If you didn't support Trump in 2016 do you regret it and will you support him in 2020

[sealybobo]

where's the 'i'm an indy, who never would consider voting for trump, past or in the future' option?

'cause that would be my choice.

Or republican who took a chance on trump but are sorry now. Hillary would have had the same numbers and less debt because she wouldn’t have passed that unnecessary gift to the rich trump passed.

 

[ChrisL]

Seriously? How would you do a "purge?" Are you going to deny those people a right to vote or to support the candidate of their choice? Racism is not good and it takes a totally ignorant jerk to treat a person badly because of their skin color or whatever, but it is NOT the fucking crime of the century either. As long as they aren't harming anyone else, they are as much entitled to their opinions as anyone.

Possibly is the crime of the century whether practiced by whites or blacks. Purposely threw one down two flights of stairs once, because when they attacked, I selfishly wished to live, regardless of their racial animus. As for purging? Understandably hard to do. Could do a better job of screening donations for starters and having a strict policy to decline or return aide from them, but heck, Big Don says he will accept and us aid from foreign powers, such as Russia. Not likely he will turn down money from the KKK. Reminding himself to speak out against them, as he is supposed to represent that beacon on the hill, would not hurt.

And Hillary and other candidates have also accepted foreign donations. Why do you hold Trump to a different standard? He is certainly not any worse than any of them, and his policies are MUCH better. Nobody is a PERFECT person.

Glad I never supported the Hill. Neither party should be accepting foreign born donations in our political process. I do not accept there place at our political table as legitimate stake holder in selecting our leaders. Do you?

No, but they all do, so you can't just pick out one out of the bunch.

They should not. I believe it is against the law in most cases. Both parties should lock it down. Just because the other party does, it is still does not justify. Two wrongs don't make a right and (the right) will not be majorly disadvantaged, by choosing to do the right thing.

So, why are you ONLY talking about Trump accepting foreign donations, when you know damn well that the others did so too? NOW, you want to change it? Lol! Okay.

 

[Kondor3]

Oh okay, President Trump is just a dummy who has never read a book. Talk about hyperbole. AS much as some of you hate Trump, he is not stupid. He wouldn't be where he was today if he was stupid. And if he IS stupid, as you claim, then he is one hella hard worker to be where he is today.

Correct, a stupid billionaire who was a successful businessman and entertainer. I wish I could be that stupid.

Skill sets in the Private Sector do not always translate well into the Public Sector, as we see presently with Trump.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The Democrat party are supposedly the party that promotes female causes, and celebrates their success......that is until they find females not marching in lockstep like Palin and Condi Rice. Then they are the demon incarnate.

Could be. Do you ever rail against Pelosi, Hillary, or the fringe nutball "squad much? Trump certainly does not have much respect for women. Ask his wife. He has taken over the party and eggs on the food fights, rather than attempting to settle the food fights and move on with the banquet. He is the leader of the free world, or at least should be.

I think DJT treats women well? The Leftists have lied to women and told them they are equal to men physically and don't need their help. They are wrong. As a father of two girls, I hope men stand up and defend them not tell them to take care of themselves.

Physically weaker in general to be sure, but often the intellectual equal. I am a southerner. I look out for the women around me.

Example. If one of them is walking to her car (when they are older) and it is dark and a male friend they trust offer to walk them, they should say "yes, thank you" and not play all tough and say they don't need men.

Absolutely. Too many people (women and men) take personal safety for granted, especially in familiar locations. There is usually more safety in numbers.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that men are usually stronger and bigger. We were put on this earth to protect women.

 

[sealybobo]

Possibly is the crime of the century whether practiced by whites or blacks. Purposely threw one down two flights of stairs once, because when they attacked, I selfishly wished to live, regardless of their racial animus. As for purging? Understandably hard to do. Could do a better job of screening donations for starters and having a strict policy to decline or return aide from them, but heck, Big Don says he will accept and us aid from foreign powers, such as Russia. Not likely he will turn down money from the KKK. Reminding himself to speak out against them, as he is supposed to represent that beacon on the hill, would not hurt.

And Hillary and other candidates have also accepted foreign donations. Why do you hold Trump to a different standard? He is certainly not any worse than any of them, and his policies are MUCH better. Nobody is a PERFECT person.

