Stop it. Just stop it!
I get it. You hate Trump. You think he never should have been elected. You think he’s a terrible president, completely unsuited for the White House, and this latest revelation that he shared sensitive information provided to the United States by the Israelis to the Russians confirms your assertion that he is dangerous and should never be trusted with classified information.
I get it. The glaring hypocrisy of Republicans cheering as former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn led chants of “lock her up!” at the Republican National Convention last year for her spilling classified SAP information on unclassified email (something he inappropriately did himself in 2010 without authorization), even as they defend the current revelation about the information provided to the Russians, is a bit much.
But let’s get something straight here: it’s NOT treason!
Stop screaming “TREASON” from the rooftops. It shows you don’t have a clue about the legal definition of the word, and it shows your lack of understanding about how classified information is released and declassified.
My friend Charlie Martin a few days ago correctly explained the meaning of “treason” as described in the Constitution.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Not a single report asserts that the President did any of this. He certainly did not levy war against the United States, and he certainly did not give aid and comfort to the enemy.
He met with high-level officials from a country that’s admittedly an adversary, as is his prerogative as the leader of this country. We are not at war with Russia, even though we’ve certainly seen references to Cold War 2.0. And let’s remember one very important fact:
THE PRESIDENT IS THE ULTIMATE CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY. As the Supreme Court ruled in 1988 in Department of the Navy vs. Egan, “His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President...”
Don’t believe me? Read the 2009 Executive Order 13526.
Technically and legally Trump did nothing “improper.” The White House said as much, and that is a fact. He did not reveal sources and methods, and he did not endanger any military operations.
Depending on what kind of information was revealed, it was likely ill advised, and it was probably obvious where it came from. It could damage our intelligence-sharing relationships. Reports are that the sensitive information about an ISIS laptop plot came from the Israelis, and that they’re not happy about the President’s unilateral decision to share it with Russia.
The Israeli Ambassador, however, publicly lauded his country’s relationship with the United States. Fact is we just don’t know what kind of impact this will have on our relationships with other nations’ intelligence services – and won’t, because we will never know what they won’t share.
We do know that in the era of WikiLeaks and Snowden and Manning, our own intelligence agencies are more loath to share information among themselves – one of the problems highlighted in the 9-11 Commission’s report. I can’t imagine our allies won’t have similar concerns. Manning’s leaks certainly impacted our efforts in Afghanistan and endangered lives.
I can see our allies’ logic if they do decide to limit the information they share: the United States can’t even keep a pissant, sniveling private from bringing a Lady Gaga CD into a SCIF and copying classified information, and their President just casually drops sensitive information to an adversary; why should we trust them to safeguard ours?
That said, your puerile screeching about treason makes you sound like uninformed dolts, and the fact that he is legally authorized to release and declassify information, makes his conversation – no matter how ill advised – is not an impeachable offense.
The more you vomit about reason and impeachment in this case, the more you sabotage your own credibility.
So just STOP IT!
Last year I explained the difference between a normal Republican/conservative voter and a Trumpanzee – the shit-flinging, frothing, simians, who have no concept of policy, objectivity, or common sense, and who simply toss turds at anyone who voices disagreement, concern, or even doesn’t display enough love and adoration for the President.
…not the normal Trump supporters, or those who voted for him merely to keep the C-Hag out of the White House – but the smirking, shit-flinging chimps who think Trump can do no wrong, claim that any criticism of their deity means you’re a Hillary supporter, and insist on doing their smarmy little happy dance by rubbing their “victory” in the faces of the #nevertrumpers (those who chose not to vote for Trump), chortling about us eating crow or gnashing our teeth in bitter angst.
These are the same puerile shit swaddlers who called those of us who are ostensibly ideological allies “idiots” and “tacit Hillary supporters,” due to our refusal to worship at the altar of Trump. Any criticism or refusal to cast a vote in his direction was met with derision and the math-challenged claim that a vote for anyone other than Trump meant a vote for Hillary.
Today’s Trumpanzees are no different. Much like the hysterical left that shits its diapers at every single word 45 utters and refuses to acknowledge the positive things he’s done so far or simply misinterprets and outright lies about every act he takes, the Trumpanzee is the creature that creams its diapers at every single assertion the President makes – whether true, partially true, or false – swings its schadenboner around like a drunken frat boy, jumps into defensive mode every time it perceives an attack on its deity, has no concept of policy, and merely supports any and all policies 45 advances, because he happens to be the one who advanced them.
