🥂  Happy Anniversary Meme

😢  Crying Memes

🧂  Salt Meme

🦵  Leg Day Meme

🙅‍♂️  No Meme

🇲🇽  Mexican Memes

Trump Voters Memes

Voter
Voter
Occupy Democrats
Occupy Democrats
Judgementality
Judgementality
decor
decor
wives
wives
reasons
reasons
senses
senses
democratic
democratic
were
were
republicanism
republicanism 

    
                    

                

            
        
    

    
    
    






            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    
                    
                    

                        


	


    🔥 Popular | Latest






    

    
    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride
        

            
            

                
                
                    friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        mysharona1987:A very, very sad situation. : USA
 TODAY
 Dave Chappelle to Trump
 voters in Netflix special: 'You
 are poor; he's fighting for me
 Carly Mallenbaum | USA TODAY
 Published 9:21 AM EST Dec 21, 2017
 Though Dave Chappelle's new Netflix standup special was filmed long before
 Congress voted on a sweeping tax bill that includes a 40% tax cut for corporations.
 there's a bit from the comedy show that sounds relevant.
 In a new expletive-laden NSFW clip from his third streaming special in a
 year, Equanimity, out Dec. 31, Chappelle talks about the "poor whites" who elected
 President Trump
 I've never had a problem with white people ever in my life, but, full disclosure,
 poor whites are my least favorites. We've got a lot of trouble out of them. And I've
 never seen so many of them up close, Chappelle says about the "decent folk" who
 voted for Trump
 I stood with them in line... and I listened to them say naive, poor white people
 things" about how Trump will help them once elected.
 Chappelle continues: "T'm standing there, thinking in my mind, 'You dumb
 (expletives). You are poor. He's fighting for me.

 everyole Wallin seerd eceri TOIK , SOtle angty and ler deterimed.
 "I'm not even lying, I felt sorry for them." Chapelle continued. "I know that rich
 white people call poor white people trash, and the only reason I know that is
 because I made so much money last year the rich whites told me they say that at a
 cocktail party. I'm not with that shit."
mysharona1987:A very, very sad situation. 
        

            
            

                
                
                    mysharona1987:A very, very sad situation. : USA
 TODAY
 Dave Chappelle to Trump
 voters in Netflix special: 'You
 are poor; he's fighting for me
 Carly Mallenbaum | USA TODAY
 Published 9:21 AM EST Dec 21, 2017
 Though Dave Chappelle's new Netflix standup special was filmed long before
 Congress voted on a sweeping tax bill that includes a 40% tax cut for corporations.
 there's a bit from the comedy show that sounds relevant.
 In a new expletive-laden NSFW clip from his third streaming special in a
 year, Equanimity, out Dec. 31, Chappelle talks about the "poor whites" who elected
 President Trump
 I've never had a problem with white people ever in my life, but, full disclosure,
 poor whites are my least favorites. We've got a lot of trouble out of them. And I've
 never seen so many of them up close, Chappelle says about the "decent folk" who
 voted for Trump
 I stood with them in line... and I listened to them say naive, poor white people
 things" about how Trump will help them once elected.
 Chappelle continues: "T'm standing there, thinking in my mind, 'You dumb
 (expletives). You are poor. He's fighting for me.

 everyole Wallin seerd eceri TOIK , SOtle angty and ler deterimed.
 "I'm not even lying, I felt sorry for them." Chapelle continued. "I know that rich
 white people call poor white people trash, and the only reason I know that is
 because I made so much money last year the rich whites told me they say that at a
 cocktail party. I'm not with that shit."
mysharona1987:A very, very sad situation. 
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        quasi-normalcy:

tbridge:

chartier:

Trump voters, the bullshit “liberal bubble,” and accountability.

I’m just gonna put this here, for my cousins, and for my other family.

We don’t hate Trump supporters because we don’t know what they’re really like; we hate Trump supporters because we know exactly what they’re really like.
: Patrick S. Tomlinson
 @stealthygeek
 Had a lot of Trump voters trying to
 "introduce" themselves to me the last
 few days as if they're an alien species
 making first contact. 1/
 6/20/17, 6:14 PM
 36 Retweets 86 Likes
 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthyge... 1h v
 Replying to @stealthygeek
 Apparently being told directly and
 unequivocally that they're not good people
 has made a lot of them feel the need to
 justify themselves. 2/
 04
 42

