Idiotic!

Trump has done nothing to move the country toward "unlimited government." He has cut thousands of regulations that were not passed by congress. He cut taxes, giving the money back to the people. He has started no new wars (unlike his thee predecessors) and is winding down the ones he inherited. He has created no new government programs (also unlike his predecessors), except spinning the Space Force off of the Air Force which is a net zero. He supports gun rights, free speech, and freedom of religion while his opponents are running rampant over the Bill of Rights.

I guess you will claim that because #orangemanbad people like you are more likely to vote for the blame America first crowd.

Removing Trump at this juncture for these reasons would certainly make the House and the Senate great again.  It would show that they are independent centers of power that care about more than just party labels, and that they really care about making elections fair.

Removing Trump would just leave the House and Senate more beholden to the replacement. Trump was a political outsider. Every other possible POTUS is part of the entrenched ruling elite. The House (even when Pub) and the Senate are not giving Trump carte blanche; for example there is no major wall-building program, and Obamacare is still around, which were two of Trump's main campaign promises. All getting rid of Trump would do is show that the people matter even less. The message then is: "Elect someone the ruling class doesn't approve of and we'll make up some ridiculous charges and impeach him out."

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Putin was clearly anti-Hillary. Russia orchestrated pro-Bernie and pro-Trump ads. They did not support Hillary. In fact, Putin, several times warned the Western media that there would be war if Hillary was elected. He hates her. He doesn't trust her. I believe this goes back to how she lied when she was secretary of state with regards to Libya. Putin asked her not to depose Gaddafi. The US said they were going to institute a no-fly zone just for humanitarian aid, then used that to bomb and aid rebels who overthrew Gaddafi. That was Putin's ally. She said she was going to do the same in Syria, even though Russia was objecting.

Don't mistake her selling of Uranium to Russia as her support of Russia. Imo, she is just a greedy politician that didn't see Russia as a geo-political threat, but, rather an opportunity to make more money. She would have done whatever she wanted while in office, and I truly believe our relationship with Russia would be significantly worse. Trump is hard on Russia, but he respects their autonomy.

---

Removing Trump at this juncture for these reasons would certainly make the House and the Senate great again.  It would show that they are independent centers of power that care about more than just party labels, and that they really care about making elections fair.

Removing Trump would just leave the House and Senate more beholden to the replacement. Trump was a political outsider. Every other possible POTUS is part of the entrenched ruling elite. The House (even when Pub) and the Senate are not giving Trump carte blanche; for example there is no major wall-building program, and Obamacare is still around, which were two of Trump's main campaign promises. All getting rid of Trump would do is show that the people matter even less. The message then is: "Elect someone the ruling class doesn't approve of and we'll make up some ridiculous charges and impeach him out."

The ruling class is a diverse group that's rarely in agreement about anything.  
Question: suppose you asked all 100 senators and all 50 governors to nominate someone for President, someone other than themselves.  Heck, even include the 5 territorial governor's.  That's 155 people who have all achieved something in government, and know how it works.  Do you think, in mid or late 2015, even one of them would have picked Trump?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Removing Trump would just leave the House and Senate more beholden to the replacement. Trump was a political outsider. Every other possible POTUS is part of the entrenched ruling elite. The House (even when Pub) and the Senate are not giving Trump carte blanche; for example there is no major wall-building program, and Obamacare is still around, which were two of Trump's main campaign promises. All getting rid of Trump would do is show that the people matter even less. The message then is: "Elect someone the ruling class doesn't approve of and we'll make up some ridiculous charges and impeach him out."

The ruling class is a diverse group that's rarely in agreement about anything.  
Question: suppose you asked all 100 senators and all 50 governors to nominate someone for President, someone other than themselves.  Heck, even include the 5 territorial governor's.  That's 155 people who have all achieved something in government, and know how it works.  Do you think, in mid or late 2015, even one of them would have picked Trump?

What is the point of your question?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The ruling class is a diverse group that's rarely in agreement about anything.  
Question: suppose you asked all 100 senators and all 50 governors to nominate someone for President, someone other than themselves.  Heck, even include the 5 territorial governor's.  That's 155 people who have all achieved something in government, and know how it works.  Do you think, in mid or late 2015, even one of them would have picked Trump?

What is the point of your question?