Glad I never supported the Hill. Neither party should be accepting foreign born donations in our political process. I do not accept there place at our political table as legitimate stake holder in selecting our leaders. Do you?

No, but they all do, so you can't just pick out one out of the bunch.

They should not. I believe it is against the law in most cases. Both parties should lock it down. Just because the other party does, it is still does not justify. Two wrongs don't make a right and (the right) will not be majorly disadvantaged, by choosing to do the right thing.

So, why are you ONLY talking about Trump accepting foreign donations, when you know damn well that the others did so too? NOW, you want to change it? Lol! Okay.

Does trump follow the rules and laws?

 

[ChrisL]

This is SUCH a gem, that I am bumping it!

Because, of course, they want rule of law to reign, a group of citizens began digging up the grave of Nathan Bedford Forrest in Memphis this week over his helping found the Ku Klux Klan.

They only got a few shovelfuls before giving up. But they vowed to return with a backhoe to dig the rest of the man’s grave up later.

Legally speaking, this would be called “grave robbing” and “vandalism,” and might even violate a few of God’s laws, as well. But none of that matters to vigilantes in pursuit against racism and racist racists who practice it.

Real guts, these fine people have, to take a stand against something so popular as racism. Yeah, it’s right up there with gonorrhea, syphilis, flesh-eating amoebas and child rape. Good old red-white-and-blue racism.

But there is a method to this nihilistic madness. Without “racist America,” you would not have the political party known as Democrats. Its entire existence, every dime it raises, every position it takes is based on this century-old cliche that somehow America — the country that invented freedom and self-governance — is still totally racist.

Their leader Nancy Pelosi — a full decade after she became Speaker of the House — is shocked — SHOCKED, I SAY!!! — to find that there are Confederate statues all throughout the Capitol building where she has worked for more than a quarter-century.

Suddenly she finds them “reprehensible” symbols of racism.

Democrats Decry the KKK While Forgetting Legacy of One of Their Own - Rasmussen Reports®

“There is no room for celebrating the violent bigotry of the men of the Confederacy in the hallowed halls of the United States Capitol or in places of honor across the country,” Mrs. Pelosi said.

After, apparently, 30 years of herself celebrating “violent bigotry.”


In this land of dishonest race hucksters, it is always important to remember that small lies never win. They always go for the BIG LIE.

Remind me, again, who was behind all the “violent bigotry” of the Civil War? Oh, yeah, it was Democrats. And who was behind all the vestiges of it over the last century? Democrats.

Mrs. Pelosi knows this, of course, because she worked shoulder-to-shoulder for 23 years beside a retired member of the Ku Klux Klan. That would, of course, be the “great senator” from the “great state” of West Virginia, Robert C. Byrd, a lifelong Democrat.

As the “Exalted Cyclops” of the KKK, Mr. Byrd recruited more than 100 people to join his chapter and warned in a letter against America becoming “degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

 

[ChrisL]

Could be. Do you ever rail against Pelosi, Hillary, or the fringe nutball "squad much? Trump certainly does not have much respect for women. Ask his wife. He has taken over the party and eggs on the food fights, rather than attempting to settle the food fights and move on with the banquet. He is the leader of the free world, or at least should be.

I think DJT treats women well? The Leftists have lied to women and told them they are equal to men physically and don't need their help. They are wrong. As a father of two girls, I hope men stand up and defend them not tell them to take care of themselves.

Physically weaker in general to be sure, but often the intellectual equal. I am a southerner. I look out for the women around me.

Example. If one of them is walking to her car (when they are older) and it is dark and a male friend they trust offer to walk them, they should say "yes, thank you" and not play all tough and say they don't need men.

Absolutely. Too many people (women and men) take personal safety for granted, especially in familiar locations. There is usually more safety in numbers.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that men are usually stronger and bigger. We were put on this earth to protect women.

Sure, men are usually bigger and stronger, but women aren't helpless either, especially when we are packing some heat!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I think DJT treats women well? The Leftists have lied to women and told them they are equal to men physically and don't need their help. They are wrong. As a father of two girls, I hope men stand up and defend them not tell them to take care of themselves.

Physically weaker in general to be sure, but often the intellectual equal. I am a southerner. I look out for the women around me.

Example. If one of them is walking to her car (when they are older) and it is dark and a male friend they trust offer to walk them, they should say "yes, thank you" and not play all tough and say they don't need men.

