Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

It’s On! Trump Twitter Tirade Against Cruz

It’s On! Trump Twitter Tirade Against Cruz

Have we entered the two-man phase of the primaries?

https://twitter.com/rickwtyler/status/621505161681367040

Following the GOP debate, Professor Jacobson noted that it looks like a two person race between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, and not only is this view becoming a consensus but apparently Trump thinks so, too.

Trump has taken to Twitter to rant and rave against Cruz.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/688327093214662657

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/688334268804804608

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/688335640925061124

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/688425749129211905

His Twitter feed is chock-full of tweets just like these, and it’s quite clear that he is really (really) worried about Cruz.  As Trump said during the debate, he’s attacking Cruz now only because Cruz is polling so well.

Obviously, it doesn’t end with loans and donations, he’s also ranting about New York City and Cruz’s point about Trump’s New York values, a point people outside of NYC understand very well.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/688333063093374976

The “wiseguy apology” to which Trump refers:

Solid gold.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/688445495174393856

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/688443772565348352

And my personal favorite . . .

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/688426156920459264

For his part, Cruz is not being drawn into a Twitter feud with Trump, and in addition to the above tweet, has posted one other (excluding retweets) today on Trump:

Trump seems thin-skinned and a bit petty today on Twitter, and it seems that Cruz has rocked him more than should be evident.

Battle lines are being drawn and prominent pundits are picking sides.

Here’s Mark Levin’s advice to Trump:

Either cut the crap – your accusations this morning that Cruz is Canadian, a criminal, owned by big banks, etc. (see link below) – or you will lose lots and lots of conservatives. Save the liberal New York City bully tactics for the New York City liberals. Put down your computer keyboard for a few hours, think before you tweet, and collect yourself. You’re not politically invincible, regardless of the polls and media.

I am already hearing more and more people getting fed up with the low road you’re taking against Cruz, which has obviously intensified this morning. You don’t need to attack his honor or attempt to smear his reputation. You can leave that to Mitch McConnell and the New York Times. Engage on real and substantive issues that matter to the country. Like I said, my friendly advice.

Levin cuts to the heart of the problem of Trump’s current tactics against Cruz.  The people who avidly support Trump will continue to do so no matter what he says or does (we’ve seen that time and again), but the people who are wavering between Trump and Cruz are unlikely to be swayed by Trump’s rants.

Cruz made a similar observation today.

“It seems Donald has a lot of nervous energy,” he told reporters earlier Saturday in Fort Mill, S.C. “It seems for whatever reason Donald doesn’t react well when he’s going down in the polls. I imagine he’s very dismayed by the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC poll that shows in a head-to-head…he’d lose to me. Knowing Donald, that’s got to drive him nuts.”

. . . . “In terms of a commander-in-chief, we ought to have someone who isn’t springing out of bed to tweet in frantic response to the latest polls,” Cruz said.

The Texas senator, who has dismissed Trump’s conservative credibility by accusing him of having “New York values,” unpacked that line in more depth, noting that Trump himself used the phrase in a 1999 interview in which he also described himself as supporting abortion rights and not ruling out partial birth abortion, among other more liberal positions.

“Donald’s explanation, not mine, is because he’s a New Yorker, he’s from New York,” Cruz said.

Trump attacking Cruz the way he attacked others may backfire:

[Featured image via Twitter . . . in happier times]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Well, that should certainly appeal to the crowd that never matured emotionally past the age of 17.

    And to blogs supporting Marco Rubio which also supported Cruz for the US Senate and affirmatively opined on the validity of the contention that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.

    It’s all there in the archives…

    Estragon in reply to Sanddog. | January 17, 2016 at 12:23 am

    They both need the LIVs of our side, the talk radio fans, the ignorant conspiracy theorists, the white supremacists, and miscellaneous lunatic fringe. Cruz had carefully planned to coast to the nomination on these folks who aren’t bright enough to track his long establishment history and multiple flip-flops on their own, and set out to piss on everyone else in the party to prove his “outsider” cred when Trump jumped in and began to sweep the stupid vote.

