Trump 9: RESIST!

[onekidanddone]

58 minutes ago, Ali said:

Now he is targeting H1-B visasand potentially screwing the tech industry. If he does, I am sure it will be a poorly written by Bannon and cause mass chaos.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/01/30/trump-targets-techs-h1b-visa-hiring-tool/97240588/

Mr. A has a theory that he is manipulating the stock market to make himself some money.

I think he only reason he ran was to make more money.  Doesn't he use the H1B visa for his own workers?  Didn't his latest mail order bride come to the states on one of those? Is the entire country going to hell?  Am I going to wake up soon from this nightmare?  Am I asking too many questions?  I need a bottle of Myers, three or four cats and a big blanket under which I  can hide.

[Destiny]

Looks like the source from earlier might be legit. This is a WaPo reporter. This is one of my hot button issues, so I will probably be losing my shit when this comes out, fair warning. 

[onekidanddone]

16 hours ago, 47of74 said:

I saw on the twitters that there's a new nickname for Conjob....#NaziBarbie

Complete with her "alternative facts" dream house.

3 minutes ago, Destiny said:

Looks like the source from earlier might be legit. This is a WaPo reporter. This is one of my hot button issues, so I will probably be losing my shit when this comes out, fair warning. 

Executive order to what?!  This is (as is everything he does) terrifying.  Is he going to rip children away from their LGBT parents?  Make the parents put on a pink triangle. I need Xanax now.  No fooling I'm shaking.  I am straight, but my daughter is adopted and not white.  Who the fuck is next?  When fucking WHEN is this going to end? 

[Destiny]

5 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Complete with her "alternative facts" dream house.

Executive order to what?!  This is (as is everything he does) terrifying.  Is he going to rip children away from their LGBT parents?  Make the parents put on a pink triangle. I need Xanax now.  No fooling I'm shaking.  I am straight, but my daughter is adopted and not white.  Who the fuck is next?  When fucking WHEN is this going to end? 

I linked an article earlier that I wasn't certain of my sourcing that basically sounds like it overturns federal protections in the areas of marriage, adoption, etc. Basically everything we fought to get for the last few years. 

Here's a snip from the article:

Quote

From what we’ve heard, the executive order could be far-reaching, and could include: making taxpayer funds available for discrimination against LGBTQ people in social services; allow federally funded adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBTQ parents; eliminate non-discrimination protections in order to make it possible to fire federal employers and contractors based on their sexual orientation or gender identity; and allow federal employees to refuse to serve people based on the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that gender is an immutable characteristic set at birth, which would impact a broad range of federal benefits.

 

[PreciousPantsofDoom]

I don't usually read the financial commentaries that my husband reads, because boring, but he passed this one on to me because of the (long) first section, which I have quoted here(if you want to read the financial stuff that follows, Google Hussman weekly market commentary and click on the Jan 30th one.)  I thought it was a well written piece.

Spoiler

January 30, 2017

On Governance

John P. Hussman, Ph.D.

Those who aspire to “right speech” often measure their words with four questions: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? Is it the right time? Right speech should not escalate conflict, but it doesn’t retreat from necessary truth, and criticisms don’t always seem kind. The question of right speech is the question of how one might best serve others. Criticism with the intent to offend is not constructive, but silence is equally detrimental when it quietly endorses a pattern of offense, or encourages the silence of others.

Those of you who have followed my work over the decades know that I look at the world holistically in terms of the interconnection and responsibility we have toward others, and I’ve never been much for separating “business” from those larger values. After all, most of my income regularly goes to charity, and nearly everything that remains follows our own investment discipline. Whether my comments on matters like peace, civility, economic policy or governance are well-received or not (and I'm grateful that they have been over the years), there are moments when one has the responsibility to speak if one has a voice.

Our country faces many legitimate political disagreements. There are segments of America that view government as too bureaucratic, see foreign trade as a source of job insecurity, value national security as a priority, believe that each country has the right to a national identity, and feel that even a nation of immigrants has limits on the pace at which it can assimilate new citizens. They feel that their interests have been subordinated to an elitist philosophy that presumes that regulation is always beneficial, and that government always knows best. We can engage honestly and in good faith about those concerns, even where we disagree. Political issues like that are best settled not by insulting each other, but by openly expressing and listening to the values and concerns of each, and constructing solutions where each side might concede or trade various lower priorities, so that both can achieve their higher ones.