These are the people who have no actual knowledge of events, they have no comprehension of economics, foreign affairs, military affairs, or diplomacy. They toss their allegedly “conservative” values aside and twist like a yogi on meth in their frothing zeal to mold policies they would have never supported before Trump came along into something they can claim is a “victory” or a “conservative” value. They are also the ones who hurl ad hominems at their opponents, who answer every challenge with “Oh, you must be a liberal/Oh, you must have voted for Hillary,” and who accuse their interlocutors of suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, because they had the unmitigated gall to be critical of the President.
Right Wisconsin editor Charlie Sykes recently penned a column in the New York Times, discussing anti-anti-Trumpism. If you don’t want to give the NYT a click, the meat of the piece is here. What is anti-anti-Trumpism? Well, to me, it’s a nicer way of describing the Trumpanzee.
Here is how it works: Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to (1) the biased “fake news” media, (2) over-the-top liberals, (3) hypocrites on the left, (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”
So I figured I’d give you my handy list about how to recognize a Trumpanzee – the frothing, dick-swinging, “WINNING!” lunatics who gleefully promote 45 merely because they “WON!” and despite the fact that the policies they may be promoting are the very antithesis of those they claim to espouse. To do this, I’m going to borrow Jeff Foxworthy’s “You might be a redneck if…” format for some of these, but if you recognize yourself in this list, you might want to engage in some introspection before engaging with others.
1. If your instinctive reaction to any criticism of the President is to hurl the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) accusation, you might be a Trumpanzee.
2. If your loathing of the left and your schadenboner at WINNING overshadow your belief in liberty and limited government, you might be a Trumpanzee.
3. If your first response to a criticism of 45’s policies is to accuse your interlocutor of being a Democrat/Hillary supporter, you might be a Trumpanzee.
4. If you rationalize outrageous conduct and defend policies that clearly fly in the face of the conservative values you purport to uphold…
5. If watching the left’s heads “go splodey” is more important to you than advancing the principles of limited government and liberty…
6. If your reaction to opposition to Trump’s policies is an immediate attack on the person who voices said opposition or even death threats…
7. If everything except for Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Conservative Treehouse, Conservative Tribune, Young Cons, *insert any other “conservative” site here* is FAKE NEWS…
…you might be a Trumpanzee.
8. If you accuse the “deep state” of trying to sabotage the President by presenting misinformation, outright lies, or completely inaccurate/uninformed analysis by one of the above sites, you might be a Trumpanzee.
9. If you share positive “news” about the President without checking sources, merely because it strokes your turgid confirmation bias…
10. And if you refuse to read anything that might challenge your perceptions regarding the President, because it happens to be published in the Washington Post/NYT/*insert EEEVIL mainstream media source here*, and swear off any media – conservative, liberal, or otherwise – as soon as they publish anything critical of the President, but will gleefully share memes that don’t actually mean a thing…
…You might be a Trumpanzee.
11. If you cannot defend specific actions by the President, but choose instead to revert to the tried and true “Well, Obama…” or “Hillary would have been worse…” you might be a Trumpanzee.
12. If the liberals hate one of the President’s policies, and you automatically love and ardently defend it, merely because the liberals oppose it, regardless of whether or not it upholds the principles of conservatism, you might be a Trumpanzee.
13. If instead of defending conservative policies, you find yourself only saying things like…
“Trump is doing fine as the political weapon I voted for against the Washington Establishment!”
“While The Republican Congress is playing checkers, Trump is playing Chess!”
“FAKE NEWS!” in response to everything.
“…still infinitely better than Hillary,” in response to everything.
“…you would rather have Hillary…”
“You lost get over it and move on.”
“…your [sic.] bitter and upset that Trump won.”
“You have no clue what the art of the deal is.”
“Your [sic.] cluesless [sic.] how negotiation and leverage works [sic.]”
“Feels good to win. We won, you lost. Now sit down and shut up.”
“I don’t care. I voted for Trump because I didn’t want to lose the Supreme Court for the next 50 years. I didn’t count on him keeping any promises except for the promise to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court which he will follow.”
“Would anyone want Hillary Clinton in office instead? Hillary would have been the death knell for us all.”