 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... .59m v
 Well I have bad news for y'all. This "liberal
 bubble' you've all been trivjed into
 believing is bullshit. It doesn't exist. We
 know you. 3/
 4
 52
 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... 58m
 We ALL know dozens of Trump voters.
 You're not an uncontacted Amazonian tribe
 with mysterious customs and an
 uninteligible language. 4/
 5
 64
 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... 57m v
 You're our friends, coworkers, even family.
 We know EXACTLY who you are. And we
 know you watched for 18 months while and
 unhinged child.. .5/
 60
 Patrick S. Tomlinson* @stealthy...-56m ﹀
 ..spewed racism and xenophoibia,
 scapegiated immigrants and refugees,
 bragged about serial sexual assault,
 threatened his opponents w/...6/
 4
 53

 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... 55m v
 prison, offered to pay the legal bills of his
 supporters who attacked protestors. Lied
 every single day. We saw you watching
 him, 7
 4
 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... .54m
 And we saw you LOVING him for it. We
 heard you brag about how he was going to
 take YOUR country back for people just
 like you. 8/
 V55
 Patrick S. Tomlinson* @stealthy...-53m
 We saw. We heard. And then we watched
 you vote for him. Saw you celebrate as this
 nightmare YOU caused got underway at
 full speed. 9/
 4
 52
 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... 52m v
 We saw you parrot "FAKE NEWS!"
 whenever the media did its damned job of
 reporting true things about him. Saw you
 lie about crowd size. 10/
 6

 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... .50m
 We already know very well who you are
 We've been watching the whole time. We
 don't need an introduction from you. We
 need an apology. 11/
 2
 5
 51
 Patrick S. Tomlinson * @stealthy... .50m
 Your actions these last 18 months were not
 the actions of good citizens, or even good
 people. They were the actions of bullies.
 12/
 4
 Patrick S. Tomlinson * @stealthy...-48m ﹀
 Want to talk to me? Start by accepting
 responsibility for the consequences of your
 actions. Conservatives are suppposedly
 big on that. 13/
 5
 4
 52
 Patrick S. Tomlinson * @stealthy... .47m
 Then we can move forward. Then you can
 start to rebuild your reputations. Then you
 can be a good person again
 Not before
quasi-normalcy:

tbridge:

chartier:

Trump voters, the bullshit “liberal bubble,” and accountability.

I’m just gonna put this here, for my cousins, and for my other family.

We don’t hate Trump supporters because we don’t know what they’re really like; we hate Trump supporters because we know exactly what they’re really like.

        

            
            

                
                
                    quasi-normalcy:

tbridge:

chartier:

Trump voters, the bullshit “liberal bubble,” and accountability.

I’m just gonna put this here, for my cousins, and for my other family.

We don’t hate Trump supporters because we don’t know what they’re really like; we hate Trump supporters because we know exactly what they’re really like.
: Patrick S. Tomlinson
 @stealthygeek
 Had a lot of Trump voters trying to
 "introduce" themselves to me the last
 few days as if they're an alien species
 making first contact. 1/
 6/20/17, 6:14 PM
 36 Retweets 86 Likes
 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthyge... 1h v
 Replying to @stealthygeek
 Apparently being told directly and
 unequivocally that they're not good people
 has made a lot of them feel the need to
 justify themselves. 2/
 04
 42

 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... .59m v
 Well I have bad news for y'all. This "liberal
 bubble' you've all been trivjed into
 believing is bullshit. It doesn't exist. We
 know you. 3/
 4
 52
 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... 58m
 We ALL know dozens of Trump voters.
 You're not an uncontacted Amazonian tribe
 with mysterious customs and an
 uninteligible language. 4/
 5
 64
 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... 57m v
 You're our friends, coworkers, even family.
 We know EXACTLY who you are. And we
 know you watched for 18 months while and
 unhinged child.. .5/
 60
 Patrick S. Tomlinson* @stealthy...-56m ﹀
 ..spewed racism and xenophoibia,
 scapegiated immigrants and refugees,
 bragged about serial sexual assault,
 threatened his opponents w/...6/
 4
 53

 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... 55m v
 prison, offered to pay the legal bills of his
 supporters who attacked protestors. Lied
 every single day. We saw you watching
 him, 7
 4
 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... .54m
 And we saw you LOVING him for it. We
 heard you brag about how he was going to
 take YOUR country back for people just
 like you. 8/
 V55
 Patrick S. Tomlinson* @stealthy...-53m
 We saw. We heard. And then we watched
 you vote for him. Saw you celebrate as this
 nightmare YOU caused got underway at
 full speed. 9/
 4
 52
 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... 52m v
 We saw you parrot "FAKE NEWS!"
 whenever the media did its damned job of
 reporting true things about him. Saw you
 lie about crowd size. 10/
 6

