All these Trumpettes chastising Warren for one lie is so damn ironic.

And none of them seem to realize the irony. 

I wonder what some of them thought keyboards were for before Trump became a politician because ever since that time they seem to only use keyboards in devotion to the great one.  Surely some of them used to use their keyboards to communicate irony or nuance...

This is an old story, and would be a non-issue if she hadn't brought it back to the forefront herself. The real story is the leftist media once again proving that they are willing to flat out lie by defending her lie.

Trump exaggerates a lot. Sometimes he even lies. That's not good. But as long as his policy decisions are sound I can ignore the meaningless statements. I expected him to be similar to Michael Bloomberg policy-wise (i.e. a Pub governing as a moderate Dem), but so far his policy decisions have been more conservative than my wildest hopes from any Pub candidate running in 2016, even Cruz who I wanted to be the candidate.

Trump's lies don't make a sham out of what he claims to believe in. Nobody suffered because Trump exaggerated the size of the crowd at his inauguration, and he didn't make it a centerpiece of his career.

Fauxcahontas stole a minority set-aside although she claimed that minorities need them and whites have to be discriminated against. Some real minority person lost out.

---

                                                                          

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

And none of them seem to realize the irony. 

I wonder what some of them thought keyboards were for before Trump became a politician because ever since that time they seem to only use keyboards in devotion to the great one.  Surely some of them used to use their keyboards to communicate irony or nuance...

This is an old story, and would be a non-issue if she hadn't brought it back to the forefront herself. The real story is the leftist media once again proving that they are willing to flat out lie by defending her lie.

Trump exaggerates a lot. Sometimes he even lies. That's not good. But as long as his policy decisions are sound I can ignore the meaningless statements. I expected him to be similar to Michael Bloomberg policy-wise (i.e. a Pub governing as a moderate Dem), but so far his policy decisions have been more conservative than my wildest hopes from any Pub candidate running in 2016, even Cruz who I wanted to be the candidate.

Trump's lies don't make a sham out of what he claims to believe in. Nobody suffered because Trump exaggerated the size of the crowd at his inauguration, and he didn't make it a centerpiece of his career.

Fauxcahontas stole a minority set-aside although she claimed that minorities need them and whites have to be discriminated against. Some real minority person lost out.

Wow - what an amazing justification for supporting a liar and a con-man. "Sure he's a sleazoid, but he's not that bad!" "Trump's lies don't make a sham out of what he claims to believe in." Think about what you just wrote. You are clearly someone who will buy anything as long as it's packaged to your liking.

As a supporter of Ted Cruz I can see that your standards are incredibly low. Ted Cruz - portrait of a man with no guts or soul. Will he literally have to kiss Donald's [BLEEP] tonight in Texas?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

This is an old story, and would be a non-issue if she hadn't brought it back to the forefront herself. The real story is the leftist media once again proving that they are willing to flat out lie by defending her lie.

Trump exaggerates a lot. Sometimes he even lies. That's not good. But as long as his policy decisions are sound I can ignore the meaningless statements. I expected him to be similar to Michael Bloomberg policy-wise (i.e. a Pub governing as a moderate Dem), but so far his policy decisions have been more conservative than my wildest hopes from any Pub candidate running in 2016, even Cruz who I wanted to be the candidate.

Trump's lies don't make a sham out of what he claims to believe in. Nobody suffered because Trump exaggerated the size of the crowd at his inauguration, and he didn't make it a centerpiece of his career.

Fauxcahontas stole a minority set-aside although she claimed that minorities need them and whites have to be discriminated against. Some real minority person lost out.

Wow - what an amazing justification for supporting a liar and a con-man. "Sure he's a sleazoid, but he's not that bad!" "Trump's lies don't make a sham out of what he claims to believe in." Think about what you just wrote. You are clearly someone who will buy anything as long as it's packaged to your liking.

As a supporter of Ted Cruz I can see that your standards are incredibly low. Ted Cruz - portrait of a man with no guts or soul. Will he literally have to kiss Donald's [BLEEP] tonight in Texas?