    Trump draws in more of the Democrat and independent nuts while Cruz has the advantage among less-educated evangelicals, but besides those strengths they are playing to the same crowd. They won’t be the final two, but one of them is likely to be one of the final two.

    We are getting close to the point in the campaign where the voters take over and talk radio hucksters and stupid internet comments have to stand aside. Thank God.

      Remind me again whom do you support for president.

      damocles in reply to Estragon. | January 17, 2016 at 12:52 am

      Cruz has never been part of the establishment. He has always lived up to his campaign promises. He has never supported amnesty or a path to citizenship. He has not flip-flopped on ethanol, and is the only candidate who is against ethanol subsidies.
      If there are any white supremacist voters, they belong to the Democrat party. It was the Southern Democrats who tried to stop the Civil Rights act from passing through Congress, the party of LBJ. Cruz is no racist.
      As far as lunatic fringe, that would be the Bernie Sanders supporters, and anyone who would vote for Hilary Clinton. The woman who left US state department staff, CIA workers, security contractors and a US Ambassador to die in Benghazi.

        Cruz has absolutely flipped flopped on h1b visas TPA and obamtrade. But we all know he really still supports all these things.

          So did Trump until he announced.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 7:36 am

          What we all know is that you lie constantly.

          THAT’s what we all know…!!!

          SDN absolutely untrue that Trump ever supported Obamatrade or TPA. So you are incorrect as to those items. As far as h1b visas I don’t know the answer.

          Rags, gotta love it when you foolishly take proclaim to either speak for all readers of LI or lecture all readerz of LI like a group of children attending Rags school.

        The Friendly Grizzly in reply to damocles. | January 17, 2016 at 2:27 am

        Seeing what the Civil Rights At has brought us, in the form of quota hiring, set-asides, and cuts in line at colleges that push the more qualified students aside, those Southern Democrats were right.

Poor Duh Donald. Schlonged by Cruz over his New York values and the NBC poll, he’s gone into full-tilt narcissistic melt-down.

Note that he’s attacking Cruz from the LEFT, using every lefty “authority” available to him. Showing exactly where his own center really is.

Heh…!!!

No rant or rave. How does a lawyer and a Senator NOT remember he’s a Canadian citizen?

Especially with Obama catching flack over a similar situation for the last 8 years?

And there are some legal concerns as to Cruz’s status.

With Obama the claim was that he wasn’t born in the US besides having a non-citizen father.

With McCain (the other most recent) he WAS born on US soil and to two US citizens.

There is a question whether natural born means born on US soil to a US citizen who was US born (which Cruz wasn’t) OR to a US citizen anywhere in the world. (no precedent for that) or if both parents have to be US citizens if born outside of US soil. (no precedent for that)

There are questions. You can claim it’s settled all you want but it’s not. Mostly because the only people who have standing in that situation are the other candidates and they usually don’t file suit over it. It’s a question that needs adjudication or legislation.

And until recently, That’s all Trump brought up was that Cruz was going to be tied up in court over it.

Now more recently, probably because Cruz is responding back, Trump has gotten a bit more personal.

That’s politics. It ain’t bean bag.

    jakee308 in reply to jakee308. | January 16, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    OH. Forgot Mitt. Mitt’s great grandparents were US citizens and chose US citizenship for George Romney who then had Mitt.

    And there was an act brough forth about the definition of Natural born citizen but it went no where.

      Skookum in reply to jakee308. | January 19, 2016 at 11:37 pm

      George Romney, although born a US citizen, was not an NBC. His family fled America for Mexico, not in service to our country, but to be able to continue practicing their form of Mormonism.

    snopercod in reply to jakee308. | January 16, 2016 at 7:12 pm

    What about Barry Goldwater?

    janitor in reply to jakee308. | January 16, 2016 at 7:50 pm

    I wonder why no one seems to remember that in 1787 MOTHERS could not bestow citizenship, and in fact it was not until 1922 that women did not lose their own citizenship upon marriage to a foreigner. The word “parents” is a fudge.

