The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

November 10, 2019
Impeachment Mashup
By Clarice Feldman

Democrats have tried to impeach every elected Republican president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

They’ve never succeeded and there’s no reason to believe this time is different. As Bill Mitchell tweeted:
“If China thought there were any real chance of Trump’s impeachment of loss in 2020, they wouldn’t be negotiating and making trade deals now. The stock market and China know the same thing. Trump won’t be impeached and he wins in 2020.”
Why this practice persists is that they are continually reluctant to accept political outcomes they don’t like. David Hirsanyi argues this point well as well as illustrating perfectly the left’s projection of their actions onto their opponents:
“Can Republicans relearn how to accept political outcomes they don’t like?” What in holy hell is the Washington Post’s Paul Waldman talking about? According to the piece, Matt Bevin’s (completely legal) request to re-canvass the Kentucky election portends unwillingness by the GOP to accept the results the democratic process. Talk about projection.
We shouldn’t have to say more than “Stacey Abrams.” And it’s not just that the Democrat is a full-blown conspiracy theorist, it’s that leading members of her party enable her attacks on veracity of elections. Joe Biden claimed, without any evidence, that “voter suppression is the reason why Stacey Abrams isn’t governor right now.” Pete Buttigieg said suppression “racially motivated” in his remarks to the group that Abrams “ought to be governor.” And they’re not alone.
Abrams lost by 54,723 votes.

Waldman gives Abrams a pass for her recalcitrance, because, he notes, she “ended her campaign for governor of Georgia but pointedly refused to call it a ‘concession’ because, she said, it would grant the election, in which her opponent engaged in various forms of voter suppression, a legitimacy it did not deserve.” Well, yes, that’s the point, isn’t it? Everyone has a reason for why they don’t accept results. Democrats tend to rely on nebulous claims of “voter suppression.” But Abrams had legal avenues available to her, and they turned up nothing.
The incomparable Sharyl Attkisson has done a streamlined timeline of the actions to drive President Trump from office.
It began August 15, 2016, before he was even elected when Peter Strzok FBI counterintelligence chief and his lover FBI attorney Lisa Page met with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe about creating an “insurance policy” in case Trump were elected. She marks the dates and the players and ends with this:
Oct. 31, 2019: The House approves impeachment process rules. The vote is largely along party lines, with two Democrats siding with Republicans.
It could be a coincidence that so many key names in this timeline -- from John Brennan and James Comey, to Ukraine and CNN -- factor into the Trump impeachment push. And, further, it could be a coincidence that we have ended up where some Trump critics said they hoped to be, even before he was sworn in.
On the other hand, in retrospect, the biggest surprise might be that, all things considered, it took them so long to get to this point.
Despite the countless headers, amounting to little more than leaks from Adam Schiff and anonymous “insiders,” once the Schiff hearings got underway it was clear the factual basis for claiming Trump’s call to Ukraine’s president was improper bore the same relationship to the contents of the call as Schiff’s “parody” of it.
The Department of State “star witnesses” in their secret basement hearings proved disastrous for him and the impeachment effort. As the rolled-out transcripts this week reveal. William B Taylor, Jr., was the senior American diplomat in Ukraine. He “admitted in congressional testimony last month that he was not part of the July 25 phone call between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents, that he didn’t see a transcript or readout of it until
215470_5_.png
late September when it was declassified and released, and that he has never even spoken to President Donald Trump.” His source for the president’s intentions was the New York Times.
If the Times had somehow read into the anodyne Trump-Zelensky conversation Trump’s mind, it was clear that there was no evidence their mind-reading was accurate. Not only did Ukraine’s president deny any pressure, but the timeline of military aid doesn’t follow the Times’ fable:
Under questioning from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Taylor also testified that the Ukrainian government wasn’t aware U.S. military funding had been temporarily suspended until late August, and then only after the information was leaked to the news media, meaning an alleged quid pro quo would have been impossible.
“So, if nobody in the Ukrainian government is aware of a military hold at the time of the Trump-Zelensky call, then, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact, there can be no quid pro quo, based on military aid,” Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said. “I just want to be real clear that, again, as of July 25th, you have no knowledge of a quid pro quo involving military aid.”
“July 25th is a week after the hold was put on the security assistance,” Taylor testified. “And July 25th, they had a conversation between the two presidents, where it was not discussed.”
“And to your knowledge, nobody in the Ukrainian government was aware of the hold?” Ratcliffe asked.
“That is correct,” Taylor responded.
Taylor also testified that he didn’t see any official readout of the July 25 phone call until it was declassified and released by Trump in late September.
“I did not see any official readout of the call until it was publicly released on September 25th,” he said.
Taylor also admitted that U.S. Ambassador to the EU, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, “told me many times that President Trump said it was not a quid pro quo.” He also admitted that Ukraine’s president never committed to conduct the investigations that the President asked for before military aid was released to Ukraine.
Lost in all this is an even more serious reason to question the wisdom the bureaucrats' in the foreign policy and national security establishments rush to provide military assistance to Ukraine -- evidence of “Chinese attempts to buying up some Ukrainian technology.” Something about which the administration rightfully had serious concerns.
"[T]here is substantial reason to question a key underlying assumption of the House Democratic narrative that Ukraine is a such a reliable friend of the United States, deserving of our unquestioned support to combat Russian aggression, that President Trump’s hesitancy in immediately releasing the military aid jeopardized vital U.S. national security interests. Combating Chinese military ambitions is certainly vital to U.S. national security.”
 