You are clearly clueless. Ted Cruz was the only Republican honest enough to oppose the ethanol mandate when he ran in Iowa. That takes a lot of "guts."You must be buying into his phony "Hispanic" opponent in Texas. 

So who did you support in 2016? Hillary? Johnson, who ran as a Libertarian but was far from libertarian? His VP candidate Weld was a leftist who even opposed 2nd Amendment gun rights. I voted for Trump only to oppose Hillary, but I'm glad I did, especially after seeing his actual policies in action.

Every politician is a "sleazoid." Hillary was far worse than Trump in that department. Warren is far worse than Trump in that department. The sleazoid who makes all of the best policy decisions is the one I prefer. And I notice you didn't post one piece of evidence where one of Trump's lies made a sham of his stated beliefs.

---

                                                                          

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

Malabarjag is correct to concentrate on what our leaders are DOING rather than SAYING. At least Trump makes it crystal clear what he stands for. In doing so, he also brings his opponents out into the open.

---

Wow - what an amazing justification for supporting a liar and a con-man. "Sure he's a sleazoid, but he's not that bad!" "Trump's lies don't make a sham out of what he claims to believe in." Think about what you just wrote. You are clearly someone who will buy anything as long as it's packaged to your liking.

As a supporter of Ted Cruz I can see that your standards are incredibly low. Ted Cruz - portrait of a man with no guts or soul. Will he literally have to kiss Donald's [BLEEP] tonight in Texas?

You are clearly clueless. Ted Cruz was the only Republican honest enough to oppose the ethanol mandate when he ran in Iowa. That takes a lot of "guts."You must be buying into his phony "Hispanic" opponent in Texas. 

So who did you support in 2016? Hillary? Johnson, who ran as a Libertarian but was far from libertarian? His VP candidate Weld was a leftist who even opposed 2nd Amendment gun rights. I voted for Trump only to oppose Hillary, but I'm glad I did, especially after seeing his actual policies in action.

Every politician is a "sleazoid." Hillary was far worse than Trump in that department. Warren is far worse than Trump in that department. The sleazoid who makes all of the best policy decisions is the one I prefer. And I notice you didn't post one piece of evidence where one of Trump's lies made a sham of his stated beliefs.

I'm on board with most of what you're saying here, but I find it odd that you refer to Johnson and Weld as leftists when the main criticism of them during the election was that they were establishment Republicans in disguise.

Oh, and the whole "Gary Johnson doesn't know anything about world affairs," thing.

---

You are clearly clueless. Ted Cruz was the only Republican honest enough to oppose the ethanol mandate when he ran in Iowa. That takes a lot of "guts."You must be buying into his phony "Hispanic" opponent in Texas. 

So who did you support in 2016? Hillary? Johnson, who ran as a Libertarian but was far from libertarian? His VP candidate Weld was a leftist who even opposed 2nd Amendment gun rights. I voted for Trump only to oppose Hillary, but I'm glad I did, especially after seeing his actual policies in action.

Every politician is a "sleazoid." Hillary was far worse than Trump in that department. Warren is far worse than Trump in that department. The sleazoid who makes all of the best policy decisions is the one I prefer. And I notice you didn't post one piece of evidence where one of Trump's lies made a sham of his stated beliefs.

I'm on board with most of what you're saying here, but I find it odd that you refer to Johnson and Weld as leftists when the main criticism of them during the election was that they were establishment Republicans in disguise.

Oh, and the whole "Gary Johnson doesn't know anything about world affairs," thing.

Whatever must be done or said to discredit a 3rd Party shall be done or said.

---

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

You are clearly clueless. Ted Cruz was the only Republican honest enough to oppose the ethanol mandate when he ran in Iowa. That takes a lot of "guts."You must be buying into his phony "Hispanic" opponent in Texas. 

So who did you support in 2016? Hillary? Johnson, who ran as a Libertarian but was far from libertarian? His VP candidate Weld was a leftist who even opposed 2nd Amendment gun rights. I voted for Trump only to oppose Hillary, but I'm glad I did, especially after seeing his actual policies in action.