From my perspective, the problem isn’t politics. A civil society can work out those differences. The immediate problem, and the danger, is the mode of leadership itself. A leader can call forth either the “better angels of our nature” or the worst ones. I am troubled for our nation and for the world because of the example of coarse incivility, mean-spirited treatment of others, disingenuous speech, thin temperament, self-aggrandizing vanity, puerile character, overbearing arrogance, habitual provocation, and broad disrespect toward other nations, races, and religions that is now on display as our country’s model of leadership. I am equally troubled by emerging risk, discussed below, to the Constitutional separation of powers.

My intent is not to insult, but rather to name the elements of this pattern. Even in the face of our differences, it’s important that we refuse to resign ourselves to passively accepting or normalizing this model. A dismissive regard for truth, civility, transparency, ethics, and process is dangerous because it lays groundwork and creates potential for unaccountable, corrupt and arbitrary government. I believe that the people of our nation are both decent and vigilant enough to openly and loudly reject this behavior even where they might agree with various policy directions.

There is no changing the outcome of what was already a dismal choice for many Americans, but we can insist on rejecting a model of uncivil behavior. It is unworthy of emulating for ourselves, much less for our children. To minimize detestable behavior is essentially to condone it. It is the refuge of cowards to defend obvious offenses by deconstructing them (“He wasn’t belittling a disabled person. See? He’s waving his hands while belittling this person too”), or to condone predatory behavior toward women by diffusing responsibility (“Yeah, but that other guy was also a predator”). Our intolerance for such a tireless pattern of offense shouldn’t depend on our race, or gender, or ability, or political views, even among those who view the man as a means to achieve political ends.

With regard to international relations, the intentional provocation of both allies and trading partners is of deep concern. One might allow a generous interpretation that these provocations are intended to create new bargaining chips for use in trade negotiations (e.g. insulting Mexico, taunting China about Taiwan and the South China Sea). Yet even setting offenses aside, the associated protectionism is misguided economics, particularly at this point in the economic cycle. Given U.S. labor demographics, even a 4% unemployment rate in 2024 would bring average annual civilian employment growth to just 0.4% annually in the coming 8 years, while a 6% unemployment rate would place intervening job growth at just 0.2% annually. All other economic growth will rely on productivity growth (output per worker). The primary determinant on that front will be growth in U.S. gross domestic investment (GDI). Because of savings-investment dynamics, steep reductions in the trade deficit have always been associated with a collapse in U.S. GDI growth. Put simply, this new trade strategy courts recession or worse. That’s particularly true given a speculative financial bubble resulting from Federal Reserve’s misguided dogma that zero interest rates would bring prosperity without consequence. We now face the third financial collapse since 2000 (more data on that below).

Meanwhile, we should recognize that foreign provocation has also been used around the world, and throughout history, as a strategy to expand domestic control. This often takes the form of “emergency powers.” Given the man’s clear aspiration to accrue and exercise authority, we shouldn’t naively ignore that potential. Recalling James Madison, “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. The means of defense against a foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” We have a leader that talks of the benefits of foreign plunder and the virtues of torture, yet we don’t recognize the seeds of despotism? Oh, that’s right, because we’re talking about the “enemy.”

The enemy. It’s necessary to prosecute those who commit violence, in order to defend the rights of others, but to entertain notions such as torture, plunder, and the violation of human rights is an insult to the virtues our nation has sacrificed so much to achieve. Hatred does not remove hatred. We have to look into causes and conditions. Prejudice against a whole religion will not bring peace, nor will it contribute to an understanding of what motivates extremism. Whether the roots of violence are about foreign influence, territorial control, fear of losing power, protecting an existing way of life, or perceptions of injustice (whether legitimate or imagined), violence is often clothed in religion, both as a mobilization tactic, and so each side can claim that God is on their side. ISIS is no more about Islam than the Troubles in Ireland were about the religious faith of Catholics or Protestants, or the KKK was about Christianity.