 Patrick S. Tomlinson @stealthy... .50m
 We already know very well who you are
 We've been watching the whole time. We
 don't need an introduction from you. We
 need an apology. 11/
 2
 5
 51
 Patrick S. Tomlinson * @stealthy... .50m
 Your actions these last 18 months were not
 the actions of good citizens, or even good
 people. They were the actions of bullies.
 12/
 4
 Patrick S. Tomlinson * @stealthy...-48m ﹀
 Want to talk to me? Start by accepting
 responsibility for the consequences of your
 actions. Conservatives are suppposedly
 big on that. 13/
 5
 4
 52
 Patrick S. Tomlinson * @stealthy... .47m
 Then we can move forward. Then you can
 start to rebuild your reputations. Then you
 can be a good person again
 Not before
quasi-normalcy:

tbridge:

chartier:

Trump voters, the bullshit “liberal bubble,” and accountability.

I’m just gonna put this here, for my cousins, and for my other family.

We don’t hate Trump supporters because we don’t know what they’re really like; we hate Trump supporters because we know exactly what they’re really like.

                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Trump Voters: Robert Reich
 9 hrs G
 Update for Trump voters
 1. He said he wouldn't bomb Syria. You bought it. Then he bombed Syria
 2. He said he'd build a wall along the border with Mexico. You bought it. Now
 his secretary of homeland security says it's unlikely that we will build a
 wall."
 3. He said he'd clean the Washington swamp. You bought it. Then he
 brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street
 moguls than in any administration in history, to make laws that will enrich
 their businesses
 4. He said he'd repeal Obamacare and replace it with something
 "wonderful." You bought it. Then he didn't.
 5. He said he'd use his business experience to whip the White House into
 shape. You bought it. Then he created the most chaotic, dysfunctional
 back-stabbing White House in modern history, in which no one is in charge
 6. He said he'd release his tax returns, eventually. You bought it. He hasn't,
 and says he never will
 7. He said he'd divest himself from his financial empire, to avoid any
 conflicts of interest. You bought it. He remains heavily involved in his
 businesses, makes money off of foreign dignitaries staying at his
 Washington hotel, gets China to give the Trump brand trademark and
 copyright rights, manipulates the stock market on a daily basis, and has
 more conflicts of interest than can even be counted
 8. He said Clinton was in the pockets of Goldman Sachs, and would do
 whatever they said. You bought it. Then he put half a dozen Goldman
 Sachs executives in positions of power in his administration
 9. He said he'd surround himself with all the best and smartest people. You
 bought it. Then he put Betsy DeVos, opponent of public education, in
 charge of education, Jeff Sessions, opponent of the Voting Rights Act, in
 charge of voting rights, Ben Carson, opponent of the Fair Housing Act, in
 charge of fair housing, Scott Pruitt, climate change denier, in charge of the
 Environmental Protection Agency, and Russian quisling Rex Tillerson as
 Secretary of State
 10. He said he'd faithfully execute the law. You bought it. Then he said his
 predecessor, Barack Obama, spied on him, without any evidence of Obama
 ever doing so, in order to divert attention from the FBI's investigation into
 collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives to win the election
 11. He said he knew more about strategy and terrorism than the generals
 did. You bought it. Then he promptly gave the green light to a disastrous
 raid in Yemen- even though all his generals said it would be a terrible idea
 This raid resulted in the deaths of a Navy SEAL, an 8-year old American
 girl, and numerous civilians. The actual target of the raid escaped, and no
 useful intel was gained
 12. He called Barack Obama "the vacationer-in-Chief and accused him of
 playing more rounds of golf than Tiger Woods. He promised to never be the
 kind of president who took cushy vacations on the taxpayer's dime, not
 when there was so much important work to be done. You bought it. He has
 by now spent more taxpayer money on vacations than Obama did in the
 first 3 years of his presidency. Not to mention all the money taxpayers are
 spending protecting his family, including his two sons who travel all over the
 world on Trump business
 13. He called CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times "fake
 news" and said they were his enemy. You bought it. Now he gets his
 information from Fox News, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, and InfoWars
 More to come

 BUT HER EMAILS
        

            
            

                
                
