http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a28669772/bill-weld-republican-primary-iowa/
"Bill Weld Will Be Remembered as a Republican Who Stood Up and Walked the Walk"

"DES MOINES, IOWA—The week's humidity finally was being wrung out of the clouds in big, steady drops on Sunday afternoon at the Iowa State Fair, and Bill Weld was telling a guy about how much he, Bill Weld, likes rain. The man was from Seattle. "You're from Seattle? I love Seattle because I love rain. I have a lot of drizzly November in my soul," said Bill Weld, because he's Bill Weld, and, to those of us who are longtime Bill Weld watchers, we know that any casual conversation with him about anything can take a wrenching turn into, say, the opening chapter of Moby-Dick. ..."  
.
After the fluffy intro, there's more meat, below, e.g., "Weld seemed to make a career of marking himself lousy with the rising conservative movement in the GOP.  He quit a job as assistant attorney general under Reagan's crony, Ed Meese, and then testified against Meese in a hearing investigating the latter's corruption in office. ...".
.
Although Meese was never convicted in the Bechtel, Wedtech or other scandals, all of the reports criticized Meese's serious ethical lapses (i.e., corruption). "While Meese was never convicted of any wrongdoing, he resigned in 1988 when the independent counsel delivered the report on Wedtech. Prior to his resignation, several top Justice Department officials resigned in protest of what they and others viewed as improper acts by the Attorney General."

you have nothing to bash Trump on today, so you are going back 35 years to say its okay to rat on your superiors when it comes to government corruption, and here's a Republican that did it?  

 
Do you feel the same about the Dems when comes to ratting out corruption.  If so, I applaud your even-handedness.  I take it that means you are okay with Bruce Orr taking down the other corrupt FBI officials that perpetrated the Russia Hoax?   I hope Orr is not intimidated by what has happened to Epstein, but I will predict that if word gets out he is implicating Hillary, his days are numbered, and he will also commit "suicide", probably by proxy.  

No. It means that I think that you and others should look into Bill Weld as an alternative to Trump as the Rep candidate in 2020. I think GaG would agree that Weld is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. He ran as a libertarian but maybe, today, he isn't libertarian enough for you.  Learn more about Weld. That's what I mean.

He doesn't have the experience to accomplish half of what Trump has.  

 
I see you dodged the question about Bruce Orr ratting out Dems.  Too close to reality?

And I think if they hadn't Trump might not have been elected. I think between Weld and Johnson, Bill Weld was by far the more compelling candidate and he should have been on the top of the ticket, not the very "unpresidential" Gary Johnson.

 
Of course you think we should look to Bill Weld as an alternative to Trump, much the same way that I think YOU should look at the "Dream Team" of "Williamson/Harris"

 
BTW one of the biggest problems with Libertarians is that you need to be "Libertarian enough" for them, which brings a lot of whacko zealots to that party. Other than that, I do support the positions of being "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" Bill Well is hardly the worst person running for POTUS, the problem is, a vote for Weld is the same as a vote against Trump which in turn is a vote FOR whichever nut job the Dims nominate. Personally, I hope you throw your vote away with a vote for some Green Party candidate, I have no intention of throwing my vote away when it's a virtual certainty that there will only be two actual choices for POTUS, just like there has always been.

Two weeks ago the dream team was Warren and Williamson, but it really doesn't matter which ones are under Trump's foot in 2020.   Any two will do.  

Trump has totally taken over his party, which has sold its soul to him. Weld is in the process of disappearing without a trace.

The poll at the Iowa State Fair today showed Weld getting 3% to Trump's 97%, but that's probably not enough to take the nomination away from Trump. This will be one of those times we agree on something.  Lol

He is "supporting" Weld in much the same way as I am supporting Crystal Lady. Every vote for Weld is a vote AGAINST Trump, and like I said in an earlier post, if Weld had been on the top of the Libertarian ticket back in '16, they "might" have gotten just enough of the vote in those swing states that Trump won so narrowly that it "might" have tipped the election to Hillary.

 
But let me ask you a question Jake. You claim that the GOP has "sold its soul"to Trump, are you seriously suggesting they had a "soul" to sell in the first place? I don't recall ANY kind words ever uttered by you towards the Grand Old Party. lol

So, no, I don't think the Republican Party ever had a soul. First of all because I don't believe "souls" exist. But if we can talk figuratively, it hasn't had a soul since Lincoln.