    Changes by statute subsequent to 1787 — and with regard to female parents, we’re talking more than a hundred years later — were not incorporated from the common law into the U.S. Constitution.

    The question is, unfortunately, an open question. Given the current Supreme Court’s tendency to read into words new meanings that were never there, I’d say that it was a non-issue that no statute specifically defined or re-defined “natural-born citizen” for the miniscule circumstances in which someone was running for president AND that person also was born abroad AND that person’s father was not a citizen.

    However, given the liberal hatred for Cruz that’s held by at least four members of the Supreme Court, and one being a squish who is an unknown, it’s unclear what the court would say.

      janitor in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2016 at 8:45 pm

      Thumbs down on facts.

      “Unhinged” might apply these days to the once thoughtful LI commentators.

      Try to remember people that had Trump not been running, Jeb Bush would already have swept the numbers and Cruz would be nowhere.

    damocles in reply to jakee308. | January 17, 2016 at 12:59 am

    There is absolutely no question children born to US citizen parents anywhere in the world are natural born. Soldiers and their wives are posted abroad for many years at a time. If their children are born abroad of course they would be natural born and eligible to be President. The Founders would never have denied the most patriotic among us the chance to have citizen children and for them to be President. This decision by the Supreme Court recently also upholds
    the ordinary language of the time which supports the cruz position.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/11/ted-cruz-eligible-second-amendment/

      No there are questions and it is certainly unanswered unsettled question. Just ask the Harvard law professor that taught Cruz, chief justice Roberts constitutional law.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 7:42 am

        You mean Tribe, the Hellary backer and one of the architects behind “Borking”?

        See, you and your “man” rely on the LEFT for your “authorities” in support of his attacks FROM the LEFT. Again, showing where his center really is.

        T-rump is a Collectivist (Progressive) lover of BIG GOVERNMENT. His whole life tells that story very clearly, as does his conduct vis Cruz.

        Mercyneal in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 5:19 pm

        That Harvard Law professor is a die-hard Hillary supporter. You are cherrypicking your authorities. Many others say Cruz is natural born

    Because he isn’t.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to jakee308. | January 17, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    The definition of natural born has changed from time to time (Ted Cruz would not have been a U.S. citizen at birth had he beeb born in Canada any time between 1907 and 1934) but “natural born” itself means someone who does not need to be naturalized to be a citizen.

    See:

    https://fam.state.gov/searchapps/viewer?format=html&query=oath&links=OATH&url=/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1200apE.html

    http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html

Trump should have watched some more westerns when he was a kid, or he’d understand that there is a deep-seated mistrust of city slickers from back East. His huff-and-puff show is getting old, and doesn’t work against every foe. Cruz’s non-apology was masterful and resonated with conservatives far more than the outrage Trump is trying to manufacture.

The beginning of the end? I can’t really see the voters who support Bush, Christie, Rubio, et al. going for Trump when those guys finally drop out. Cruz is likely to pick up the scraps. Trump/Hillary third party? Cage match to determine which gets top billing.

    Fiftycaltx in reply to windbag. | January 16, 2016 at 7:24 pm

    No. The GOPe, RINO’s, etc. will vote for HILLARY because they already have the “crony capitalism” (aka FASCIST) PAYOFFS lined up. Trump or Cruz breaks their rice bowl. Jeb! was supposed to take care of this “problem” by running against Hillary and LOSING! Then the RINO’s could stay at the country club, the democratic socialists could give the vote to every illegal alien and all the power brokers would be happy forever. The “middle class” would pay for the illegals “benefits”, which would tax them to the hilt, while the elites could PAY them less for the jobs the “middle class” USED TO HAVE. SCREW the Rino’s and the UNIPARTY. BURN THEM DOWN. It’s close to time for ropes over lampposts.

Sammy Finkelman | January 16, 2016 at 7:17 pm

So that explains the sound bite that the NBC Nightly News showed tonight of Ted Cruz saying it is not like a president to go and tweet the first thing in the morning.

I learned from this post that Trump did this again today.