                    Trump Voters: Robert Reich
 9 hrs G
 Update for Trump voters
 1. He said he wouldn't bomb Syria. You bought it. Then he bombed Syria
 2. He said he'd build a wall along the border with Mexico. You bought it. Now
 his secretary of homeland security says it's unlikely that we will build a
 wall."
 3. He said he'd clean the Washington swamp. You bought it. Then he
 brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street
 moguls than in any administration in history, to make laws that will enrich
 their businesses
 4. He said he'd repeal Obamacare and replace it with something
 "wonderful." You bought it. Then he didn't.
 5. He said he'd use his business experience to whip the White House into
 shape. You bought it. Then he created the most chaotic, dysfunctional
 back-stabbing White House in modern history, in which no one is in charge
 6. He said he'd release his tax returns, eventually. You bought it. He hasn't,
 and says he never will
 7. He said he'd divest himself from his financial empire, to avoid any
 conflicts of interest. You bought it. He remains heavily involved in his
 businesses, makes money off of foreign dignitaries staying at his
 Washington hotel, gets China to give the Trump brand trademark and
 copyright rights, manipulates the stock market on a daily basis, and has
 more conflicts of interest than can even be counted
 8. He said Clinton was in the pockets of Goldman Sachs, and would do
 whatever they said. You bought it. Then he put half a dozen Goldman
 Sachs executives in positions of power in his administration
 9. He said he'd surround himself with all the best and smartest people. You
 bought it. Then he put Betsy DeVos, opponent of public education, in
 charge of education, Jeff Sessions, opponent of the Voting Rights Act, in
 charge of voting rights, Ben Carson, opponent of the Fair Housing Act, in
 charge of fair housing, Scott Pruitt, climate change denier, in charge of the
 Environmental Protection Agency, and Russian quisling Rex Tillerson as
 Secretary of State
 10. He said he'd faithfully execute the law. You bought it. Then he said his
 predecessor, Barack Obama, spied on him, without any evidence of Obama
 ever doing so, in order to divert attention from the FBI's investigation into
 collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives to win the election
 11. He said he knew more about strategy and terrorism than the generals
 did. You bought it. Then he promptly gave the green light to a disastrous
 raid in Yemen- even though all his generals said it would be a terrible idea
 This raid resulted in the deaths of a Navy SEAL, an 8-year old American
 girl, and numerous civilians. The actual target of the raid escaped, and no
 useful intel was gained
 12. He called Barack Obama "the vacationer-in-Chief and accused him of
 playing more rounds of golf than Tiger Woods. He promised to never be the
 kind of president who took cushy vacations on the taxpayer's dime, not
 when there was so much important work to be done. You bought it. He has
 by now spent more taxpayer money on vacations than Obama did in the
 first 3 years of his presidency. Not to mention all the money taxpayers are
 spending protecting his family, including his two sons who travel all over the
 world on Trump business
 13. He called CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times "fake
 news" and said they were his enemy. You bought it. Now he gets his
 information from Fox News, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, and InfoWars
 More to come

 BUT HER EMAILS
                    
                
            

            
            
        

    

    

        
Save

    



        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            








        

    

    
    

        

            









    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        Take that L stupid: Robert Reich
 9 hrs G
 Update for Trump voters
 1. He said he wouldn't bomb Syria. You bought it. Then he bombed Syria
 2. He said he'd build a wall along the border with Mexico. You bought it. Now
 his secretary of homeland security says it's unlikely that we will build a
 wall."
 3. He said he'd clean the Washington swamp. You bought it. Then he
 brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street
 moguls than in any administration in history, to make laws that will enrich
 their businesses
 4. He said he'd repeal Obamacare and replace it with something
 "wonderful." You bought it. Then he didn't.
 5. He said he'd use his business experience to whip the White House into
 shape. You bought it. Then he created the most chaotic, dysfunctional
 back-stabbing White House in modern history, in which no one is in charge
 6. He said he'd release his tax returns, eventually. You bought it. He hasn't,
 and says he never will
 7. He said he'd divest himself from his financial empire, to avoid any
 conflicts of interest. You bought it. He remains heavily involved in his
 businesses, makes money off of foreign dignitaries staying at his
 Washington hotel, gets China to give the Trump brand trademark and
 copyright rights, manipulates the stock market on a daily basis, and has
 more conflicts of interest than can even be counted
 8. He said Clinton was in the pockets of Goldman Sachs, and would do
 whatever they said. You bought it. Then he put half a dozen Goldman
 Sachs executives in positions of power in his administration
 9. He said he'd surround himself with all the best and smartest people. You
 bought it. Then he put Betsy DeVos, opponent of public education, in
 charge of education, Jeff Sessions, opponent of the Voting Rights Act, in
 charge of voting rights, Ben Carson, opponent of the Fair Housing Act, in
 charge of fair housing, Scott Pruitt, climate change denier, in charge of the
 Environmental Protection Agency, and Russian quisling Rex Tillerson as
 Secretary of State
 10. He said he'd faithfully execute the law. You bought it. Then he said his
 predecessor, Barack Obama, spied on him, without any evidence of Obama
 ever doing so, in order to divert attention from the FBI's investigation into
 collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives to win the election
 11. He said he knew more about strategy and terrorism than the generals
 did. You bought it. Then he promptly gave the green light to a disastrous
 raid in Yemen- even though all his generals said it would be a terrible idea
 This raid resulted in the deaths of a Navy SEAL, an 8-year old American
 girl, and numerous civilians. The actual target of the raid escaped, and no
 useful intel was gained
 12. He called Barack Obama "the vacationer-in-Chief and accused him of
 playing more rounds of golf than Tiger Woods. He promised to never be the
 kind of president who took cushy vacations on the taxpayer's dime, not
 when there was so much important work to be done. You bought it. He has
 by now spent more taxpayer money on vacations than Obama did in the
 first 3 years of his presidency. Not to mention all the money taxpayers are
 spending protecting his family, including his two sons who travel all over the
 world on Trump business
 13. He called CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times "fake
 news" and said they were his enemy. You bought it. Now he gets his
 information from Fox News, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, and InfoWars
 More to come