“They’re trying a coup! Obama Administration and Obama Loyalists still in the NSA, DNI and FBI didn’t get the memo about the American Tradition of ‘Peaceful Transition of Power.’ They were using their power for political ends, in conjunction with the MSM.”
But he’s draining the swamp!
…you might be a Trumpanzee.
14. If you accuse anyone who disagrees with the President of being a “leftard,” “leftist,” or of hating America, you might be a Trumpanzee.
None of these are plausible reasons to support bad policies, and yet, these turd bombs are what I see the Trumpanzees hurling when they can’t defend the President’s decisions.
And to be sure, there have been some good decisions so far. Gorsuch for the Supreme Court is, in my opinion, fantastic. Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster make up a competent, intelligent, informed national security team. Steven Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury is an informed, engaged, sharp principal. I applaud those appointments.
But I’m not giving him a pass on the “we’ll build a big, beautiful wall and make Mexico pay for it” promise – a wall which he now expects the American taxpayers to fund.
I’m not giving him a pass on the ObamaCare repeal or the reversal on ExIm Bank.
I’m certainly not giving him a pass on appointing Flynn as National Security Advisor and then blaming Obama for giving him a clearance, even though he had been out of government service for more than two years, and done a lot of engagement with the Russians, among others, as a civilian when he accepted the position.
Look, people, there’s not a single President who deserves your blind devotion. Not. A. Single. One. They are human, and they are hardly perfect.
And yet, we see rabid Trumpanzees hysterically attacking anyone who has the temerity to voice a critical opinion of the President – without any knowledge of economics, politics, military doctrine, or understanding of intelligence – just because WE WON, AND YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!
If you find yourself blindly supporting the policies of the President merely because they piss off the left, you are not doing yourself, your country, or your conservative principles any favors. By refusing to acknowledge when one of your own screws up or goes back on a promise, or making excuses for his actions, you’re doing harm. Real harm – both to the conservative movement, and to America. And if you’re defending actions that a year ago you found indefensible due to your conservative principles, you’re doing harm. Real harm.
We should hold all our elected officials accountable to the people, holding their feet to the fire for broken promises or policies that contradict the principles on which they were elected, and that is what should be important, rather than basing our judgments on whether or not the left is unhappy. If you fail to be objective because you’re so busy swinging your dick around about WINNING, you don’t deserve to win.
Allowing the left to dictate right and wrong based on their histrionic screeching is not particularly bright, and it reflects poorly on conservatives writ large.
We have a duty to be objective when it comes to our leaders. We have an obligation to question them when warranted. We have a responsibility to be informed.
I realize it’s a whole lot easier to just pop some popcorn and defend the indefensible just to watch the left’s heads explode. It’s certainly more fun than doing some research and actually admitting that your guy isn’t even close to perfect. I get it. You voted for him. You would feel responsible.
It’s much easier to deflect attention for a President’s failures to his enemies, and it’s certainly a lot more entertaining to simply ridicule the unhinged left than to face possible failures in the people for whom we cast votes.
And it’s certainly much more superficially satisfying to shove your fist down the “enemy’s” throat, while loudly proclaiming your WINNING! while pouring dirt on those who take the time to research and understand the policies involved, because they’re not jubilantly proclaiming the greatness of the leader you worship.
That’s not conservatism. The fact that the Trumpanzees are in the process of transforming conservatism into the turds they eventually fling at their perceived enemies is disturbing.
Cue flood of Trumpanzees engaging in some or all of the above behavior in 3…2…1…
While the United States pounds on countries in the Caribbean for their Citizenship-by-Investment (CBI) programs, the Kushner family – yes, THAT Kushner family – seems to have no problem selling American visas to the Chinese. That’s the message Jared Kushner’s sister delivered to a ballroom filled with wealthy Chinese investors.
Over several hours of slide shows and presentations, representatives from the Kushner family business urged Chinese citizens gathered at a Ritz-Carlton hotel to consider investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a New Jersey luxury apartment complex that would help them secure what’s known as an investor visa.