No, I am not ok with anything Obama did.
Ok, so that answers my question. It's not the what, it's the who, which is the purest form of bigotry and prejudice. Basically, if Trump makes fun of a disabled reporter, it's ok with you because Trump is the one who did it. If Obama were to do the same, it would not be ok with you because it was Obama who did it. And you don't see any problem at all with that sort of blind cult-like thinking? I find that frightening as hell to be so blinded by the "other" that I can't form an objective opinion on anything.

Now, I'll try my best to answer your questions, though most of them I can't without some clarification and evidence.

First you wrote:

1) "Can you imagine having the media and deep state in your pocket the way the Kenyan did?

Ok, lots of problems with the above the first being that none of it is true. Obama is not from Kenya, he just isn't. No matter how much you want this to be true it has been proven unequivocally that it isn't, with real evidence such as long term birth certificate and a birth announcement in a Hawaii paper. And none of that would be relevant anyway but I sense I know why you cling to it (see my last sentence in this post).

As for your claim that the media as in his pocket as well as the "deep state" (whatever that means in your head), please cite some evidence of this. Not RedState or Breitbart, give some real evidence, not opinion pieces.

2) Do you remember that pos holder being help (sic) in contempt?

Ok, so by POS Holder I'm assuming you mean Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general. I find that example fascinating since Holder was held in contempt by a GOP majority for....wait for it....failure to respond to a subpoena for certain documents. Sound familiar??? However, in Holder's case he actually agreed to comply with the request for documents if Daryl Issa would certify that doing so would satisfy the subpoena requirements (versus it being a "fishing expedition"). Issa refused to do so. In Eric Holder's case, he was cleared of all wrongdoing and the contempt charge was dropped.


3)How about that cunt Lerner or the whore HRC?

The above doesn't merit a reply. Why not just use the n* word when addressing Obama while you're at it? (though I suspect that is what you are trying to not so subtly do when you call him "Kenyan").
 
Ok, so that answers my question. It's not the what, it's the who, which is the purest form of bigotry and prejudice. Basically, if Trump makes fun of a disabled reporter, it's ok with you because Trump is the one who did it. If Obama were to do the same, it would not be ok with you because it was Obama who did it. And you don't see any problem at all with that sort of blind cult-like thinking? I find that frightening as hell to be so blinded by the "other" that I can't form an objective opinion on anything.

Now, I'll try my best to answer your questions, though most of them I can't without some clarification and evidence.

First you wrote:

1) "Can you imagine having the media and deep state in your pocket the way the Kenyan did?

Ok, lots of problems with the above the first being that none of it is true. Obama is not from Kenya, he just isn't. No matter how much you want this to be true it has been proven unequivocally that it isn't, with real evidence such as long term birth certificate and a birth announcement in a Hawaii paper. And none of that would be relevant anyway but I sense I know why you cling to it (see my last sentence in this post).

As for your claim that the media as in his pocket as well as the "deep state" (whatever that means in your head), please cite some evidence of this. Not RedState or Breitbart, give some real evidence, not opinion pieces.

2) Do you remember that pos holder being help (sic) in contempt?