Every politician is a "sleazoid." Hillary was far worse than Trump in that department. Warren is far worse than Trump in that department. The sleazoid who makes all of the best policy decisions is the one I prefer. And I notice you didn't post one piece of evidence where one of Trump's lies made a sham of his stated beliefs.

I'm on board with most of what you're saying here, but I find it odd that you refer to Johnson and Weld as leftists when the main criticism of them during the election was that they were establishment Republicans in disguise.

Oh, and the whole "Gary Johnson doesn't know anything about world affairs," thing.

I didn't call Johnson a leftist, just Weld. Like others I viewed Johnson as an establishment Republican, hence my "far from libertarian" statement. 

I have voted for the Libertarian candidate the majority of the time, but this election was too important, and close enough for my vote to matter, to throw it away on a candidate with no chance of even making a showing. Imagine the Supreme court with two Hillary-named justices. The nine dictators would be ignoring the Constitution and making up laws willy-nilly for decades.

---

                                                                          

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

Wow - what an amazing justification for supporting a liar and a con-man. "Sure he's a sleazoid, but he's not that bad!" "Trump's lies don't make a sham out of what he claims to believe in." Think about what you just wrote. You are clearly someone who will buy anything as long as it's packaged to your liking.

As a supporter of Ted Cruz I can see that your standards are incredibly low. Ted Cruz - portrait of a man with no guts or soul. Will he literally have to kiss Donald's [BLEEP] tonight in Texas?

You are clearly clueless. Ted Cruz was the only Republican honest enough to oppose the ethanol mandate when he ran in Iowa. That takes a lot of "guts."You must be buying into his phony "Hispanic" opponent in Texas. 

So who did you support in 2016? Hillary? Johnson, who ran as a Libertarian but was far from libertarian? His VP candidate Weld was a leftist who even opposed 2nd Amendment gun rights. I voted for Trump only to oppose Hillary, but I'm glad I did, especially after seeing his actual policies in action.

Every politician is a "sleazoid." Hillary was far worse than Trump in that department. Warren is far worse than Trump in that department. The sleazoid who makes all of the best policy decisions is the one I prefer. And I notice you didn't post one piece of evidence where one of Trump's lies made a sham of his stated beliefs.

Any politician, any man, who bows down to Trump after the things said about Cruz and his family is gutless and has no honor. But apparently that's your thing. You'd drop to your knees if the same was said about you, or your wife, or your father? Spineless.

I voted for Johnson - as a protest against both Hillary and Donald. Both are crooks and con men/woman. No one thought Johnson would win so taking about Weld, etc., is just a diversion to justify going with the con man.

All politicians are sleazoids? No they're not. Are all the people in your line of work sleazy? Saying all politicians are sleazy is just a lazy way of justifying voting for Trump. Trumpettes are always full of excuses. Always an excuse. Like any of the other Republican candidates couldn't cut taxes and help business. There're Republicans, that's what they do. But any of them would have had a clue as to what they are doing and would have actually passed a healthcare bill. You think it takes special skill to appoint to the SC one of the many middle-aged white guys fro the Federalist Society's list. Real hard.

But hey - with Donald you get the added bonus of see him parrot Fox and Friends, Russian collusion, all the drama of his hundreds of lies, and general buffoonery. And we get to see hundreds of posts by StroudCrowd trying to justify Donald's clownish behavior. I guess that counts for something.

---

Malabarjag is correct to concentrate on what our leaders are DOING rather than SAYING.  At least Trump makes it crystal clear what he stands for.  In doing so, he also brings his opponents out into the open.

Any of the other Republican candidates running against Donald could and would have done all that Trump has done, and more. It's not like Donald has done political miracles. It's Republican political orthodoxy. 

But with the others you wouldn't get the clown show. And being a devote of Alex Jones you enjoy the clown show. So I get it.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

You are clearly clueless. Ted Cruz was the only Republican honest enough to oppose the ethanol mandate when he ran in Iowa. That takes a lot of "guts."You must be buying into his phony "Hispanic" opponent in Texas. 