The CBI programs in the Caribbean are particularly problematic, rife with corruption and fraud, and permissive as long as you have the cash. Countries such as St. Kitts and Nevis (SKN), Grenada, Antigua & Barbuda, and Dominica afford rich foreigners an opportunity to invest in their economies, whether through real estate or an investment in a business, government, or “development fund.” Once an investor plops down several hundred thousand dollars, they can be issued a passport, enjoy visa-free travel to nations in the Schengen Zone or the United States, and other perks – sometimes with very little scrutiny.
Care to guess how much fraud is involved, especially since many of these island nations compete among one another for potential investors, and millions of dollars? Care to guess how much due diligence really goes on when millions of dollars in investments are at stake?
SKN, for example, came under scrutiny a couple of years ago after some Iranian sanctions evaders got visas, allowing them to travel to Canada. Care to guess how easy it is to cross the border from Canada to the United States?
The United States expressed concern about the Caribbean CBI programs as recently as last year, urging these nations to exercise due diligence to ensure that sanctions evaders, transnational organized crime members, and terrorists don’t use their programs to obtain passports and visas.
Hell, one of the relatives of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is Antigua’s representative in Syria, and the nation’s nutjob Prime Minister Browne admitted to CBS this year that “Syria is one of the areas in which we have had some concerns but did not place it on a restricted list.”
So while the United States expresses concerns about sketchy characters buying Caribbean passports for visa-free travel, the family of the President’s Senior Advisor is selling them to China. The tagline on a brochure for the investor event in Beijing, according to the Post was, “Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States.”
And worse yet, Kushner’s sister was actually touting the White House connection at the conference!
The tone deafness of this woman is unreal!
I’m fairly sure she didn’t come right out and say that if these wealthy Chinese invest half a million bucks into Kushner properties, they’d have an in – a Kushner family member in the White House. I’m sure that’s not what she meant. I hope.
But when you trumpet the fact that the CEO of your company is currently a senior advisor in the White House, what else is one supposed to think?
Damn straight, there are ethical implications when the sister of the company’s CEO, whether intentionally or not, uses her connections to the White House to attract business!
And damn straight, it’s problematic when the EB-5 visa program that allows wealthy investors to essentially buy their way into the United States was set to expire last month, was extended with the President’s signature until the end of the fiscal year, and is promoted by the President’s in-laws, urging Chinese investors to quickly buy into it before its expiration!
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly is currently considering changes to the program. The former SOUTHCOM Commander, I am sure, is very aware of the types of problems CBI programs faced in the Caribbean, given the fact that the region falls squarely in SOUTHCOM’s area of responsibility. I’m sure Secretary Kelly is aware of the corruption that makes the CBI programs very lucrative for the governments of those countries and keep due diligence down to a minimum, if not absent at all.
So how is it that the Kushner family didn’t see their actions as a problem?
How is it that they didn’t view promoting their personal business by touting an obviously and publicly problematic program, and bragging about their White House connections to Chinese investors, while barring the press from attending the event, as troublesome in any way?
How is it that while the United States issues public warnings about CBI programs elsewhere, the Kushners are hypocritically using their White House connections to sell America to the Chinese?
How is it that they didn’t see a problem with selling American immigration to rich investors from a country that engaged in egregious hacking activities against the United States?
We are living in Animal Farm, people, and the media is focused on how much ice cream 45 eats. Good lord!
I haven’t read the new GOP health care bill that passed a couple of days ago, because I simply haven’t had time. The things I heard about it – from both the right and the left – have not been positive, but given the vast amount of misinformation out there about it from both sides, I’d rather read it for myself before commenting on the legislation. And I will. It just might take a while.
Instead, I’d like to talk about this idea that somehow people like me and my family – and hundreds of thousands of others – should be victimized to ostensibly “help” people for whom programs already exist that ensure they have access to health care.
First, a couple of actual facts.
The “pre-existing condition” hysteria is just that. There are very few Americans who are actually denied insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions. As Avik Roy points out in Forbes, prior to ObamaCare, “Employer-based plans were required to offer coverage to everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions. So were Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs like the VA.”
And since 90 percent of Americans obtain coverage through one of those means, the number of uninsured due to pre-existing conditions is actually pretty small. How small? Roughly 115,000 small.
As Roy notes, the government after passing ObamaCare created the Pre-Existing Condition Plan designed to help the roughly 10 percent of Americans who ostensibly were denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
PCIP was designed to work from the years 2010 to 2014, as a bridge until Obamacare’s insurance regulations took effect. During those years, Americans could sign up for heavily subsidized coverage under PCIP if they had documented proof that they had been denied coverage by an insurance company and had a pre-existing condition.