This story includes the exact sound bite that was broadcast:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/cruz-rips-trump-springing-out-bed-tweet-n497976

“I think in terms of a commander-in-chief, we ought to have someone who isn’t springing out of bed to tweet

which is, I think, as far as they went with the sound bite on the evening news tonight.

They didn’t explain that Trump had been tweeting today against Cruz.

You wanna see how embarrassingly BAD this is for T-rump?

Note that Dim Jim Hoft, T-rump butt boi, has not blogged about the T-rump melt-down tweets all day.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

    janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 16, 2016 at 7:52 pm

    Apparently post-debate he’s zoomed back up in the polls, widening lead against Cruz.

      Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2016 at 7:56 pm

      Yeah? His behavior doesn’t reflect that.

      Does it…???

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | January 16, 2016 at 8:36 pm

        What would you have him do?

        Tweet out: “Oh yeah Cruz was right. Vote for Cruz?”

        Or just sit back and say nothing about issues re Cruz and let Cruz smear him by association with non-substantive innuendo?

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2016 at 8:51 pm

          You mean “using his own words”, don’t you, liar?

          damocles in reply to janitor. | January 17, 2016 at 1:11 am

          In 2013, conservatives were fighting for dear life to oppose open borders, while Trump was not only supporting the Dream Act, but echoing the liberal politically correct talking points behind it. In August of 2013, he reportedly told a group of illegal aliens, “You have convinced me” of the need to pass the Dream Act.

          This was not a one off. Even after announcing his presidential bid, Trump continued to promote the false talking points about our responsibility to do something for the countries and families that violated our sovereignty:

          We’re going to do something. I’ve been giving it so much thought, you know you have a — on a humanitarian basis, you have a lot of deep thought going into this, believe me. I actually have a big heart.…I mean, a lot of people don’t understand that, but the DREAMers, it’s a tough situation, we’re going to do something, and one of the things we’re going to do is expedite — when somebody’s terrific, we want them back here, but they have to be legally.
          At best, it sounds like talking out of both sides of one’s mouth; at worst, it’s an embrace of the reasoning used by President Obama and his advocates for the Dream Act and executive amnesty.

          Again, not a one off.

          During an interview with NBC in August 2013, around the same time he was promoting the “Dreamers,” Trump was asked which portions of the Senate [Gang of Eight bill] he would support. Trump demurred, “I actually think it’s too early to say.”

          This is nothing short of breathtaking ignorance given the Gang of Eight bill was one of the worst and most consequential pieces of legislation to come through the Senate in recent memory. It was introduced in April of that year and voted on in June. Trump’s comments were made months after conservatives, including some current writers for Conservative Review, had exposed numerous aspects of the bill. It was long after every legitimate amendment was rejected. How could there have been any ambiguity about the bill in August 2013?

          – See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/trumps-questionable-political-history#sthash.94o7uxuR.dpuf

      pesanteur in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2016 at 7:58 pm

      What poll?

        Ragspierre in reply to pesanteur. | January 16, 2016 at 9:01 pm

        Yeah. THAT poll that shows Cruz beating T-rump by eight points in a two man race.

        HAHAHAHAHAHA…!!!

          When do you think it will become a two man race before or after Super Tuesday? Does Cruz have a chance at winning any state primary after Feb 1? Name one state after Iowa where Cruz is leading? How about naming one after Feb 1 where Cruz is close 2nd?

          Name a state primary after Feb 1 where Trump has a huge lead? Answer ALL OF THEM.

          Cruz is running for president of Iowa and Trump is running for President of USA.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2016 at 5:53 am

          “When do you think it will become a two man race before or after Super Tuesday?”

          I’d say the day Duh Donald melted down on the internet. Because Cruz is winning, and Duh Donald can’t stand that.

          Heh…!!!

          The question was when do you think there will only be two names on the primary ballot of a state with those names being Trump and Cruz? Will that happen before or after Super Tuesday?

          After answering that question you can go back to the question about naming a primary state after Iowa where Cruz is leading in polls or is even a close second.

          Cruz is running for president of Iowa and Trump is running for president of the USA.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 17, 2016 at 4:16 pm

          Are you so stupid that you think things will be the same after your little yellow god threw this several-day tantrum?