We can’t kill and torture our way to peace. We might satisfy pride and the desire for revenge, but the outcome would be a perpetual cycle of hatred, where our children eventually take our place in that cycle. The temptation is for sides both to turn up their high-beams, but as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King implored, “Someone must have sense enough to dim the lights.” Again, yes, those who actually commit violence should justly be prosecuted, but it’s madness to make enemies of entire populations. Along with enforcement against violent extremists, it’s essential to seek out and address the legitimate concerns of moderates. The first step toward peace happens when somebody has the courage to look deeply and ask, “How does the person I call my enemy suffer, and what can I do within my power, and consistent with my security, to address that suffering?”

We are asked to rally around our new Administration, in the hope that it will be successful. Yet if, even at the outset, “success” asks us to accept the insult to loyal allies; if it asks us to accept daily incivility toward other citizens of our country; if it asks us to accept a demonstrably ill-conceived economic dogma that will do little but provoke trade frictions, weaken domestic investment, and provide tax benefits to the business sector, while indiscriminately shifting the costs and externalities of harmful action onto the public and the environment; if it asks us to accept blind prejudice toward other nationalities and religions; and if it flirts with even the prospect of foreign plunder and torture, then there is little question that we have already lost.

A final concern relates to the separation of powers and the relationship between the express will of the People and the actions of the Executive. When the founders of this nation established the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution, they were serious about it. Over time, through lack of vigilance, the public has allowed this separation to be undermined, to the point where people hardly recognize when violations occur. Here is a reminder. Article I Section I places all legislative powers with Congress. Article I Section 7 provides that all bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, which are then amended by the Senate. Article I Section 8 provides that only Congress has the power to declare war. Article I Section 9 provides that no money may be spent that is not pursuant to a law enacted by Congress.

The Executive branch has the obligation under Article II Section III to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, and under the Constitution, only after a war is declared by Congress, or the military is called forth by Congress, does the President have the authority to direct military actions. In order to carry out the obligation of Article II Section III, the President may very well issue executive orders, but those orders are not laws in themselves. They are directives that apply only to members of the executive branch, for the purpose of upholding and faithfully executing existing laws previously passed by Congress. If an existing law infringes on the rights of the people, or overreaches the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the role of the Supreme Court is to adjudicate those disputes. If an executive order or an agency’s interpretation of an existing law is challenged, the Court has previously articulated a two-part test: if the intent of Congress is clear, the Court should “give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” If the intent of the law is ambiguous, the Court should examine whether the interpretation is a permissible construction.

What I find alarming is that recent executive orders have been announced as new proclamations, instead of faithfully executing the provisions of existing laws duly enacted and funded by Congress under Article I of the Constitution. While the formal language of the orders themselves might reference existing laws, or give lip-service with the phrase “to the extent permitted by law,” the orders then self-contradict by directing the circumvention of those laws (for example, “to the extent permitted by law,” agencies are directed to “waive, grant exceptions from, or delay” the execution of the law, or to identify sources of funding for a project that is nowhere specified in the law).

To ask "Where was this criticism during the past 8 years?" is to ignore the distinction between the faithful execution of laws one may dislike, and the invention of provisions that do not exist under prevailing law, which is what we now observe. The worst offender in prior years was not our former administration. It was the Federal Reserve, as Ben Bernanke created off-balance sheet "Maiden Lane" shell companies to purchase assets prohibited by law, in violation of Sections 13 and 14 of the Federal Reserve Act, making what he called "a money-financed gift to the private sector." Nobody recalls my silence. Congress later rewrote those sections to spell them out like a children's book.

Even the media fail to discuss the fact that the Executive is both obligated to, and constrained by, the express will of the People, not the other way around. Only when Congress passes a law does it become the law of the land, provided it is otherwise Constitutional. To allow a weakening of these separate and enumerated powers is to invite the arbitrary exercise of authority, and even the risk of tyranny, rather than limited, representative government of the people that honors the Bill of Rights, equal protection, and the rule-of-law.

I understand that facts are facts, and that this is the election result that our system produced. So what is the point, or the desired outcome, of protest? The fundamental outcome is to raise our vigilance; to preserve our character; to defend the rule of law and the separation of powers; to refuse to normalize or quietly endorse incivility; to promote diplomacy even as we pursue security; to demand more than the example set before us; to call us again and again to the better angels of our nature.