At the program’s peak, 114,959 people signed up for its coverage. That’s not even 1 percent of the population.
Now, I do understand this coverage is important for these folks. It sucks that they are either denied coverage or forced to go broke paying for it because of their illness. The PCIP was created to alleviate that problem.
I’m not a fan of entitlements, but if this is the major problem health insurance reform was trying to fix, why not institutionalize this program as a safety net for less than 1 percent of the population and leave the rest of us alone?
But beyond that, let’s remember that lack of insurance coverage =\= lack of actual health care. The 1986 Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act explicitly forbids hospitals to deny care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay. Beyond emergency treatment, doctors and hospitals are under no legal obligation to provide care to those unable to pay.
Ethical obligation? That’s a different story.
Doctors do take charity cases, and they do treat the indigent pro bono, as well as people who have lost their jobs or have fallen on hard times. They provide payment plans, and do try to work with patients. But medical practices have bills to pay, staff to compensate, equipment and drugs to buy, and malpractice insurance as well as other overhead to pay. At what point does it become untenable for a doctor to provide free services to people who can’t afford it? They certainly can’t do so if they leave their practice!
Pharmaceutical companies also offer relief to patients who are unable to pay for their medication.
So, what I’m saying is, there are programs available to help those who need it. Will they cover everyone fully? Probably not. Will they save every single person who is in dire need of care? Probably not. No matter how many fixes you provide, some will always fall through the cracks.
And I feel for these patients. I really do.
But the overhaul of the entire health care system that screws over millions of Americans, forcing them out of policies with which they were satisfied and which they could afford, and obligating them to pay thousands of dollars more for coverage, in favor of a relatively small number of patients?
That’s not justice.
What makes these patients more important than you or me?
My monthly insurance premiums more than doubled partly because ObamaCare forced a one-size-fits-all coverage requirement on all insurance companies and partly because Rob’s insurance coverage, for which he was paying out of pocket, consequently doubled, forcing us to put him on my government policy.
Why is my family’s financial health less important than providing pregnancy coverage for a 70-year-old man?
Two years ago, I had an underwater house I couldn’t sell, tenants whose rent didn’t even cover my mortgage payments, and who ultimately first stole my house, and then trashed it, causing tens of thousands of dollars in damages. We were living paycheck to paycheck, despite both of us working. Mortgage payments combined with our rent ate up 80 percent of my paycheck. And yet, I was taking home only a little more than 50 percent of my pay – in part because my insurance rates went up significantly.
Why is my ability to provide for my family, to make a payment for my old, 2003 Jeep, and to buy groceries less important than providing contraception coverage for someone who claims they can’t afford a box of condoms at their pharmacy?
Why is forcing those who choose to pay their physicians directly, instead of using health insurance, or those who choose to risk it without a policy, to spend their money on purchasing health insurance, preferable to allowing them that choice? Why are those who choose not to purchase insurance less important than those who demand the latter pay for their policies?
Why are doctors less important than other members of society? Why are they reviled as rich fat cats for demanding fair pay for their skills, their knowledge, their years of hard work and study, their sleepless nights, and ultimately for providing services very few in this society are capable of providing? Are they not entitled to fair compensation? Are they so unimportant that they shouldn’t be allowed to set a value for their labor, while unskilled fry cooks demand a $15/hour minimum wage for theirs?
Why is a small percentage of the population, whose inability to pay for needed medical care can be mitigated by already existing public and private programs, more important than the people who are going broke paying obscene premiums, who lost their doctors, or who opted to be penalized at tax time, rather than pay thousands in premium increases?
Why are people who got health insurance through ObamaCare more important than those who lost it, or lost access to their doctor because of it?
Why is the federal government deciding whose “need” is greater?
Why is my need to feed my family, to pay my bills, or to help my kids with school bills less important than someone else’s need to be covered just in case they can’t afford a doctor’s visit or a box of condoms, especially given the fact that programs do exist to help those truly in need of life-saving care and can be institutionalized so they can continue helping this small percentage of patients?
Why are people who are able to provide for their families less important than those who can’t? And they’re SO MUCH less important, that their loss, their hard work, their pain, their efforts to eke out a living and provide for their families are denigrated as “the rich trying to hoard wealth.”