Don't you agree there would be a wide diversity of candidates to choose from, both for and against the status quo? Don't you think think at least one of these 155 people might have picked someone better than Trump?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

What is the point of your question?

Don't you agree there would be a wide diversity of candidates to choose from, both for and against the status quo? Don't you think think at least one of these 155 people might have picked someone better than Trump?

155 members of the ruling class? Of course they wouldn't pick an outsider like Trump. That's part of our argument. What's your point?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Don't you agree there would be a wide diversity of candidates to choose from, both for and against the status quo? Don't you think think at least one of these 155 people might have picked someone better than Trump?

155 members of the ruling class? Of course they wouldn't pick an outsider like Trump. That's part of our argument. What's your point?

That answers my first question.  Can you answer the other two?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

155 members of the ruling class? Of course they wouldn't pick an outsider like Trump. That's part of our argument. What's your point?

That answers my first question.  Can you answer the other two?

Why?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Because he thinks he has some poignant lesson to share.

---

Don't you agree there would be a wide diversity of candidates to choose from, both for and against the status quo? Don't you think think at least one of these 155 people might have picked someone better than Trump?

155 members of the ruling class? Of course they wouldn't pick an outsider like Trump. That's part of our argument. What's your point?

I think they would picked some outsiders.
A guy who might be beholden to just one senator is not the same thing as a guy who's beholden to the entire donating elite of a political party going back two or three decades.
But none of them would have picked Trump.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

155 members of the ruling class? Of course they wouldn't pick an outsider like Trump. That's part of our argument. What's your point?

I think they would picked some outsiders.
A guy who might be beholden to just one senator is not the same thing as a guy who's beholden to the entire donating elite of a political party going back two or three decades.
But none of them would have picked Trump.

In 2016 I wouldn't have picked Trump either. But after seeing all of Trump's accomplishments to date, not picking Trump would have been a mistake. Most of the other Pubs would have negotiated away some of Trump's accomplishments in the interest of "bipartisanship." Who else would initiate a trade war with China to protect American intellectual property? I've read a lot of conservatives who disapprove of Trump's challenge to China. Maybe a progressive would, but then we'd still be in the Paris treaty accord and sending $100B a year in climate reparations to 3rd world dictators.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I think they would picked some outsiders.
A guy who might be beholden to just one senator is not the same thing as a guy who's beholden to the entire donating elite of a political party going back two or three decades.
But none of them would have picked Trump.

In 2016 I wouldn't have picked Trump either. But after seeing all of Trump's accomplishments to date, not picking Trump would have been a mistake. Most of the other Pubs would have negotiated away some of Trump's accomplishments in the interest of "bipartisanship." Who else would initiate a trade war with China to protect American intellectual property? I've read a lot of conservatives who disapprove of Trump's challenge to China. Maybe a progressive would, but then we'd still be in the Paris treaty accord and sending $100B a year in climate reparations to 3rd world dictators.

So this is another place where we disagree.
I agree with you that Trump has been more reluctant to get involved in shooting wars and less reluctant to get involved and trade wars than a stereotypical Republican.
And I agree with you this is a good thing. 
But I think that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have made about the same choices if we had made either of them president instead.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In 2016 I wouldn't have picked Trump either. But after seeing all of Trump's accomplishments to date, not picking Trump would have been a mistake. Most of the other Pubs would have negotiated away some of Trump's accomplishments in the interest of "bipartisanship." Who else would initiate a trade war with China to protect American intellectual property? I've read a lot of conservatives who disapprove of Trump's challenge to China. Maybe a progressive would, but then we'd still be in the Paris treaty accord and sending $100B a year in climate reparations to 3rd world dictators.

So this is another place where we disagree.
I agree with you that Trump has been more reluctant to get involved in shooting wars and less reluctant to get involved and trade wars than a stereotypical Republican.
And I agree with you this is a good thing. 
But I think that Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would have made about the same choices if we had made either of them president instead.

That's what they ran on. They were my top two choices. In the case of Cruz, I have a lot of respect for a candidate that went into Iowa and refused to pander to the ethanol subsidy crowd. Although didn't Rand Paul recently propose another entitlement?

Anyway, I doubt either one would stand up as well as Trump to the continual pressure of the media. He just lets it roll off his back. One or both would probably have caved on Kavanaugh. And make no mistake, while Trump is hated more than either one by the Dems, anyone else would still be facing the same constant anti-Republican propaganda.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"