m kind of confused how you interpreted me arguing against any of that with what I wrote. You said Carney wasn’t the incumbent, he was and that’s what I took issue with as well as explaining the background of why he was the incumbent. You never specified MP in the post I responded to.
I agree he was the best possible candidate and I’m kind of confused how you interpreted me arguing against any of that with what I wrote. You said Carney wasn’t the incumbent, he was and that’s what I took issue with as well as explaining the background of why he was the incumbent. You never specified MP in the post I responded to.
I didn't feel the need to put all of the caveats and context into my comment because the people who read these threads are already well aware of them.