So who did you support in 2016? Hillary? Johnson, who ran as a Libertarian but was far from libertarian? His VP candidate Weld was a leftist who even opposed 2nd Amendment gun rights. I voted for Trump only to oppose Hillary, but I'm glad I did, especially after seeing his actual policies in action.

Every politician is a "sleazoid." Hillary was far worse than Trump in that department. Warren is far worse than Trump in that department. The sleazoid who makes all of the best policy decisions is the one I prefer. And I notice you didn't post one piece of evidence where one of Trump's lies made a sham of his stated beliefs.

Any politician, any man, who bows down to Trump after the things said about Cruz and his family is gutless and has no honor. But apparently that's your thing. You'd drop to your knees if the same was said about you, or your wife, or your father? Spineless.

I voted for Johnson - as a protest against both Hillary and Donald. Both are crooks and con men/woman. No one thought Johnson would win so taking about Weld, etc., is just a diversion to justify going with the con man.

All politicians are sleazoids? No they're not. Are all the people in your line of work sleazy? Saying all politicians are sleazy is just a lazy way of justifying voting for Trump. Trumpettes are always full of excuses. Always an excuse. Like any of the other Republican candidates couldn't cut taxes and help business. There're Republicans, that's what they do. But any of them would have had a clue as to what they are doing and would have actually passed a healthcare bill. You think it takes special skill to appoint to the SC one of the many middle-aged white guys fro the Federalist Society's list. Real hard.

But hey - with Donald you get the added bonus of see him parrot Fox and Friends, Russian collusion, all the drama of his hundreds of lies, and general buffoonery. And we get to see hundreds of posts by StroudCrowd trying to justify Donald's clownish behavior. I guess that counts for something.

---

Malabarjag is correct to concentrate on what our leaders are DOING rather than SAYING.  At least Trump makes it crystal clear what he stands for.  In doing so, he also brings his opponents out into the open.

Any of the other Republican candidates running against Donald could and would have done all that Trump has done, and more. It's not like Donald has done political miracles. It's Republican political orthodoxy. 

But with the others you wouldn't get the clown show. And being a devote of Alex Jones you enjoy the clown show. So I get it.

Again, clueless. Very few would have pulled out of the Paris non-treaty and the Iran non-treaty, maybe just Cruz. While I agree that most Republicans would have picked strict constructionist SCOTUS nominees, I doubt Christie or Kasich would have, and even fewer would have defended Kavanaugh after the character assassination assault from the Left. Christie and Kasich probably would not have turned back the Obama-imposed regulations either. Most, but not all, would have gotten rid of ISIS as Trump has (you should at least notice the lack of beheading headlines since Trump took office). None would have taken on our trade "partners" to get deals that are more fair to the US, or criticized the NATO 'allies' for failing to uphold their obligations.

Trump has done more to boost US sovereignty in the world and return congressional authority to lawmaking than any other POTUS since Coolidge. And all you see is the "clown show."

And I don't remember Ted Cruz actually bowing to anyone, although your Leftist allies make that claim.

---

                                                                          

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

Any politician, any man, who bows down to Trump after the things said about Cruz and his family is gutless and has no honor. But apparently that's your thing. You'd drop to your knees if the same was said about you, or your wife, or your father? Spineless.

I voted for Johnson - as a protest against both Hillary and Donald. Both are crooks and con men/woman. No one thought Johnson would win so taking about Weld, etc., is just a diversion to justify going with the con man.

All politicians are sleazoids? No they're not. Are all the people in your line of work sleazy? Saying all politicians are sleazy is just a lazy way of justifying voting for Trump. Trumpettes are always full of excuses. Always an excuse. Like any of the other Republican candidates couldn't cut taxes and help business. There're Republicans, that's what they do. But any of them would have had a clue as to what they are doing and would have actually passed a healthcare bill. You think it takes special skill to appoint to the SC one of the many middle-aged white guys fro the Federalist Society's list. Real hard.