Lincoln was white.  The first "soul" President was Obama.  

The first Black POTUS was Bill Clinton, and he had a LOT more soul than Barry. He played the sax, he fucked ugly white women. He could say with perfectly straight face on national TV. "I did not have sex with that woman" No, not only did Bill Clinton precede Obama, but he had a lot more soul than Barry as well.

a blues-playing sax-man.  I stand corrected.

He was the worst negotiator in the world.   He gave Iran 1.5 Billion in CASH and didn't stop their nuclear program.  (I'm pretty sure SOME of that money found its way back to the US in the Clinton Foundation, but that's another story.)  Every agreement he negotiated left the US with the short end of the stick.  THAT'S why they love him, because they can pick his (and ours) pockets and he just gives them that big dumb Alfred E. Newman smile.  

That is a simplified version of the more complicated issue of repaying Iran money (cash) that was paid to the US for weapons purchases by the last Shah.  After the Revolution, the funds were frozen and have been litigated in US courts, Congress, the Executive branch, and in the International Court of Justice at The Hague (Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal). According to US and International law, the principal + interest had to be returned to Iran.
.
Everything was approved as being legal by all US parties.  One concern was payment of awards to Americans who sued Iran for damages as a result of Iran sponsored terrorism.  Over the course of many years and many lawsuits, Iran was forced to pay out ~$2.5 B to American individuals, families, and companies. The remainder was the principal and interest amounting to ~$1.7 B.  There was concern that the World Court would require a much larger amount to be repaid to Iran so the US agreed to send the $1.7 B (in two installments).  
.
I don't think that anyone (left - right, Dem - Rep, Lib - Con) was happy to be delivering $1.7 B to Iran. It was a matter of prevailing US law and prevailing international law and the possibility of having to return an even larger amount that led to the decision to make the payment and cut off the possibility of an imminent larger ruling from the World Court.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/01/was-obamas-1-7-billion-cash-deal-with-iran-prohibited-by-u-s-law/

END OF MESSAGE

Because there were "concerns" over what the World Court would do?  That was stupid of Obama.  You take the issue INTO the court, and litigate.  IF it looks AT SOME POINT like you're not going to win, then you negotiate a settlement for something LESS than paying the full amount.  Obama handed over ALL the money.  Of course, he was considered an easy mark by virtually every world leader.  THAT'S WHY THEY ALL LOVED HIM.  

The $1.7 B WAS the negotiated or settlement amount. It was discussed throughout the US government by Reps and Dems and determined to be within the law and required by law.  It was felt, at the time, that the World Court was about to rule in favor of Iran and award an even larger amount.  
.
I suppose Obama could have allowed the WC to make their ruling and then ignored the WC and kicked the can down the road to the next adminstration.  What are the chances that the next POTUS would then proclaim: "Brilliant US negotiators made a fantastic deal to return $1.7 B to Iran and then Obama refused to pay it!  Obama spit in the face of our brilliant negotiators and walked away from a great deal.  Then the WC said the US had to pay Iran $5 B!  Obama was warned that the WC deal would be even worse!  But he ignored the experts.  And Obama refused to pay the WC $5 B.  What a welcher, refusing to obey a court ruling to pay the obligations owed!  He should be thrown in jail, or maybe even shot, for refusing to pay what was owed. ... So now my administration is stuck paying $5 B plus another half billion in interest.  I am going to have someone write a beautiful love letter to invite Khomeini - what? wrong one? Whoever ... - to the White House and I will negotiate a better deal because I am the world's greatest negotiator.  I will get Mexico to pay Iran whatever is owed."  
.
Obama pays what was determined to be owed after 37 years of litigation: "Bad Obama!"
Obama doesn't pay and goes back to the WC: "Bad Obama!"

creative license (I don't think you are a chronic liar like Laffy, so I will use "creative license' in this instance) in paraphrasing what actually transpired.  You usually back up your QUOTES with links, so its a little suspicious in this case.  

out your ass, or do you have some recent examples of what you're talking about?

You got nothing, so you make ME your excuse for not having a link to back up what you claim.  That's pretty moronic.  

instead of backing up your claims with a source.