Ok, so by POS Holder I'm assuming you mean Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general. I find that example fascinating since Holder was held in contempt by a GOP majority for....wait for it....failure to respond to a subpoena for certain documents. Sound familiar??? However, in Holder's case he actually agreed to comply with the request for documents if Daryl Issa would certify that doing so would satisfy the subpoena requirements (versus it being a "fishing expedition"). Issa refused to do so. In Eric Holder's case, he was cleared of all wrongdoing and the contempt charge was dropped.


3)How about that cunt Lerner or the whore HRC?

The above doesn't merit a reply. Why not just use the n* word when addressing Obama while you're at it? (though I suspect that is what you are trying to not so subtly do when you call him "Kenyan").
1. Do you have to be from Kenya to be Kenyan?
2. Why does the left (you) bring race into every conversation?
You know Obama is more white than black, right?
Obama is white when he needs to be and black when he wants to be and dumb all the time.
3. You think the media isn’t left leaning?
 
1. Do you have to be from Kenya to be Kenyan?
2. Why does the left (you) bring race into every conversation?
You know Obama is more white than black, right?
Obama is white when he needs to be and black when he wants to be and dumb all the time.
3. You think the media isn’t left leaning?

1573427588930.png
 
1. Do you have to be from Kenya to be Kenyan?
2. Why does the left (you) bring race into every conversation?
You know Obama is more white than black, right?
Obama is white when he needs to be and black when he wants to be and dumb all the time.
3. You think the media isn’t left leaning?
1) Yes.
2) I'm not the one referring to a black man born in Hawaii as "Kenyan". I can guarantee you if one of Obama's parents were from Ireland, for example, you would not be referring to Obama as "the Irishman".
3) I'm assuming this statement was meant to provoke some sort of emotional response. Instead, you just embarrassed yourself, and the sad thing is you probably don't even realize it.
 
The "aryan nation", "alt-right", "white nationalist", "neo-Nazi" playbook is what lil' joe plays by, and when someone recognizes and exposes his racism the playbook tells him to accuse those people of being the real racists. His game is tired and obvious.
 
The "aryan nation", "alt-right", "white nationalist", "neo-Nazi" playbook is what lil' joe plays by, and when someone recognizes and exposes his racism the playbook tells him to accuse those people of being the real racists. His game is tired and obvious.
It's quite sad, to be honest. There is a fascinating documentary called "The Brainwashing of my Dad" about a man who changed from a moderate Democrat to a right-wing fanatic due to listening to conservative talk radio and Fox News. What was so alarming to the daughter who directed the film is that her dad went from being a reasonably happy, non-political type of a man to an angry and isolated person. I have a good friend who had the same sort of metamorphosis. He was known for being one of those "cup is half full" type of people. Always happy, always finding the humor in a situation. He was a joy to be around and you always left him feeling a bit better. Then he married a woman who watched Fox News constantly. He gradually changed and it was so sad to see. He became paranoid, bitter, and constantly angry. It was shocking, actually. He lost a lot of his friends because he would get in arguments all the time, couldn't talk about anything but politics. He would just park himself in front of Fox News and he literally became a shell of himself. His health went downhill as well. It was truly frightening to see how much he changed simply by listening to only one point of view.
 
It's quite sad, to be honest. There is a fascinating documentary called "The Brainwashing of my Dad" about a man who changed from a moderate Democrat to a right-wing fanatic due to listening to conservative talk radio and Fox News. What was so alarming to the daughter who directed the film is that her dad went from being a reasonably happy, non-political type of a man to an angry and isolated person. I have a good friend who had the same sort of metamorphosis. He was known for being one of those "cup is half full" type of people. Always happy, always finding the humor in a situation. He was a joy to be around and you always left him feeling a bit better. Then he married a woman who watched Fox News constantly. He gradually changed and it was so sad to see. He became paranoid, bitter, and constantly angry. It was shocking, actually. He lost a lot of his friends because he would get in arguments all the time, couldn't talk about anything but politics. He would just park himself in front of Fox News and he literally became a shell of himself. His health went downhill as well. It was truly frightening to see how much he changed simply by listening to only one point of view.
Sad indeed, and they are convinced it's not them it's everyone else . . . and as I say, "If it (problems) keeps happening with different people it might be them (that is causing the problems)".
 