 BUT HER EMAILS
Take that L stupid
        

            
            

                
                
                    Take that L stupid: Robert Reich
 9 hrs G
 Update for Trump voters
 1. He said he wouldn't bomb Syria. You bought it. Then he bombed Syria
 2. He said he'd build a wall along the border with Mexico. You bought it. Now
 his secretary of homeland security says it's unlikely that we will build a
 wall."
 3. He said he'd clean the Washington swamp. You bought it. Then he
 brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street
 moguls than in any administration in history, to make laws that will enrich
 their businesses
 4. He said he'd repeal Obamacare and replace it with something
 "wonderful." You bought it. Then he didn't.
 5. He said he'd use his business experience to whip the White House into
 shape. You bought it. Then he created the most chaotic, dysfunctional
 back-stabbing White House in modern history, in which no one is in charge
 6. He said he'd release his tax returns, eventually. You bought it. He hasn't,
 and says he never will
 7. He said he'd divest himself from his financial empire, to avoid any
 conflicts of interest. You bought it. He remains heavily involved in his
 businesses, makes money off of foreign dignitaries staying at his
 Washington hotel, gets China to give the Trump brand trademark and
 copyright rights, manipulates the stock market on a daily basis, and has
 more conflicts of interest than can even be counted
 8. He said Clinton was in the pockets of Goldman Sachs, and would do
 whatever they said. You bought it. Then he put half a dozen Goldman
 Sachs executives in positions of power in his administration
 9. He said he'd surround himself with all the best and smartest people. You
 bought it. Then he put Betsy DeVos, opponent of public education, in
 charge of education, Jeff Sessions, opponent of the Voting Rights Act, in
 charge of voting rights, Ben Carson, opponent of the Fair Housing Act, in
 charge of fair housing, Scott Pruitt, climate change denier, in charge of the
 Environmental Protection Agency, and Russian quisling Rex Tillerson as
 Secretary of State
 10. He said he'd faithfully execute the law. You bought it. Then he said his
 predecessor, Barack Obama, spied on him, without any evidence of Obama
 ever doing so, in order to divert attention from the FBI's investigation into
 collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives to win the election
 11. He said he knew more about strategy and terrorism than the generals
 did. You bought it. Then he promptly gave the green light to a disastrous
 raid in Yemen- even though all his generals said it would be a terrible idea
 This raid resulted in the deaths of a Navy SEAL, an 8-year old American
 girl, and numerous civilians. The actual target of the raid escaped, and no
 useful intel was gained
 12. He called Barack Obama "the vacationer-in-Chief and accused him of
 playing more rounds of golf than Tiger Woods. He promised to never be the
 kind of president who took cushy vacations on the taxpayer's dime, not
 when there was so much important work to be done. You bought it. He has
 by now spent more taxpayer money on vacations than Obama did in the
 first 3 years of his presidency. Not to mention all the money taxpayers are
 spending protecting his family, including his two sons who travel all over the
 world on Trump business
 13. He called CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times "fake
 news" and said they were his enemy. You bought it. Now he gets his
 information from Fox News, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, and InfoWars
 More to come

 BUT HER EMAILS
Take that L stupid
                    
                
            

            
                
                
Take that L stupid

                
            
            
        

    

    

        
Save