          Wait…

          PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | January 19, 2016 at 11:32 am

          That’s funny. In this thread Pugs wants us to wait for the new polls. In another thread he whacks me for posting new polls that show zero impact on Trump.

      Mercyneal in reply to janitor. | January 17, 2016 at 5:21 pm

      Please post a link to post-debate polls. I haven’t seen any

“Pundits are picking sides..” but only a reference to Levin (nothing about Huckabee’s support for Trump today?)

“Trump’s attacks “may backfire”?

That’s true. They also may not. They also might hurt Cruz. So what’s the point?

“He’s really, really worried about Cruz”

And Cruz isn’t worried about Trump? What has Cruz been doing on the trail, NOT mentioning Trump?

We know who the writer supports.

And there is no hypocrisy in Cruz taking these loans and donations? Why didn’t he report them? As calculated and fastidious a man as Cruz forgot or made a mistake? He didn’t remember he was born in Canada?

Something wrong here. And now this NY values stuff, which feels contrived, like well-thought out efforts to imitate Reagan’s more extemporaneous naturalness.

“Trump seems thin-skinned and a bit petty…”

So says you. Trump fights and does it hard. This isn’t Cruz living inside his head anymore than Trump is inside Cruz’s head. It’s called a campaign.

    Ragspierre in reply to pesanteur. | January 16, 2016 at 8:00 pm

    “Pundits are picking sides..” but only a reference to Levin (nothing about Huckabee’s support for Trump today?)
    _________________________________________________

    Hucksterbeeeee, the OTHER lying Progressive populist sack of shit?

    Oh, YEAH! With endorsements like that, T-rump is DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooomed.

    Please…!!!!

Well, we can’t say it’s at least getting interesting!

Fuzzy, you make me laugh. Cruz hasn’t rocked anything or anyone except maybe all the New Yorkers that have contributed $$$ to him.

What Trump is doing is what is commonly referred to as “finishing off your opponent.”

    Ragspierre in reply to nerkbuckeye. | January 16, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    Obviously, T-rump disagrees.

    And you can count on New Yorkers continuing to support Mr. Cruz, as will the rest of the nation. Not everyone is swimming happily in the cess pool of corruption in which T-rump swims…and makes his billions.

    damocles in reply to nerkbuckeye. | January 17, 2016 at 1:59 am

    Did you know Trump came second to Cruz in the New York straw poll?
    Guess the hometown crowd know the real Trump.

“What Trump is doing is what is commonly referred to as “finishing off your opponent.”

Tweeting like a teenager in heat. He really needs to replace his tweeter.

The fetish to make it a two man race, to decide the issue before ANY votes are cast, is what is painfully wrong in the whole of politics these days.

Let the voters decide, not the pundits and bloggers who are pushing an agenda.

It’s been a two-man race for a long time. Some have had some trouble seeing that, wasting attention on sideshows like Jeb and Rubio, or circus sideshows like Fiorina.

Trump seems thin-skinned and a bit petty today on Twitter

Kid stuff.

If he gave a little speech to a bunch of third graders, he’d be wise to keep it simple. Leave the big words and the big concepts out. No adult hearing the speech would be dumb enough to conclude that it meant that Trump doesn’t know any big words or that he can’t grasp big concepts.

Yet that’s what they assume when they read silly Tweets. They make the bizarre assumption that Twitter is important, and is being treated as such by the candidate.

Twitter is for twits, and some (like, apparently, Trump) treat it that way.

Does that mean it’s unimportant? Hardly, when one of America’s founding political principles is (or has morphed to become) that twits have the same vote as non-twits. So I expect the candidates to continue fighting it out in the twitterverse. Certainly, it’s cheap enough, and any junior staffer can do it, so it’s no burden on the campaign; and if it rounds up a few votes, then the cost/benefit ratio is very favorable.

But I rather doubt that following the Twitter food-fights will lead to any insight into how the campaigns are actually proceeding.

