You must log in or # to comment.
And she’s the secretary for homeland security of all things now?..
Ok, news break! The President of the US is the most obvious foreign actor the country has ever had. This is like if Benedict Arnold was actually President while trying to overthrow the government, then running again and winning. His main goal is to weaken the US as much as possible for his daddy, Putin. If this appointment surprised you, get ready. It’s gonna get a lot worse.
They aren’t good people.
They’re not sending their best.
deleted by creator
And just like your mother, she’s wrong and doesn’t deserve what she spurned.
Is it just me or does anyone else have to fight the urge to be horribly misogynistic to these Trump worshippers? I always fall back to my gender-neutral profanity (such as “Trump’s shit-guzzler”) but I just feel a deep rooted desire to be as maximally offensive to and about MAGA cultists and enablers as humanly possible. I know it’s lazy but I mean if anyone deserves to be insulted in the most extreme way possible it’s these creatures.
It’s fine, you can call her a cunt
Hilarious that you think the OP would label calling a woman a bitch or cunt as misogyny. He clearly means worse.
When someone in your Government is a bimbo girl, then you know you are fucked up
I submit that president Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho is a male bimbo, and we should BE so lucky to be led by such a saint in comparison to real life.
Congratulations, you just showed everyone you’re a shitty person. Now everyone knows to not take anything you say seriously.
Anyone can look however they like no matter their position in society. What matters is their views and how they handle that position. Doesn’t matter if it’s a bimbo or whatever else, that shouldn’t be something of concern at all. This one just happens to be a really shitty person, which is fully expected from who chose her, and that’s what matters.
😱
women 😤
Interesting how these types of people seem to have a set of phrases with their own fixed meanings that don’t necessarily correspond to the literal meanings of the words that make them up. “Can’t trust the government” in this context really means “can’t trust liberals/progressives”. You can see that in her response if you watch the video. She’s not stumped when the reporter points out the apparent contradiction. She expect everyone to make the same mental substitution, under which there is no contradiction.
Another good example is a 5 minute youtube video about homelessness from a fake university with an orange logo. They cite an example of a bridge between Los Angeles and Culver City that has a major homeless encampment on one side, but not the other, due to different laws in the two cities. To quote directly:
the Los Angeles side is full of tents and the Culver City side is empty. Why? Because the two cities have different public policies. Los Angeles has effectively decriminalized public camping and drug consumption while Culver City enforces the law.
If Los Angeles has no law against homelessness, then what law is it supposedly failing to enforce? This seems like a contradiction, until you realize that “Culver City enforces the law” has nothing to do with actual laws, but with the “law” of the moral framework that the authors are trying to propagandize.
you can actually never trust the government
it doesn’t matter if they’re nazis, commies, or whatever, the governments job is to exploit the people in order to stay alive