Why is the appearance of doing something to help the poor more important than actually helping them, and definitely more important than protecting people like me, like Rob, and like millions of people who don’t qualify as “needy” in the government’s eyes?
Why are we less important?
It’s unfathomable to me how fanatically desperate some media outlets are to smash Ivanka Trump to bits, destroy her reputation, and denigrate her – despite the fact that she is a successful, educated, accomplished, charitable woman in her own right.
Yes, I’m sure her family name didn’t hurt when she was starting her career.
Yes, her father’s presidency is the only reason why she currently holds an official position at the White House (albeit an unpaid one).
Yes, many of the views she espouses are hardly consistent with conservative principles of limited government, spouting the liberal talking points about the “wage gap,” a soft stance on Syrian refugees, and pushing family leave, which while a desirable benefit, should hardly be within the purview of the federal government.
Policy-wise, especially given her position, criticisms of Ms. Trump are certainly fair game, but this unmitigated assery? Not so much.
You see, when Ivanka Trump was starting her fashion business, she apparently failed to consider that some of her employees may want to take some leave after having a baby. GASP! How terrible!
Four years ago, she expected women to return to work soon after giving birth, according to a report in The New York Times.
Marissa Kraxberger, a former executive for Trump’s fashion company, told The Times that she asked Trump about paid leave when she was pregnant in the summer of 2013.
Kraxberger recalled Trump saying: “Well, we don’t have maternity leave policy here; I went back to work one week after having my child, so that’s just not something I’m used to.”
Afterward, Kraxberger and others pushed Trump to adopt a paid-leave policy, but the company didn’t implement one until the next year, according to The Times.
This is what Yahoo! Finance and the hysterical creature that has published the original piece in Business Insider Hayley Peterson consider newsworthy! Wow.
Let’s take this apart a bit, shall we?
Let’s start with the New York Times report Peterson quotes about Ivanka “expecting” women to return to work soon after giving birth. That’s not at all what the NYT story said. What it actually said was that Ivanka herself returned to work a week after giving birth, so she didn’t give much thought to having a maternity leave policy until one of her employees brought it up. There’s nothing in the Times piece to imply that she expected the same of her employees. Quite the opposite, actually.
While Peterson sniffly implies that it took way too long to implement said policy, the company did consult with its employees before developing a good plan that also included some other benefits that many other companies don’t offer, such as two months of paid family leave, flexible hours, and a play area for children in its office. Not too shabby, and a good business practice to boot to sit down with one’s employees and take their concerns to the table, especially since the company was young and apparently still in the process of developing its operating procedures.
So why is this news, Ms. Peterson?
Why the clickbait headline Yahoo! Finance? Ivanka Trump had a surprising response when a pregnant employee asked her about maternity leave
The headline predisposes the reader to a negative response, especially given the third paragraph of Peterson’s piece, which claims Ivanka “wasn’t always a supporter of family-leave policies.” This is a blatant lie. Not having a company policy in place, and implementing a damn generous one after consulting with employees is not in any way equal to not being a supporter of family leave policies.
I also note the photograph Yahoo! Finance chose to use for this non-story. A picture that makes the usually smiling, pretty Ivanka look like a cross between Leona Helmsley and Satan.
Is this what passes for “journalism” at Business Insider and Yahoo! Finance?
I’ve spoken here before about destroying the enemy. It’s not enough to oppose the President’s policies. It’s not enough to be critical of Ivanka Trump’s views. She must be destroyed, because anything having to do with Trump must be destroyed, according to the unhinged left.
Does a store carry his family’s product brand? Boycott the store. It’s not enough to just choose not to purchase said product. Others must be forced to avoid said product as well, and worse yet, any store that carries it, must be destroyed, along with its workforce, which for department stores and grocery stores, consists of the very demographic the left claims to want to protect and defend!
Any supporter of Trump must be destroyed. Voices of dissent must be silenced, especially on college campuses. And dog forbid you do any kind of business with Trump’s companies!
So it shouldn’t be surprising that his family is fair game, especially since some of them have become an integral part of his administration. But publishing obvious lies and misinformation in an effort to destroy the individual?
It looks like our unhinged pals on the left have certainly learned well from the Russian propaganda playbook.