If you are interested I thought this was an interesting article District of Columbia vs.Heller (2008). It was how the ruling by the current Supreme Court on the word “militia” in regards to the Second Amendment, supports the Cruz is a natural born citizen position.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/11/ted-cruz-eligible-second-amendment/

Perhaps Professor Jacobson might way in.

    That article is not persuasive because it comppletely omits the effects of thec1795 Act where congress changed thectype of citizenship conferred on foreign born children of a citizen to naturalized citizenship.

      damocles in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 1:56 am

      The point of the article is to say that the original Founders did indeed make accommodation for children born abroad. Of course even though the 1795 act can also be used to help interpret, it is further away from the time the Constitution was ratified and, the 1795 Act itself,was superseded, repealed and replaced by subsequent law. Bringing us to current law once more and Cruz is still eligible. The point being the original law in the Constitution was the closest we have to the thought of the Founders. The 1795 Act could play a role, but then so could the very many naturalization acts that have come and gone in between. The two that seem most relevant are the one that is closest to the Constitution at the time of its ratification and the law when Cruz was born. But I’m sure both sides would bring up many more arguments, I just thought this one was interesting.
      Also, it would be somewhat difficult for the Supreme Court to go against their own ruling on the language as decided in “Heller”. if only to save face. Furthermore, setting a precedent that would cast doubt on other past and possible future Presidential nominees might not be something that any of the Justices want to be involved in.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 6:06 am

      Gari, nobody believes you. You’re a liar for T-rump, and you have no credibility any more. Like your “man”, you’ve done it to yourself.

Speaking to a crowd at a Portsmouth, N.H., rally hosted by Scott Brown on Saturday, Donald Trump said the former senator would make a “very good” vice president.

After Trump asked Brown whether he would consider running for public office again, a member of the audience floated the idea of a Trump-Brown ticket in 2016.

“Vice president – hey, that sounds like it could, hey, hey, very good,” Trump responded.

“Hey, you know what? And he’s central casting. Look at that guy. Central casting,” he added. “He’s great. Great guy and a great, beautiful, great wife and family. So important.”
—the politically “brilliant” T-rump

That, and the endorsement of Progressive populist Mike Hucksterbeeeee should give him a lock on the nomination.

(I kid.)

http://soopermexican.com/2016/01/16/turning-point-trump-booed-when-he-tries-cheap-shots-at-ted-cruz/

That was just ugly. Hilarious, but ugly…!!!

Conservatives are seeing who Duh Donald IS, and we don’t like him.

    And two minutes later that same crowd gave him a standing ovation. Yes a smattering of boos from a handful of Cruz supporters when Trump rightly pointed out how Cruz did his best slick willy Clinton/lawyer immitation by hiding these loans and then when caught lying claiming it was just a paperwork error. But two minutes later a standing ovation for Trump.

    What I noted on the video mostly was how ridiculously small in number were the attendees at this conference. It was for Cruz a large crowd but Trump usually has to turn away ten times that number of people from his yuuuge many thousands sized crowds. I’ve never seen him speak at such a tiny gathering.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 1:02 pm

      Wow, ANOTHER lie-packed tongue bath for your “man”, Gaghdad Bob.

      Where’s your link to what you claim?

      And anybody who’s seem T-rump in the last several years knows he’s spoken to some very small venues.

      Liar.

I’m having trouble seeing the difference between Ted Cruz “winning the debate” and Ted Cruz getting bitch-slapped by Trump — both in person and on the Twitters.

Anyone else see the Ralphy Wiggums moment in the debate when Ted’s face crumpled during Trump’s invoking of WTC 9/11? I choo-choo-choose you, Ted!

I’m hearing from people in Iowa that all the rage now in Iowa are people throwing “friends and family don’t let friends and family vote for Canadians” parties.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 12:55 pm

    Yah, but Bierhall Britt, you lie like a wet dog!

    Like last week when you were citing to “some are saying” and “citing statements”.

    You really should work for Media Mutters (to itself in a dank, dark basement).

    Mercyneal in reply to Gary Britt. | January 17, 2016 at 5:24 pm

    Yeah, sure. Do you have a link to prove what you’re “hearing?”

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend