Russia! Russia!! Russia!!!

[Smitty-48]

Tulsi ain't no hawk, she's playing the less foreign entanglements card, same as Trump. She's Democrat Ron Paul on the foreign policy tip, she has zero chance of winning over the hawks in Democrat party.

A vote for Tulsi Gabbard is not a vote to empower the Hawks in the Democrat Party.

The Supercounterforce is America First, Splendid Isolation requires a Fortress America most of all.

The Democrats are more aggressive on Supercounterforce, regardless of how much they spend.

Trump seems more in favor of Supercounterforce than Tulsi Gabbard dude, why you'd trust her to be more Hawkish than Trump, makes no sense to me.

You said that already.

[StCapps]

I don't see any Demohawks running who are more hawkish than Trump, so I find your analysis to be off.

I find your analysis to simply be you repeating over and over who is likely to win an election like an autist.

I'm using your own criteria to analyze, Tulsi Gabbard is not supercounterforce hawk, and I don't see any supercounterforce hawks running for POTUS.

[StCapps]

The Supercounterforce is America First, Splendid Isolation requires a Fortress America most of all.

The Democrats are more aggressive on Supercounterforce, regardless of how much they spend.

Trump seems more in favor of Supercounterforce than Tulsi Gabbard dude, why you'd trust her to be more Hawkish than Trump, makes no sense to me.

You said that already.

By your own criteria, there aren't better alternatives to Trump, so why are you fronting as if there is?

[Smitty-48]

I don't see any Demohawks running who are more hawkish than Trump, so I find your analysis to be off.

I find your analysis to simply be you repeating over and over who is likely to win an election like an autist.

I'm using your own criteria to analyze, Tulsi Gabbard is not supercounterforce hawk, and I don't see any supercounterforce hawks running for POTUS.

The Supercounterforce is happening, it doesn't matter which party is in, it's a duopoly, but the Democrats favour BMD, it's an Obama legacy project, in terms of how much is spent, the Pentagon tells congress what to spend the money on, so the President is largely irrelevant, other than a veto, which a Democrat congress is less likely to do against their own legacy project.

[Smitty-48]

Trump seems more in favor of Supercounterforce than Tulsi Gabbard dude, why you'd trust her to be more Hawkish than Trump, makes no sense to me.

You said that already.

By your own criteria, there aren't better alternatives to Trump, so why are you fronting as if there is?

The Democrats could very well be, I'm not a Hillary hater, I think America would be much better off now if Hillary had won.

[Smitty-48]

All the GOP has really done is give Wall Street and Israel a big blowjob.

Which is fine by me.

But what does that do for Joe Q. No Cash Flow American?

[StCapps]

I find your analysis to simply be you repeating over and over who is likely to win an election like an autist.

I'm using your own criteria to analyze, Tulsi Gabbard is not supercounterforce hawk, and I don't see any supercounterforce hawks running for POTUS.

The Supercounterforce is happening, it doesn't matter which party is in, it's a duopoly, but the Democrats favour BMD, it's an Obama legacy project, in terms of how much is spent, the Pentagon tells congress what to spend the money on, so the President is largely irrelevant, other than a veto, which a Democrat congress is less likely to do against their own legacy project.

If the supercounterforce is happening, and the POTUS is largely irrelevant, then what utility is getting rid of Trump when it comes to supercounterforce. You are arguing against your own position.

[StCapps]

You said that already.

By your own criteria, there aren't better alternatives to Trump, so why are you fronting as if there is?

The Democrats could very well be, I'm not a Hillary hater, I think America would be much better off now if Hillary had won.

That's a good one. You're a funny guy.

[StCapps]

Replacing Scalia with Garland instead of Gorsuch, America would be better off. Replacing Kennedy with a centrist Democrat, instead of Kavanaugh, America would be so much better off. Less speech, Less guns, yup, America would be better off alright.

[Smitty-48]

I'm using your own criteria to analyze, Tulsi Gabbard is not supercounterforce hawk, and I don't see any supercounterforce hawks running for POTUS.

The Supercounterforce is happening, it doesn't matter which party is in, it's a duopoly, but the Democrats favour BMD, it's an Obama legacy project, in terms of how much is spent, the Pentagon tells congress what to spend the money on, so the President is largely irrelevant, other than a veto, which a Democrat congress is less likely to do against their own legacy project.

If the supercounterforce is happening, and the POTUS is largely irrelevant, then what utility is getting rid of Trump when it comes to supercounterforce. You are arguing against your own position.

I didn't say get rid of Trump I said I no longer endorse him, he is an agent of Russia and Israel and a 5-4 SCOTUS is already mission accomplished.