We should voice our full expectation that Congress defend those enumerated powers, unmoved by speeches that assert the right of the executive to bind our nation to some “new decree” (who uses the word “decree” in an inauguration speech?) We should also ask that regardless of party, our representatives exercise those powers with dignity that befits our nation. As for individual issues, remember that the laws of our country are not established by tweets in the middle of the night. They are established by Congress. Citizens lose their voice when they fail to use it. All of us, left, right, or moderate, should protect that freedom. The U.S. Senate switchboard is (202) 224-3121. The U.S. House switchboard is (202) 225-3121. An actual person will answer, and can direct you to your state representative. Feel free, also, to forward or reprint these comments as you wish.

 

I started to bold a few bits and then realized that I was starting to do that thing in highschool where you start highlighting just the important stuff and end up with a page entirely highlighted in neon yellow.  Tl:dr The guy thinks Trump is a dangerous ass.  Call your relevant representatives and make your voice heard.

[AmericanRose]

I was taught in school that America was great and foolproof because we had checks and balances...

Where are they????

[Destiny]

FYI, I know many of us have tried to call our reps to find that their mailboxes are full / not being answered. We linked in the resources thread a site that will let you send a free fax and was a pretty inclusive list of fax numbers.

[JMarie]

52 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I think he only reason he ran was to make more money.  Doesn't he use the H1B visa for his own workers?  Didn't his latest mail order bride come to the states on one of those? Is the entire country going to hell?  Am I going to wake up soon from this nightmare?  Am I asking too many questions?  I need a bottle of Myers, three or four cats and a big blanket under which I  can hide.

He does use foreign workers at Mar-a-Lago

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/business/trump-again-hires-foreign-workers-for-mar-lago-little-change-pay/NtHozFcFMZXQWVkErxSdhM/

[apple1]

I really want to be able to read and continue to participate occasionally in these Trump threads. Unfortunately the jerky rolling if anything Twitter has been clipped and posted on the page, has gotten much worse within the past couple of days. Someone suggested changing browsers away from IE but that is not possible, either at home or at work.

Can this glitch be fixed, or else somehow people post content without actual Twitter links/clips, or something? (Posted a while back about this in the tech forum, also).

 

Very frustrating.

Sorry for the bitching.

[47of74]

46 minutes ago, Destiny said:

I linked an article earlier that I wasn't certain of my sourcing that basically sounds like it overturns federal protections in the areas of marriage, adoption, etc. Basically everything we fought to get for the last few years. 

Here's a snip from the article:

 

Yeah first thing I asked at work when I got home from vacation was if it was going to be open season on the LGBT and people with disabilities knowing protections for both would most likely be going away under Agent Shithead's administration. 

[Destiny]

@apple1 the problem is IE not fj so there's nothing I can do to fix it. I'm sorry.

[apple1]

41 minutes ago, AmericanRose said:

I was taught in school that America was great and foolproof because we had checks and balances...

Where are they????

I feel like this needs a  reasoned discussion in mainstream media. So far I haven't seen it even mentioned.

[onekidanddone]

41 minutes ago, AmericanRose said:

I was taught in school that America was great and foolproof because we had checks and balances...

Where are they????

Bullied into silence or paid off.

[Screamapillar]

I just found out that Bannon went to my alma mater and it totally ruined my day.

[AmericanRose]

Yeah... when the federal judge issued a stay and it was ignored, that's just... I feel that's grounds for impeachment. And if it's not, it should be.

I also can't help but notice that everything Trump has done so far has been by executive order. I don't remember anything like this before.

I know his followers are preferring to believe everything is sunshine and roses, but how can this not make them uneasy? I guess it's a case of "I'm white and straight, whatever he comes up with won't affect me." Until, you know, it does.

[iweartanktops]

[onekidanddone]

59 minutes ago, AmericanRose said:

I was taught in school that America was great and foolproof because we had checks and balances...

Where are they????

Bullied into silence or paid off.   ACK!  i didn't mean to double post and I don't know how to delete.  Moderators please forgive me.

[47of74]

The Congressional Democrats are protesting out in front of the Supreme Court now;

 

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, Destiny said:

Looks like the source from earlier might be legit. This is a WaPo reporter. This is one of my hot button issues, so I will probably be losing my shit when this comes out, fair warning. 

Same here. No one messes with my baby brother's rights. NO ONE. I will fucking end them. And I mean it too - new mom hormones are NOT something they want to be fucking around with right now. Just tell me what to do (other than contacting my Reps since they all rock without me annoying them) and I will be the most obnoxious asshole of all time about it.

24 minutes ago, iweartanktops said:

Not completely accurate. But I laughed really hard at this anyways.

[iweartanktops]

@VelociRapture, I know, but so funny! 

[GreyhoundFan]

3 hours ago, Dark Matters said:

They are messing with whitehouse.gov again.  The Judicial Branch has been 'disappeared'.  What's next?

http://juanitajean.com/judicial-branch-removed-from-whitehouse-gov/

Emperor Trumpenfurher doesn't believe in checks and balances. Next, he's probably going to declare himself God.

 

"Republicans are alarmed to discover Trump is doing exactly what he said he would"

Quote

Hey, Republicans: Ready to take him literally yet?

Two days after the election, I spoke with Grover Norquist, a conservative tax activist who had made peace with the prospect of a Trump presidency. Expressing confidence that Donald Trump wouldn’t attempt the crazier promises made during the campaign, Norquist said Trump’s supporters knew to take him “seriously, but not literally.”

Wrong! That hope comforted Republican officeholders and members of the establishment when they reluctantly embraced Trump during the general election. They averted their collective gaze when Trump made scapegoats of minorities, yielded to reckless impulses and exhibited authoritarian tendencies. Now Trump is president and — who knew? — he is making scapegoats of minorities, giving in to reckless impulses and governing with an authoritarian style.

Trump said as a candidate that he would ban Muslims from traveling to the United States. Now he has done it, even if he doesn’t use the term. Rudy Giuliani, explaining the new executive order, told Fox News that Trump assigned him the task of finding a “legal” way to have a “Muslim ban.” And the son of national security adviser Mike Flynn praised the “Muslim ban” on Twitter this weekend before deleting his account.

Likewise, Trump displayed a disregard for the courts during the campaign, threatening to take revenge on a judge, to sic the Justice Department on his opponents. Meeting with senators, he didn’t know how many articles the Constitution contained. And now? The Trump White House is raising doubts about whether it needs to obey court orders. After parts of the travel-ban order were blocked by federal judges, Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller declared that the order “remains in full, complete and total effect.”

During the campaign, Trump often disparaged intelligence agencies for their “bad decisions.” He said “I know more about ISIS than the generals do” and claimed generals had been “reduced to rubble.” Now he has orchestrated what amounts to a coup at the National Security Council. Out: the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who no longer will attend all meetings of the committee that handles top-level decisions. Instead, political adviser Steve Bannon will serve on the committee.

Trump at every opportunity said he would build a border wall and force Mexico to pay for it. He spoke often of tariffs on Mexico and specifically suggested a 35 percent tariff on certain imports. Last week — surprise! — the White House floated a 20 percent tariff on goods from Mexico to pay for a border wall.

The Trump campaign frequently sounded anti-Semitic dog whistles. Now? The Trump White House just issued a Holocaust Remembrance Day statement that made no mention of Jews. A spokeswoman said the omission was deliberate, noting non-Jewish victims.

Trump during the election dismissed concerns about Russia’s meddling in the campaign, even urging Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email. Now we have Sputnik news, controlled by the Russian government, comparing Trump to puppets of the Soviet Union and proposing Moscow help Trump respond to protests by “deploying professional Russian journalists as temporary replacement for the Western employees.”

Trump is also proving himself to be the same temperamentally unsound figure who appeared on the campaign trail.

He makes up extravagant falsehoods about voter fraud and crowd size and offers the absurd claim that his travel ban is “similar to what President Obama did.” He has shown contempt for safeguards in the government, purging the State Department of top nonpartisan leadership. His White House kept Department of Homeland Security lawyers in the dark on the travel ban and then overrode their objections. He has continued to raise suspicion that he’s driven by his financial interests, omitting from his travel ban several Muslim-majority countries where he does business.

And he still shows disregard for detail, as seen in the administration’s confusion about whether the travel ban covers those with green cards, and in an executive order on Obamacare that even opponents of the law warn could cause health-insurance markets to collapse before a replacement is available.

Business leaders, including some previously friendly to Trump, have protested the travel ban, and some Republicans in Congress are opposing Trump on it, at least rhetorically. The Washington Post had counted 24 as of Monday who have opposed the order and 36 more with concerns. But when Senate Democrats attempted Monday to overturn the ban, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a supporter of it, blocked the effort.

Meanwhile, as The Post’s Matea Gold and James Hohmann reported, conservative donors at the Koch network gathering over the weekend condemned Trump’s travel ban, and Charles Koch, who didn’t get involved in the presidential campaign, warned of a “tremendous danger” of authoritarianism.

Oh, so now they’re worried? Many of these donors, like Republicans in Congress, chose not to take Trump literally during the campaign, looking away when presented with repeated warning signs. Now they have a serious problem — as do we all.

If it didn't screw everybody in the US and much of the world, I'd be laughing at those idiots who didn't believe he'd do this crap.

[JMarie]

Who knew Sean Spicer was in Big?

 

[47of74]

Even trained mental health professionals are coming out to say what we've all known all along: Donald J. Putinfluffer is nucking futs!

nydailynews.com/news/politics/shrinks-break-silence-president-trump-exhibits-traits-m-article-1.2957688

Quote

But frightened by the President's hubris, narcissism, defensiveness, belief in untrue things, conspiratorial reflexiveness and attacks on opponents, mental health professionals are finally speaking out. The goal is not merely to define the Madness of King Donald, but to warn the public where it will inevitably lead.

A little background: Shrinks don't typically analyze public figures. The reticence dates back to 1964, during Barry Goldwater's run for President. Then, like now, many shrinks believed that the candidate was psychologically damaged — but unlike now, many diagnosed him for a Fact magazine special issue titled, "The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater."

The headline itself — "1,189 Psychiatrists say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit to be President!" — prompted the American Psychiatric Association to issue the so-called "Goldwater Rule": "It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination" of the patient in question.

As a result, shrinks are the only professionals who are not allowed to offer their expertise to journalists trying to explain complicated issues to the public. Indeed, scientists can tell us about global warming, engineers can tell us if a bridge is about to give way, and soldiers can tell us if an enemy is weak or strong. But the mental health of the President? The experts are handcuffed, even as we elected the most paranoid President since Nixon and, clearly, the most self-deluded and dangerous American political figure since Aaron Burr.

One of the people who decided to break the Goldwater rule to tell the truth about Orange Hitler was a psychotherapist at Johns Hopkins...

bipartisanreport.com/2017/01/27/johns-hopkins-top-psychotherapist-releases-terrifying-diagnosis-of-president-trump/

Quote

However, John D. Gartner, a registered psychotherapist from the renowned Johns Hopkins University Medical School seems to think Trump may, in fact, be the one with the problem. Gartner, who teaches psychiatric residents at Hopkins, decided to break the ethical code known as the “Goldwater Rule” in order to warn the American public about the dangerousness of our new commander-in-chief’s mental state.

The “Goldwater Rule” is defined as “the informal term for part of the ethics code of the American Psychiatric Association saying it is wrong to provide a professional opinion of a public figure without examining that person and gaining consent to discuss the evaluation.”

Gartner, who is also the author of In Search of Bill Clinton: A Psychological Biography, says “Donald Trump is dangerously mentally ill and temperamentally incapable of being president.”

According to USNews, Gartner unofficially diagnosed Trump with “malignant narcissism.” Although he himself has not personally examined Trump, Gartner claims it’s obvious from watching even a little of his behavior that he meets the diagnostic criteria for the disorder.

 

[AuntK]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

And that's how it's done: dehumanize the 'others'... then it isn't so bad what you're doing, don't you know?

I DESPISE that BITCH! Nobody elected her, but I see her hideous face as much as the Orange one! God, I don't know how I'm going to cope the next 4 years!

[47of74]

19 minutes ago, AuntK said:

I DESPISE that BITCH! Nobody elected her, but I see her hideous face as much as the Orange one! God, I don't know how I'm going to cope the next 4 years!

I despise NaziBarbie and the rest of the high level people working for Donald J. Putinfluffer.  As well as the Branch Trumpvidians who voted for him, and especially those who are now whining what that orange fornicate did what he said he would.