Ann Coulter Mocked For Contradictory Tweets About Ted Cruz Birtherism…

I didn’t think Trump supporters could get more vehemently and passionately bat$#hit crazy than they already were, but I should have known Trump hinting at Cruz birtherism would do it.

Here’s Ann Coulter today:

But as some are pointing out on Twitter, that’s not what she said in 2013:

Still, other Trump supporters are running to her defense, like the illustrious A.J. Delgado:

I dunno. Coulter makes it very clear she doesn’t think Cruz is a naturally born citizen, thus not eligible:

Now usually, in the world of reality and logic and reason and stuff, saying one thing and then saying the opposite means you’re contradicting yourself. But I guess I’m not as smart and classy and as A.J. Delgado and all the other Trump supporters.

And if you really want to know how I feel about Ann Coulter, check this outOr this. And don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Feminist Berates McDonald’s Employee On The ‘Gender Binary’ Of Their HAPPY MEAL TOYS!
  • Constitutionalist4893

    AJ Delgado raises a good point. If one researches an issue further and comes to a different conclusion than they previously held, are they supposed to hide that new conclusion forever, simply because it contradicts a prior thought? If that’s the case, how are supposed to win anyone over to any side with reason, history, facts, and logic?

    Cruz’s Constitutional eligibility is a muddy issue; but it worked for the Kenyan, so why not the Canadian?

  • No. That’s not what she said. She said it wasn’t a contradiction. You used that word in your explanation. So, a contradiction isn’t a contradiction? WTF?

  • Constitutionalist4893

    You’re the one posting tweets and calling it news; I have no idea how AJ defines ‘Contradiction’, nor is there context from her convo with @DavidJmatza

    I’m admitting that you are right, Ann Coulter has contradicted herself.
    But I am also agreeing with AJ’s point (as I interpret it), if people research topics to further extent they should have the intellectual honesty to change their views and not silence themselves on the matter simply because it’s contrary to prior beliefs.

    Never been attacked by a site-runner before, don’t think I’ll be back.
    Thanks Soup

    p.s. You’re Trump-Derangement syndrome is showing

  • dcnj

    Soops been gettin’ kooky for a while now…

  • “Parents,” in the legal definition of who is a born citizen, is used to denote, “member of the class ‘parent’.”

    So when someone says, “You know, this will be an important issue for parents,” you aren’t supposed to be stupid and say, “well I’m not a ‘parents’, I’m only a ‘parent’ so they couldn’t mean me.”

    Unless you’re Ann Coulter, who apparently struggles with the concept of legal classes.

    One parent is all it takes. That’s been the definition used since long before Obama’s birth was questioned.

    He’s eligible, there are no issues, only noise. There’s always noise at election time.

  • “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is better known by its common name: “Sanity.”

  • franklymydearidontgiveaspam

    Let’s look at what Ann Coulter said though. In the first tweet she said that she was worried about his eligibility the previous night (on Hannity) but she has explained recently that lawyers told her he was eligible and she believed them, hence the tweet. Then in April, she says she doesn’t know if Ted Cruz can be President: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ey7nTvGykw&feature=youtu.be

    That was in April, i.e., before Trump was running and when Ted Cruz was the least objectionable candidate when it came to immigration. So she researched the matter and changed her mind back to what she was thinking in the first place, so this comment you made at The Right Scoop is not accurate:

    Hugh Hewitt points out Coulter’s flip flop on the subject, citing how she had been assured that Cruz was eligible to be president and then all of a sudden discovered he wasn’t eligible again after Trump said it was so.