Absolutely. Too many people (women and men) take personal safety for granted, especially in familiar locations. There is usually more safety in numbers.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that men are usually stronger and bigger. We were put on this earth to protect women.

Sure, men are usually bigger and stronger, but women aren't helpless either, especially when we are packing some heat!

I agree but I would want my daughters to accept help not reject it because of silly pride.

 

[White 6]

Chrisi, she fit in with the new nutball right. You could (if you felt charitable) say she was ahead of her time. I thought she was a flake, and I'm was not part of the left. A lot of people like me were on the, the McCain Train, had donated. thought highly of him, and then this move out of nowhere. It was poor judgement and an unforced infield error.

Why do you say that about her? Because she is a religious, family oriented woman? Her policies were right in line with McCain's which is why he chose her as a running mate (and because she was a woman).

She always struck me as an inexperienced, uneducated flake somebody foolishly invited to the big stage. A starter, but not a finisher (except for finishing McCain), the first majorly unqualified inexperienced populous candidate on their major party ticket.

How was she any more unqualified than Obama?

Educationally and intellectually, to say the least. I did not know you held him in that high esteem.

IOW, he was a "polished" politician. Yep, those are the ones you should trust. *eye roll*

Going for the anti-intellectual and and school trained is not how you pick your doctor, lawyer or accountant. Just because you leaned toward educated an person and got burned does not invalidate hiring educated trained personnel and never will. It is a fallacy of those envious of education, passed up or failed to achieve it for one reason or another.

 

[ChrisL]

Physically weaker in general to be sure, but often the intellectual equal. I am a southerner. I look out for the women around me.

Example. If one of them is walking to her car (when they are older) and it is dark and a male friend they trust offer to walk them, they should say "yes, thank you" and not play all tough and say they don't need men.

Absolutely. Too many people (women and men) take personal safety for granted, especially in familiar locations. There is usually more safety in numbers.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that men are usually stronger and bigger. We were put on this earth to protect women.

Sure, men are usually bigger and stronger, but women aren't helpless either, especially when we are packing some heat!

I agree but I would want my daughters to accept help not reject it because of silly pride.

Well, I hope if they did really need some help, they wouldn't reject it either. That would be silly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh okay, President Trump is just a dummy who has never read a book. Talk about hyperbole. AS much as some of you hate Trump, he is not stupid. He wouldn't be where he was today if he was stupid. And if he IS stupid, as you claim, then he is one hella hard worker to be where he is today.

Correct, a stupid billionaire who was a successful businessman and entertainer. I wish I could be that stupid.

Skill sets in the Private Sector do not always translate well into the Public Sector, as we see presently with Trump.

Correct. We need less people working. We need people with less money in their pocket. Our stock market is doing too well. We need to tone that down with taxes. We need higher unemployment. We need higher energy costs. Not to worry though, Warren said her first day in office, she's signing an executive order to stop all fracking in the US, you know, the process that's responsible for our reasonable fuel prices.

I don't know what we were thinking when we voted for Trump. Without a doubt, we see his skill set isn't the public sector.

 

[ChrisL]

Why do you say that about her? Because she is a religious, family oriented woman? Her policies were right in line with McCain's which is why he chose her as a running mate (and because she was a woman).

She always struck me as an inexperienced, uneducated flake somebody foolishly invited to the big stage. A starter, but not a finisher (except for finishing McCain), the first majorly unqualified inexperienced populous candidate on their major party ticket.

How was she any more unqualified than Obama?

Educationally and intellectually, to say the least. I did not know you held him in that high esteem.

IOW, he was a "polished" politician. Yep, those are the ones you should trust. *eye roll*

Going for the anti-intellectual and and school trained is not how you pick your doctor, lawyer or accountant. Just because you leaned toward educated an person and got burned does not invalidate hiring educated trained personnel and never will. It is a fallacy of those envious of education, passed up or failed to achieve it for one reason or another.

There is NO such thing as an honest "politician." Lol!

 

[White 6]

Chrisi, she fit in with the new nutball right. You could (if you felt charitable) say she was ahead of her time. I thought she was a flake, and I'm was not part of the left. A lot of people like me were on the, the McCain Train, had donated. thought highly of him, and then this move out of nowhere. It was poor judgement and an unforced infield error.

Why do you say that about her? Because she is a religious, family oriented woman? Her policies were right in line with McCain's which is why he chose her as a running mate (and because she was a woman).

She always struck me as an inexperienced, uneducated flake somebody foolishly invited to the big stage. A starter, but not a finisher (except for finishing McCain), the first majorly unqualified inexperienced populous candidate on their major party ticket.

How was she any more unqualified than Obama?

Educationally and intellectually, to say the least. I did not know you held him in that high esteem.

I never said Obama was dumb. That is what makes people like him so dangerous.

I admit highly educated and trained people can more efficiently screw you over, but idiots in command are never to be counted on. They never learned to discipline their mind and often their emotions.

 

[ChrisL]

Why do you say that about her? Because she is a religious, family oriented woman? Her policies were right in line with McCain's which is why he chose her as a running mate (and because she was a woman).

She always struck me as an inexperienced, uneducated flake somebody foolishly invited to the big stage. A starter, but not a finisher (except for finishing McCain), the first majorly unqualified inexperienced populous candidate on their major party ticket.

How was she any more unqualified than Obama?

Educationally and intellectually, to say the least. I did not know you held him in that high esteem.

I never said Obama was dumb. That is what makes people like him so dangerous.

I admit highly educated and trained people can more efficiently screw you over, but idiots in command are never to be counted on. They never learned to discipline their mind and often their emotions.

I don't think Donald Trump is as much an idiot as you think he is. A blow hard? Sure. Arrogant? Sure. Gets irritated and says some stupid things sometimes? Sure.

 

[White 6]

I will admit, I am less than impressed with the honor involved in tactics applied to Kavanaugh. Maybe failure to even allow a hearing for Obama's supreme court nominee for 10 months prior to the election is when both sides decided the gloves came off.

Or how the left absolutely demonizes any republican running for office - Sara Palin, Romney, McCain, etc., etc. I mean, they were really brutal to Sara Palin and her family, even going so low as to make fun of her disabled baby boy. Yuck, they are just disgusting, have absolutely NO integrity or honor and never had, since I've been following politics. They push identity politics on us constantly, and don't you DARE disagree. I've had it with them.

Palin was a flake. Doesn’t matter. McCain was naive enough to think he could cater to the left by picking a woman while the right were too emasculated to complain. He thought it was a freebie so he could choose a nutcase and still get brownie points. He found out differently. McCain was useful to the left as a fifth columnist inside the GOP...not as president. And they despise women. She became just another punching bag for them. And you are right...they moralized on her children constantly. These puritan leftists are the most hypocritical people you can imagine.

The GOP has to learn that time and again. And if you doubt it just watch what they do to the next SC pick if she is female (though Trump is refreshingly not bound to quota picks.) The left uses sexist gender appeals to divide America and gain power. But they loathe femininity...except when found in males.

I partially agree with your post, but I don't think Sara was a flake. That is just how the leftist media portrayed her.

She made it easy. It was not her year to make it to the stage. Possibly a filly brought along to fast, by poor judgement of the handlers.

She made what easy? For leftists to portray her in a negative light? In the leftist mind, I suppose that is true.

Does not even have to be a leftist mind.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

where's the 'i'm an indy, who never would consider voting for trump, past or in the future' option?

'cause that would be my choice.

Or republican who took a chance on trump but are sorry now. Hillary would have had the same numbers and less debt because she wouldn’t have passed that unnecessary gift to the rich trump passed.

Then she wouldn't have Trump's numbers either.

 

[ChrisL]

Or how the left absolutely demonizes any republican running for office - Sara Palin, Romney, McCain, etc., etc. I mean, they were really brutal to Sara Palin and her family, even going so low as to make fun of her disabled baby boy. Yuck, they are just disgusting, have absolutely NO integrity or honor and never had, since I've been following politics. They push identity politics on us constantly, and don't you DARE disagree. I've had it with them.

Palin was a flake. Doesn’t matter. McCain was naive enough to think he could cater to the left by picking a woman while the right were too emasculated to complain. He thought it was a freebie so he could choose a nutcase and still get brownie points. He found out differently. McCain was useful to the left as a fifth columnist inside the GOP...not as president. And they despise women. She became just another punching bag for them. And you are right...they moralized on her children constantly. These puritan leftists are the most hypocritical people you can imagine.

The GOP has to learn that time and again. And if you doubt it just watch what they do to the next SC pick if she is female (though Trump is refreshingly not bound to quota picks.) The left uses sexist gender appeals to divide America and gain power. But they loathe femininity...except when found in males.

I partially agree with your post, but I don't think Sara was a flake. That is just how the leftist media portrayed her.

She made it easy. It was not her year to make it to the stage. Possibly a filly brought along to fast, by poor judgement of the handlers.

She made what easy? For leftists to portray her in a negative light? In the leftist mind, I suppose that is true.

Does not even have to be a leftist mind.

To be so cruel to her and her children? Yes, yes it does.

 

[DOTR]

I support the agenda he ran on, and am glad he is actually doing what he said he would. He may be crass, but I think it is good leadership to implement what you ran on while under constant attack. What did the republicans believe in 72 that they no longer do? I'm for less regulation, less taxes, no pointless wars, not increasing the welfare state, and sensible immigration. I'm also pro 2nd amendment, and support Christianity. I'm also big on free speech and not being a trade door mat for every country on earth. I'll add pro law enforcement and rule of law and treating everyone equally instead of pitting groups of people against each other for pointless reasons. That is just off the top of my head.

Well said, but in 72 they took a reasoned approach, did not label the opposition as the enemy of the Republican party, we're the party that started the EPA not the one appointing someone from the coal or gas industry and weakening clean water standards, the Republicans worked across the aisle to get thing done, clean up through the Clinton years. Republicans have not been against pointless wars for 2 decades. Christianity is not the purview of the Republican party. If someone disagreed with Republic point of view, rhetoric or talking point the generally were not labeled fascist, nazi, anti-american, etc. We had, as we do now, the largest economy on earth, following trade policy instituted by republican and democrat parties alike, and our GDP consistently expanded with those trade policies. Trump has been a leader at pitting people against each other, rich/poor, democrat/republican and yes, black/white. Republicans supported NATO and did not Trust Russia, much less take cues from it's leader. Republicans also used to be better at reigning in their own when they went to excess, not act as a rubber stamp. Now elected republicans do not speak to Democrats, or work together to solve problems. Republicans did not come into office and tear down what was put together by republican and democratic parties past, just to break something and put their stamp on it's replacement or replace it with nothing. The also did not raid the military budget after it was agreed by both houses and signed by the President to pay for their pet project, that they promised would be paid for by a foreign government. One party strong man unrestrained rule is a bad idea.

I appreciate your point of view, but with the media and democrats pulling garbage like Russian Collusion and Kavanaugh, and running people like Sanders and AOC, what else would you call them but an enemy? I never thought I'd see the left cheer for the establishment and limit free speech. Wanting Europe to contribute to its own defense also seemed reasonable. The European Leaders were using us as a cash register. I agree with you and Mac that their should be common ground things both parties should be able to agree with, but for most of my lifetime weak republicans have caved without a fight to democrats. Also, from my perspective, Trump could care less if you are a woman or a minority, he is working for everyone. I saw an interview where he talked about being the common sense party. Real solutions to real problems. I'm good with that.

They used to be a common sense part, but certainly not under Big Don. You are correct on Kavanaugh. Russian collusion is and always was a republican hoax, often advanced by Donald Trump, who quite rightly said "So What?" There is no federal law against collustion. So collusion is exactly what he wanted out front. The question was whether he or his campaign were in contact and conspired, seeking to coordinated the release of information, the campaign knew was stolen by Russia, (within hours after he called for Russia to look for Hillary's emails) and coordinated the use and release of stolen property, indirectly from Russian intelligence. I have a marked up Pdf, (downloaded directly from Justice Department) mis- characterized by Barr for over two weeks in order to get out ahead of the story. It is indeed pretty shady, but a very long read.
You can tell what Trump thinks of minorities by how many he has cabinet positions and other appointments. Apparently there were few who could qualify for this high standards we have seen him employee to make his selections. I agree Trump could care less about women in general unless they are good looking and are impressed by his money and fame. I understand if you are rich and famous, you can grab them by the private parts and they don't mind a bit. If he gets a stirring, morals go out the window, along with cares about his wives and kids, but this is OK with modern Republicans.
He is not the type of President they taught you about in civic class or held up as an example and quoted in history class, and this is fine with modern Republicans. He is more like the kind of guy you discussed case-law about in college classes. Republicans used to remind me of the US Senate, kind of a bulwark against flighty populous movements. They worked with the Democrats, but from a different point of view. They certainly never forsook their own core values to embrace a life-long Democrat populist as their party leader and standard bearer.
You asked my opinion, so there you have it.

You are an idiot...but worse you expect us to be too idiotic to remember that the KGB passed Hillary the Steele dossier? That Shiff tried to meet with Russians at the Ukrainian embassy to get what he thought were compromising photos of Trump? That Obama said on a hot mic tell vlad I’ll be free to pursue his interests after this pesky election?

You lost. Thank God. America won.

Thanks for the nice intellectual name calling. Near as I can tell, everybody and their brother and sister were paying for that "Steele dossier" (sounds like something out of a Bond flick) at on time or another. Don't bother with the name calling. You know I will only start skipping your posts whether they have merit or not.

Not who was paying for it. Where it came from. KGB. To Hillary.

 

[White 6]

Do you have a theory of what happened to the Republican party. I started voting mostly republican starting with Richard Nixon and voting Lamar Alexander for Governor back in 72. I do not recognize that party anymore. It is a party of today, appearing almost totally without honor, moving as a rubber stamp. Do they really support his leadership or is it just agenda goals and power?

Without honor? How are they any LESS honorable than the democratic party? How about name a democrat that is "honorable."

I will admit, I am less than impressed with the honor involved in tactics applied to Kavanaugh. Maybe failure to even allow a hearing for Obama's supreme court nominee for 10 months prior to the election is when both sides decided the gloves came off.

Or how the left absolutely demonizes any republican running for office - Sara Palin, Romney, McCain, etc., etc. I mean, they were really brutal to Sara Palin and her family, even going so low as to make fun of her disabled baby boy. Yuck, they are just disgusting, have absolutely NO integrity or honor and never had, since I've been following politics. They push identity politics on us constantly, and don't you DARE disagree. I've had it with them.

Palin was a flake. Doesn’t matter. McCain was naive enough to think he could cater to the left by picking a woman while the right were too emasculated to complain. He thought it was a freebie so he could choose a nutcase and still get brownie points. He found out differently. McCain was useful to the left as a fifth columnist inside the GOP...not as president. And they despise women. She became just another punching bag for them. And you are right...they moralized on her children constantly. These puritan leftists are the most hypocritical people you can imagine.

The GOP has to learn that time and again. And if you doubt it just watch what they do to the next SC pick if she is female (though Trump is refreshingly not bound to quota picks.) The left uses sexist gender appeals to divide America and gain power. But they loathe femininity...except when found in males.

Presidential contenders usually try to pick VP's to cover what they don't have. McCain was an old RINO. He needed somebody who was conservative, young, pretty, and still appealing to the possible McCain Democrats and Independents. So he chose Palin.

I did that in every command I ever had, but never made a new 2LT my Exec.

 

[White 6]

Without honor? How are they any LESS honorable than the democratic party? How about name a democrat that is "honorable."

I will admit, I am less than impressed with the honor involved in tactics applied to Kavanaugh. Maybe failure to even allow a hearing for Obama's supreme court nominee for 10 months prior to the election is when both sides decided the gloves came off.

Or how the left absolutely demonizes any republican running for office - Sara Palin, Romney, McCain, etc., etc. I mean, they were really brutal to Sara Palin and her family, even going so low as to make fun of her disabled baby boy. Yuck, they are just disgusting, have absolutely NO integrity or honor and never had, since I've been following politics. They push identity politics on us constantly, and don't you DARE disagree. I've had it with them.

The Democrat party are supposedly the party that promotes female causes, and celebrates their success......that is until they find females not marching in lockstep like Palin and Condi Rice. Then they are the demon incarnate.

Could be. Do you ever rail against Pelosi, Hillary, or the fringe nutball "squad much? Trump certainly does not have much respect for women. Ask his wife. He has taken over the party and eggs on the food fights, rather than attempting to settle the food fights and move on with the banquet. He is the leader of the free world, or at least should be.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. The right never claimed to be the savior of women, that was the Democrats.

Did not realize that was the purview and responsibility of the Democrats alone. Thank you for pointing it out.