But hey - with Donald you get the added bonus of see him parrot Fox and Friends, Russian collusion, all the drama of his hundreds of lies, and general buffoonery. And we get to see hundreds of posts by StroudCrowd trying to justify Donald's clownish behavior. I guess that counts for something.

---

Any of the other Republican candidates running against Donald could and would have done all that Trump has done, and more. It's not like Donald has done political miracles. It's Republican political orthodoxy. 

But with the others you wouldn't get the clown show. And being a devote of Alex Jones you enjoy the clown show. So I get it.

Again, clueless. Very few would have pulled out of the Paris non-treaty and the Iran non-treaty, maybe just Cruz. While I agree that most Republicans would have picked strict constructionist SCOTUS nominees, I doubt Christie or Kasich would have, and even fewer would have defended Kavanaugh after the character assassination assault from the Left. Christie and Kasich probably would not have turned back the Obama-imposed regulations either. Most, but not all, would have gotten rid of ISIS as Trump has (you should at least notice the lack of beheading headlines since Trump took office). None would have taken on our trade "partners" to get deals that are more fair to the US, or criticized the NATO 'allies' for failing to uphold their obligations.

Trump has done more to boost US sovereignty in the world and return congressional authority to lawmaking than any other POTUS since Coolidge. And all you see is the "clown show."

And I don't remember Ted Cruz actually bowing to anyone, although your Leftist allies make that claim.

+2 points for the Coolidge reference.

---

Any politician, any man, who bows down to Trump after the things said about Cruz and his family is gutless and has no honor. But apparently that's your thing. You'd drop to your knees if the same was said about you, or your wife, or your father? Spineless.

I voted for Johnson - as a protest against both Hillary and Donald. Both are crooks and con men/woman. No one thought Johnson would win so taking about Weld, etc., is just a diversion to justify going with the con man.

All politicians are sleazoids? No they're not. Are all the people in your line of work sleazy? Saying all politicians are sleazy is just a lazy way of justifying voting for Trump. Trumpettes are always full of excuses. Always an excuse. Like any of the other Republican candidates couldn't cut taxes and help business. There're Republicans, that's what they do. But any of them would have had a clue as to what they are doing and would have actually passed a healthcare bill. You think it takes special skill to appoint to the SC one of the many middle-aged white guys fro the Federalist Society's list. Real hard.

But hey - with Donald you get the added bonus of see him parrot Fox and Friends, Russian collusion, all the drama of his hundreds of lies, and general buffoonery. And we get to see hundreds of posts by StroudCrowd trying to justify Donald's clownish behavior. I guess that counts for something.

---

Any of the other Republican candidates running against Donald could and would have done all that Trump has done, and more. It's not like Donald has done political miracles. It's Republican political orthodoxy. 

But with the others you wouldn't get the clown show. And being a devote of Alex Jones you enjoy the clown show. So I get it.

Again, clueless. Very few would have pulled out of the Paris non-treaty and the Iran non-treaty, maybe just Cruz. While I agree that most Republicans would have picked strict constructionist SCOTUS nominees, I doubt Christie or Kasich would have, and even fewer would have defended Kavanaugh after the character assassination assault from the Left. Christie and Kasich probably would not have turned back the Obama-imposed regulations either. Most, but not all, would have gotten rid of ISIS as Trump has (you should at least notice the lack of beheading headlines since Trump took office). None would have taken on our trade "partners" to get deals that are more fair to the US, or criticized the NATO 'allies' for failing to uphold their obligations.

Trump has done more to boost US sovereignty in the world and return congressional authority to lawmaking than any other POTUS since Coolidge. And all you see is the "clown show."

And I don't remember Ted Cruz actually bowing to anyone, although your Leftist allies make that claim.

Referencing Calvin Coolidge says about all that needs to be said about Donald Trump. Hey - we've got a new Coolidge!

Boost US sovereignty? Don't know what that means. When did we loose it? That's one of those cliches right-wingers love, although it means nothing.

Anyway, it's all moot now. Donald's not a Republican. He said he's a nationalist. White nationalist would have just been a redundancy. So is your boy Ted a Republican, a nationalist, or just a groveling sycophant who is desperate to keep his job?

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Again, clueless. Very few would have pulled out of the Paris non-treaty and the Iran non-treaty, maybe just Cruz. While I agree that most Republicans would have picked strict constructionist SCOTUS nominees, I doubt Christie or Kasich would have, and even fewer would have defended Kavanaugh after the character assassination assault from the Left. Christie and Kasich probably would not have turned back the Obama-imposed regulations either. Most, but not all, would have gotten rid of ISIS as Trump has (you should at least notice the lack of beheading headlines since Trump took office). None would have taken on our trade "partners" to get deals that are more fair to the US, or criticized the NATO 'allies' for failing to uphold their obligations.

Trump has done more to boost US sovereignty in the world and return congressional authority to lawmaking than any other POTUS since Coolidge. And all you see is the "clown show."

And I don't remember Ted Cruz actually bowing to anyone, although your Leftist allies make that claim.

Referencing Calvin Coolidge says about all that needs to be said about Donald Trump. Hey - we've got a new Coolidge!

Boost US sovereignty? Don't know what that means. When did we loose it? That's one of those cliches right-wingers love, although it means nothing.

Anyway, it's all moot now. Donald's not a Republican. He said he's a nationalist. White nationalist would have just been a redundancy. So is your boy Ted a Republican, a nationalist, or just a groveling sycophant who is desperate to keep his job?

Great is right, Coolidge is one of the best Presidents the country ever had. If Trump is even half the President that Coolidge was then we'll be the better for it.

Boosting US Sovereignty means protecting our borders, our economy and our way of life from outside interference or putting other countries and their inhabitants ahead of the citizens of this country. We lost it when previous administrations gave away immunity, strong border patrols, and our tax dollars to organizations that are dedicated to reducing our influence in the world. You can tell by the economy what putting Americans first does for not just us, but the entire world. And it's too bad that it bothers you so, though it does reveal your true intentions.

And you just can't help yourself but bring race into it, can you? Sad.

---

And it's interesting that we've gotten so far away from Liawatha again, it's almost like you lefties will do anything to deflect from the liars, rapists, and all around losers in your party.

---

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

Anyway, it's all moot now. Donald's not a Republican. He said he's a nationalist. White nationalist would have just been a redundancy. So is your boy Ted a Republican, a nationalist, or just a groveling sycophant who is desperate to keep his job?

To people that only see the world through race, of course it'd only be a redundancy.

Your act is getting old.

---

Anyway, it's all moot now. Donald's not a Republican. He said he's a nationalist. White nationalist would have just been a redundancy. So is your boy Ted a Republican, a nationalist, or just a groveling sycophant who is desperate to keep his job?

I'm going to assume you're being purposefully deceitful here since I wouldn't want to think anyone with a keyboard is actually that ignorant.  Nationalism has been a term far longer than the bastardization it's received at the hands of leftists and racists in the last 5-10 years.

According to Merriam-Webster:
[font=Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]nationalism
 noun
[/font]

[font=Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]na·tion·al·ism | \ˈnash-nə-ˌli-zəm, [/url] ˈna-shə-nə-ˌli-zəm\[/font]
[font=Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Definition of nationalism 

1: loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness (see [url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness]CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
[/font]
It's long been a staple term in political science.  It's an antonym of globalism.  It's long been understood as roughly synonymous with patriotism.

---

Fix the O-Line!

As it pertains to US sovereignty, Adam is technically right in challenging that word. However, as is common with most internet debates, he fails to understand Malabar's larger point, which is that Trump is the first President in a long time that is focused on advancing the US's own interests over other nations. 

If one is aware of the US foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union, one would know that the US (believe it or not), has been taking it on the chin to boost the prosperity of other nations believing that wealth would create democracy and affection for the US (thus promoting peace in the world). Unfortunately, these policies have not yet achieved the desired outcome. Trump has pretty much trashed the old policies in favor of a view called principled realism, which is a more academic way of saying America First, and it's much closer to the way the US handled foreign relations prior to WWII. If I had to guess, this what creates such hostility from the establishment. They don't want to deviate from their foreign policy of integration, but Trump doesn't care. Since this administration has "freed" itself from being the World's police, the US doesn't have to hamstring itself in global interactions. I can understand why leftists may think this is ruining international relationships, but I think their fear is overblown.

---

Anyway, it's all moot now. Donald's not a Republican. He said he's a nationalist. White nationalist would have just been a redundancy. So is your boy Ted a Republican, a nationalist, or just a groveling sycophant who is desperate to keep his job?

To people that only see the world through race, of course it'd only be a redundancy.

Your act is getting old.

They sharpen their spears, bolster their narrow ideas, and replenish their sloganeering stocks in the echo chambers of left wing hate sites and then unleash them onto the world. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

Any politician, any man, who bows down to Trump after the things said about Cruz and his family is gutless and has no honor. But apparently that's your thing. You'd drop to your knees if the same was said about you, or your wife, or your father? Spineless.

I voted for Johnson - as a protest against both Hillary and Donald. Both are crooks and con men/woman. No one thought Johnson would win so taking about Weld, etc., is just a diversion to justify going with the con man.

All politicians are sleazoids? No they're not. Are all the people in your line of work sleazy? Saying all politicians are sleazy is just a lazy way of justifying voting for Trump. Trumpettes are always full of excuses. Always an excuse. Like any of the other Republican candidates couldn't cut taxes and help business. There're Republicans, that's what they do. But any of them would have had a clue as to what they are doing and would have actually passed a healthcare bill. You think it takes special skill to appoint to the SC one of the many middle-aged white guys fro the Federalist Society's list. Real hard.

But hey - with Donald you get the added bonus of see him parrot Fox and Friends, Russian collusion, all the drama of his hundreds of lies, and general buffoonery. And we get to see hundreds of posts by StroudCrowd trying to justify Donald's clownish behavior. I guess that counts for something.

---

Any of the other Republican candidates running against Donald could and would have done all that Trump has done, and more. It's not like Donald has done political miracles. It's Republican political orthodoxy. 

But with the others you wouldn't get the clown show. And being a devote of Alex Jones you enjoy the clown show. So I get it.

Again, clueless. Very few would have pulled out of the Paris non-treaty and the Iran non-treaty, maybe just Cruz. While I agree that most Republicans would have picked strict constructionist SCOTUS nominees, I doubt Christie or Kasich would have, and even fewer would have defended Kavanaugh after the character assassination assault from the Left. Christie and Kasich probably would not have turned back the Obama-imposed regulations either. Most, but not all, would have gotten rid of ISIS as Trump has (you should at least notice the lack of beheading headlines since Trump took office). None would have taken on our trade "partners" to get deals that are more fair to the US, or criticized the NATO 'allies' for failing to uphold their obligations.

Trump has done more to boost US sovereignty in the world and return congressional authority to lawmaking than any other POTUS since Coolidge. And all you see is the "clown show."

And I don't remember Ted Cruz actually bowing to anyone, although your Leftist allies make that claim.

I give Christie and Kasich more credit than you.

I'm inclined to applaud anyone who restores authority to Congress and takes it away from decades-old regulatory agencies, but our Congress has shown no signs of being competent to hold this power in the last eight years. Especially in the house the Republican majority can't agree among themselves on anything other than trashing what Democrats do.

---

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

Again, clueless. Very few would have pulled out of the Paris non-treaty and the Iran non-treaty, maybe just Cruz. While I agree that most Republicans would have picked strict constructionist SCOTUS nominees, I doubt Christie or Kasich would have, and even fewer would have defended Kavanaugh after the character assassination assault from the Left. Christie and Kasich probably would not have turned back the Obama-imposed regulations either. Most, but not all, would have gotten rid of ISIS as Trump has (you should at least notice the lack of beheading headlines since Trump took office). None would have taken on our trade "partners" to get deals that are more fair to the US, or criticized the NATO 'allies' for failing to uphold their obligations.

Trump has done more to boost US sovereignty in the world and return congressional authority to lawmaking than any other POTUS since Coolidge. And all you see is the "clown show."

