🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, America, and Click: 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
Being Alone, America, and Click: 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: ...

Community, Fbi, and Hillary Clinton: BREAKING REPORT: HILLARY'S ENTIRE SERVER WAS HACKED w w w . UncleSam s MisguidedCild r en.c o m GIVING CHINA ACCESS TO EVERY EMAIL IN REAL TIME Over 30,000 emails from Hillary’s email server allegedly landed in the hands of the Chinese Government….in real time, according to an article in the Daily Caller. Every time she pushed the “send” button, China got a copy. And the kicker is that Peter Strzok knew, as well as 3 other FBI officials. Unauthorized access to classified information A Chinese owned company operating in Virginia reportedly hacked into Hillary’s email server, and placed a code that automatically sent a “courtesy copy” to them as part of an intelligence operation. And since Hillary was in the habit of sending classified information via her private email system, whalla! Instant intelligence information at their fingertips. The “anomaly” was found back in 2015. No one did anything about it. ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) investigator Frank Rucker and attorney Janette McMillan met with 4 FBI officials to warn them about the anomaly on several occasions. They did nothing. During Strzok’s testimony last month, Rep Louie Gohmert took him to task over the “anomaly” found in her email server. Gohmert: You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile foreign power affecting the election. Do you recall the former Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary Clinton’s emails? Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won’t name at this time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton’s emails that were going to the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating? Strzok: I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not recall the specific content or discussions. Gohmert: Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every singl
Community, Fbi, and Hillary Clinton: BREAKING REPORT: HILLARY'S
 ENTIRE SERVER WAS HACKED
 w w w . UncleSam s MisguidedCild r en.c o m
 GIVING CHINA ACCESS TO
 EVERY EMAIL IN REAL TIME
Over 30,000 emails from Hillary’s email server allegedly landed in the hands of the Chinese Government….in real time, according to an article in the Daily Caller. Every time she pushed the “send” button, China got a copy. And the kicker is that Peter Strzok knew, as well as 3 other FBI officials. Unauthorized access to classified information A Chinese owned company operating in Virginia reportedly hacked into Hillary’s email server, and placed a code that automatically sent a “courtesy copy” to them as part of an intelligence operation. And since Hillary was in the habit of sending classified information via her private email system, whalla! Instant intelligence information at their fingertips. The “anomaly” was found back in 2015. No one did anything about it. ICIG (Intelligence Community Inspector General) investigator Frank Rucker and attorney Janette McMillan met with 4 FBI officials to warn them about the anomaly on several occasions. They did nothing. During Strzok’s testimony last month, Rep Louie Gohmert took him to task over the “anomaly” found in her email server. Gohmert: You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile foreign power affecting the election. Do you recall the former Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary Clinton’s emails? Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won’t name at this time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton’s emails that were going to the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating? Strzok: I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not recall the specific content or discussions. Gohmert: Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every singl

Over 30,000 emails from Hillary’s email server allegedly landed in the hands of the Chinese Government….in real time, according to an articl...