1) Yes.
2) I'm not the one referring to a black man born in Hawaii as "Kenyan". I can guarantee you if one of Obama's parents were from Ireland, for example, you would not be referring to Obama as "the Irishman".
3) I'm assuming this statement was meant to provoke some sort of emotional response. Instead, you just embarrassed yourself, and the sad thing is you probably don't even realize it.
It’s ok if you can’t answer the questions, these other libs can’t answer my questions as well.
As soon as you bring race into the argument you have lost.
You will fit in with all the other sore losers in here from the left.
Trump 2020.
 
It’s ok if you can’t answer the questions, these other libs can’t answer my questions as well.
As soon as you bring race into the argument you have lost.
You will fit in with all the other sore losers in here from the left.
Trump 2020.
I didn't answer the question? Or you didn't like my answers. And, again, you are the one who brought race into the question by a) referring to Barack Obama as Kenyan; b) stating the Barack Obama is white when he needs to be a black "when he wants to be dumb all the time". If that isn't racist then I don't know what is.

Let's try something here and see which is a legitimate question:

1) So what do you think about White Supremacy Pedophile Racist Trump getting pee'd on by Russia Whores???

or..

2) So what do you think about Trump's making fun of a disabled reporter, or bragging about grabbing women by the p*ssy?

Do you see the difference? The first question is filled with insults, conspiracy theories, and supposition...it's not a question that can be answered. The second question is regarding two events that actually happened and I don't degrade Trump by calling him names either. Which do you think is an answerable question?

I think you ask questions the way you do because you don't want to hear an answer. You have made up your mind so any intelligent discussion is pointless as you can't bear dissent.

You can call us "libs", "sore losers", etc. all you want if it makes you feel better. All I know is I'm not the one calling others "c*nt" or "whore" or making ignorant and disgusting negative statements about certain races as a whole. No one who is truly content with their life uses such vile language, they don't need to.
 
It’s ok if you can’t answer the questions, these other libs can’t answer my questions as well.
As soon as you bring race into the argument you have lost.
You will fit in with all the other sore losers in here from the left.
Trump 2020.
I do see one question you asked which I didn't answer. Not on purpose, I was in a rush and missed it. You asked me if I thought the media is left-leaning. I think some media are clearly left-leaning, like MSNBC, and some are clearly right-leaning, such as FOX News. I think CNN, ABC, and NBC try to be as objective as possible.

For me, personally, I don't like news being "spun" whether it be left-leaning or right-leaning, so I always try to find as many sources as I can to reach a consensus on what is the truth. One thing I don't do is call any news I don't like "fake news". I don't want to live in an echo chamber.

And, for what it's worth, I have voted for both Republican and Democratic candidates. I never thought George W. Bush was a horrible President, for example. My personal take is he didn't have a lot of confidence in himself as President so he deferred to Cheney and Rumsfeld too much. I appreciated his speech after 9/11. He brought the Nation together in a time we really needed it. I can't see Trump doing that, not even close. I think George H. W. Bush was a decent President and an honorable man. I think Bill Clinton had problems keeping his pants zipped but I also think he was good President. Good for our economy and good for many important social issues.

I would not have voted from Trump under any circumstances, which includes him running as a Democrat.
 
I didn't answer the question? Or you didn't like my answers. And, again, you are the one who brought race into the question by a) referring to Barack Obama as Kenyan; b) stating the Barack Obama is white when he needs to be a black "when he wants to be dumb all the time". If that isn't racist then I don't know what is.

Let's try something here and see which is a legitimate question:

1) So what do you think about White Supremacy Pedophile Racist Trump getting pee'd on by Russia Whores???

or..

2) So what do you think about Trump's making fun of a disabled reporter, or bragging about grabbing women by the p*ssy?

Do you see the difference? The first question is filled with insults, conspiracy theories, and supposition...it's not a question that can be answered. The second question is regarding two events that actually happened and I don't degrade Trump by calling him names either. Which do you think is an answerable question?

I think you ask questions the way you do because you don't want to hear an answer. You have made up your mind so any intelligent discussion is pointless as you can't bear dissent.

You can call us "libs", "sore losers", etc. all you want if it makes you feel better. All I know is I'm not the one calling others "c*nt" or "whore" or making ignorant and disgusting negative statements about certain races as a whole. No one who is truly content with their life uses such vile language, they don't need to.
 
Does anyone know what ever happened to the child molester Roy Moore?
How about all the women Kavanaugh tormented?
Are all those little illegal aliens still in cages?
 
Back
Top