And I don't remember Ted Cruz actually bowing to anyone, although your Leftist allies make that claim.

I give Christie and Kasich more credit than you.

I'm inclined to applaud anyone who restores authority to Congress and takes it away from decades-old regulatory agencies, but our Congress has shown no signs of being competent to hold this power in the last eight years. Especially in the house the Republican majority can't agree among themselves on anything other than trashing what Democrats do.

---

I give Christie and Kasich more credit than you.

I'm inclined to applaud anyone who restores authority to Congress and takes it away from decades-old regulatory agencies trying to apply decades-old law, but our Congress has shown no signs of being competent to hold this power in the last eight years. Especially in the house the Republican majority can't agree among themselves on anything other than trashing what Democrats do.

Of course you give them credit, they're squishy RINOs like yourself.

---

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

Again, clueless. Very few would have pulled out of the Paris non-treaty and the Iran non-treaty, maybe just Cruz. While I agree that most Republicans would have picked strict constructionist SCOTUS nominees, I doubt Christie or Kasich would have, and even fewer would have defended Kavanaugh after the character assassination assault from the Left. Christie and Kasich probably would not have turned back the Obama-imposed regulations either. Most, but not all, would have gotten rid of ISIS as Trump has (you should at least notice the lack of beheading headlines since Trump took office). None would have taken on our trade "partners" to get deals that are more fair to the US, or criticized the NATO 'allies' for failing to uphold their obligations.

Trump has done more to boost US sovereignty in the world and return congressional authority to lawmaking than any other POTUS since Coolidge. And all you see is the "clown show."

And I don't remember Ted Cruz actually bowing to anyone, although your Leftist allies make that claim.

Referencing Calvin Coolidge says about all that needs to be said about Donald Trump. Hey - we've got a new Coolidge!

Boost US sovereignty? Don't know what that means. When did we loose it? That's one of those cliches right-wingers love, although it means nothing.

Anyway, it's all moot now. Donald's not a Republican. He said he's a nationalist. White nationalist would have just been a redundancy. So is your boy Ted a Republican, a nationalist, or just a groveling sycophant who is desperate to keep his job?

By Boosting US sovereignty, I mean cutting back on agreements that give other countries a say in US actions. Getting out of the Paris agreement is an example, as is cutting funding to the UN and having Nikki Haley make it clear that the US will no longer bow to their demands (if you want to talk about bowing, look no further than the previous three presidents backing down on a promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem).

One can be both a Republican and a Nationalist, it's a big tent. In Trump's case the term means putting America first in dealing with foreigners. Apparently that is something you disapprove of? 

I don't know where you got the term "White Nationalist," I guess it's from your racist sources on the Left. Trump has done more for African Americans than any president since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill and Nixon enforced it.

---

                                                                          

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

I give Christie and Kasich more credit than you.

I'm inclined to applaud anyone who restores authority to Congress and takes it away from decades-old regulatory agencies, but our Congress has shown no signs of being competent to hold this power in the last eight years. Especially in the house the Republican majority can't agree among themselves on anything other than trashing what Democrats do.

---

Of course you give them credit, they're squishy RINOs like yourself.

I wouldn't use the word squishy.
Obviously when you use it you mean to say that "hard" is better, and you are the "hardest" of all.  I find that laughable.  Politics is won by herds adhering together.  If you are actually "hard", only people who are "hard" in the exact same way as you will ever adhere to you.  The good news is you are not actually "hard".   It would be a remarkable coincidence if your hard and rigid principles that you've supposedly kept for a long time corresponded exactly to what Donald Trump started saying in 2015.  No, you are actually soft and emotionally manipulable like everyone else, but you are attracted to the most dishonest type of people, the ones who invite you to adhere to them without actually using inviting words.  Instead they call you and everything that was good about you and your country garbage.  You confuse that for principled rhetoric and strong leadership.

Kasich and Christie are different from that. I would say they both have a way of telling someone they disagree with to go to hell in such a nice way that they'll look forward to the trip.
Reagan had that. 
It's one of the things we lack now and need again.

---

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