Bad, Donald Trump, and Funny: HUFFPOST Trump Boasts About Watching 'Top Secret' Iran Video Immediately After Becoming Eligible To Receive Classified Briefings His vivid description raised questions about whether he disclosed classified material O 4 hours ago Updated 2 hours ago Christina Wilkie National Political Reporter, The Huffington Post Jessica Schulberg Foreign Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post <p><a href="http://officeroppai.tumblr.com/post/148467625567/proudgayconservative-lovethebomb" class="tumblr_blog">officeroppai</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://proudgayconservative.tumblr.com/post/148458154952">proudgayconservative</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://lovethebomb.tumblr.com/post/148438233315">lovethebomb</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://afloweroutofstone.tumblr.com/post/148429715852">afloweroutofstone</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Imagine Donald Trump winning and being the most transparent president in decades entirely due to his inability to not brag about things</p> </blockquote> <p>Area 51. We got aliens. The best aliens. More aliens than Russia and China. And Mexico is gonna pay for it.</p> </blockquote> <p>I know that this is supposed to be you guys being funny, but isn’t exposing classified information exactly what we are supposed to be pissed at Clinton for doing?<br/><br/>But when Trump does it “oh guys, he’ll be the most transparent president ever because he doesn’t care about keeping classified information classified as long as it gives him a cool story to brag about, haha, so cool.”</p> </blockquote> <p>Clinton wasnt exposing classified information to the public she was putting them at risk for outside threats to obtain them. If you reveal information to the public you get a good thing and a bad thing: the good is transperacy and the bad is that the enemy knows it too. In thee case of clinton the public didnt have access to those emails only the enemies did. If you are trying to imply that clinton is in any way transparent with all her backdoor deals and promises through her husband and other means tou are being insane. There is a huge difference between transparacy and being a lying scheming pile of trash. Trump being the former and hillary the latter. <br/>Additionally arent you the camp calling trump a facist? How hipocritical are you to say you want small limited government and then say that transparacy is somehow bad? We would know all the “evil facist nazi” things trump is up to.</p> </blockquote> <p><b>“Clinton wasnt exposing classified information to the public she was putting them at risk for outside threats to obtain them. If you reveal information to the public you get a good thing and a bad thing: the good is transperacy and the bad is that the enemy knows it too. In thee case of clinton the public didnt have access to those emails only the enemies did. If you are trying to imply that clinton is in any way transparent with all her backdoor deals and promises through her husband and other means tou are being insane.”</b></p><p>Are you daft? The end result is the enemy potentially knowing classified information either way. How is Trump releasing it any better just because he “also releases it to the public”? If anything it makes it even easier for enemies to get ahold of the information. They don’t even have to try.</p><p><b>“There is a huge difference between transparacy and being a lying scheming pile of trash. Trump being the former and hillary the latter.”</b></p><br/><p>Actually, Trump is both. Largely the steaming pile of trash bit.<br/>
<br/><b>&ldquo;Additionally arent you the camp calling trump a facist? How hipocritical are you to say you want small limited government and then say that transparacy is somehow bad? We would know all the “evil facist nazi” things trump is up to.“</b></p><p>What the hell does your so-called &quot;transparency” have to do with a limited government?</p><p>What I’m seeing here is a Trump supporter who thinks releasing classified information is dangerous when Hillary does it and “transparency” when Trump does it with even more asinine vigor.</p>
Bad, Donald Trump, and Funny: HUFFPOST
 Trump Boasts About
 Watching 'Top Secret'
 Iran Video Immediately
 After Becoming Eligible
 To Receive Classified
 Briefings
 His vivid description raised
 questions about whether he
 disclosed classified material
 O 4 hours ago Updated 2 hours ago
 Christina Wilkie National Political Reporter, The
 Huffington Post
 Jessica Schulberg Foreign Affairs Reporter, The
 Huffington Post
<p><a href="http://officeroppai.tumblr.com/post/148467625567/proudgayconservative-lovethebomb" class="tumblr_blog">officeroppai</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://proudgayconservative.tumblr.com/post/148458154952">proudgayconservative</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://lovethebomb.tumblr.com/post/148438233315">lovethebomb</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://afloweroutofstone.tumblr.com/post/148429715852">afloweroutofstone</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Imagine Donald Trump winning and being the most transparent president in decades entirely due to his inability to not brag about things</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Area 51. We got aliens. The best aliens. More aliens than Russia and China. And Mexico is gonna pay for it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I know that this is supposed to be you guys being funny, but isn’t exposing classified information exactly what we are supposed to be pissed at Clinton for doing?<br/><br/>But when Trump does it “oh guys, he’ll be the most transparent president ever because he doesn’t care about keeping classified information classified as long as it gives him a cool story to brag about, haha, so cool.”</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Clinton wasnt exposing classified information to the public she was putting them at risk for outside threats to obtain them. If you reveal information to the public you get a good thing and a bad thing: the good is transperacy and the bad is that the enemy knows it too. In thee case of clinton the public didnt have access to those emails only the enemies did. If you are trying to imply that clinton is in any way transparent with all her backdoor deals and promises through her husband and other means tou are being insane. There is a huge difference between transparacy and being a lying scheming pile of trash. Trump being the former and hillary the latter. <br/>Additionally arent you the camp calling trump a facist? How hipocritical are you to say you want small limited government and then say that transparacy is somehow bad? We would know all the “evil facist nazi” things trump is up to.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>“Clinton wasnt exposing classified information to the public she was putting them at risk for outside threats to obtain them. If you reveal information to the public you get a good thing and a bad thing: the good is transperacy and the bad is that the enemy knows it too. In thee case of clinton the public didnt have access to those emails only the enemies did. If you are trying to imply that clinton is in any way transparent with all her backdoor deals and promises through her husband and other means tou are being insane.”</b></p><p>Are you daft? The end result is the enemy potentially knowing classified information either way. How is Trump releasing it any better just because he “also releases it to the public”? If anything it makes it even easier for enemies to get ahold of the information. They don’t even have to try.</p><p><b>“There is a huge difference between transparacy and being a lying scheming pile of trash. Trump being the former and hillary the latter.”</b></p><br/><p>Actually, Trump is both. Largely the steaming pile of trash bit.<br/>
<br/><b>&ldquo;Additionally arent you the camp calling trump a facist? How hipocritical are you to say you want small limited government and then say that transparacy is somehow bad? We would know all the “evil facist nazi” things trump is up to.“</b></p><p>What the hell does your so-called &quot;transparency” have to do with a limited government?</p><p>What I’m seeing here is a Trump supporter who thinks releasing classified information is dangerous when Hillary does it and “transparency” when Trump does it with even more asinine vigor.</p>

officeroppai: proudgayconservative: lovethebomb: afloweroutofstone: Imagine Donald Trump winning and being the most transparent presiden...