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…
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.
I just ran across this piece as I’m shoving random bits of cheese into my face in a rough imitation of “lunch,” and I had to do a double take.
Donald Trump Slams “Archaic” US Constitution That Is “Really Bad” For The Country
The headline was so screechy and hysterical, I felt compelled to do some research on my own. Because unlike some, who are so anxious to believe every word of any story that confirms their biases about 45, I need actual corroboration, and despite some of the idiot things I’ve heard him say before, this struck me as a bit too much even for him.
So here’s what I found. The shit-flinging monkey who wrote the piece for the Independent – some creature named Ben Kentish – somehow has lost his command of the English language, apparently, because his contention is that Trump blames the Constitution for the difficulties he’s had during his first 100 days in office.
In an interview with Fox News to mark the milestone, the Republican called the system of checks and balances on power “archaic”.
“It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.”
As you can imagine, every screeching leftist blog picked up the story and ran with it like Forrest Gump on crack. TRUMP BLAMES THE CONSTITUTION FOR HIS EMBARRASSING FIRST 100 DAYS! TRUMP CALLS CONSTITUTION “ARCHAIC!”
All link back to Ben Kentish’s piece in the Independent, and all squawk in froth flecked glee (or rage – because WE TOLD YOU HE WAS A TYRANT!) the same malodorous claims Kentish published in the Independent.
Well, if you’re seeing the story here, you can guess what I’m going to say.
Not. Even. Close. You. Oozing. Dick. Pimple.
Even the Washington Post, which harbors no love for POTUS, had the integrity to admit he was discussing Senate and House rules in that interview, although in typical Washington Post style they claimed that by criticizing the length and complexity of the legislative process, he was really paving the way for a consolidation of his own power. But that’s a discussion for another day.
In an interview with Fox News that aired Friday night, Trump dismissed the “archaic” rules of the House and Senate — using that word four times — and suggested they needed to be streamlined for the good of the country.
- “We don’t have a lot of closers in politics, and I understand why: It’s a very rough system. It’s an archaic system.”
- “You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House — but the rules of the Senate and some of the things you have to go through — it’s really a bad thing for the country, in my opinion. They’re archaic rules. And maybe at some point we’re going to have to take those rules on, because, for the good of the nation, things are going to have to be different.”
- “You can’t go through a process like this. It’s not fair. It forces you to make bad decisions. I mean, you’re really forced into doing things that you would normally not do except for these archaic rules.”
What Trump was really discussing when he referenced the “really rough system” was the labyrinth of legislative rules both in the House and the Senate, which makes it difficult to pass clean legislation.
And he’s not wrong. If you peruse Riddick’s Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices, you’ll see just how vast the number of regulations is.
The rules of the House of Representatives are more than 1400 pages long. They contain a copy of the Constitution, which is a fundamental source that dictates how Congress operates. Maybe that’s what Kentish (and every unhinged fruitcake quoting his article) are confused about?
Yes, it’s difficult to pass a clean bill without riders, amendments, earmarks that benefit each legislator’s districts, and the like. And while the President can’t dictate to the legislature how it should procedurally operate, he can certainly note that said procedures are onerous, which is exactly what he did.
So is Kentish lacking in reading comprehension, or is he intentionally misleading his audience? The audio clip included with the story makes it very clear that Trump is discussing the rules and procedures in the House and the Senate. Is he hoping that his audience simply won’t listen to the clip? Or is he banking on the fact that most people are too lazy to go and check for themselves what the Constitution actually says about the legislature’s rules and procedures? Or maybe he doesn’t know himself, and hasn’t bothered to read the Constitution?
I actually hate the phrase “FAKE NEWS!” It’s an annoyingly shrill rallying cry that doesn’t really say a whole lot, other than impugning reporting based on slant or bias, which is ubiquitous in newspapers, magazines, and broadcast media lately.
But in this case, both the article and the title are actually fake – either by design, or through sheer lack of knowledge or comprehension of the English language.
Whatever the reason, Kentish is a FAIL.
Dear Media –
You’ve seen me bitch directly about your lack of objectivity. You’ve seen me take on fake news that was so ridiculous, that anyone who is not a halfwit should have laughed the story off the Internet. I’ve condemned your inability and unwillingness to actually report the news, vice insert yourselves into it. I’ve condemned you for shoving your political agenda into nearly every “news” story. I’ve kicked you for publishing intentionally misleading garbage under the protection of the First Amendment, as if it’s some kind of shield to protect your bullshit from being identified as… well… bullshit. Needless to say, I am not a fan.
Recently I polled several hundred readers on my public Facebook page about what news sources they use and why. These are folks who come from all sides of the political spectrum – from extreme left progressives, to moderates, to ultra-conservative, to frothing Kool-Aid drinkers on all sides.
I asked them about their news sources. What actual news sources do you use to be informed about the world? I specified that I wasn’t talking about opinion journals or blogs, but actual news sources, such as the Wall Street Journal or the Economist, which have opinion sections, but generally provide insightful reporting on world events. My own list of daily go-to sources is a combination of the Wall Street Journal, CNN, BBC, the Financial Times, and the Washington Post. I also use news aggregators for a combination of sources and news reporting.
The responses I got were interesting. Here’s what I found, in addition to the usual conservatives/Fox News and liberals/NYT.
The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Reuters, AP, BBC, and the Washington Post seem to be the most popular news sources among all political affiliations.
Many can’t tell the difference between a blog, an opinion journal, and a news source. I suspect it’s because you have blurred the line between op-eds, features, and news, and twisted the definition of news to such an extent, that the audience can no longer distinguish between these media, and worse yet, has stopped caring about the difference.
Many have given up on trying to get information from media sources at all. They’d “rather be uninformed than misinformed.”
And those who do use mainstream reporting sources to get information, still look for corroborative reporting. They read the news story – even in a source as commonly trusted as the Wall Street Journal or the AP, and then they check primary sources and what other media outlets reported on the issue.
You know what this boils down to?
They don’t trust you.
They don’t trust you to report accurately.
They don’t trust you to report objectively.
They don’t trust you not to twist your reporting to suit your agendas.
They don’t trust you to have the honor and integrity to admit your mistakes.
What does it tell you when instead of just reading a news story, most people have to scrape for corroborative reporting before they believe a word you write?
What does it tell you when people trust blogs more than they trust journalists, who ostensibly have more access to information?
What does it tell you when readers trust others’ opinions more than they trust your reporting?
Is it on them? Almost certainly. Many are too lazy or too committed to their own ideologies to even consider anything that challenges their worldview. This creates a certain market for bullshit – a demand for reports that stroke people’s confirmation biases. But is it all on them? Not even close.
You complain about “fake news,” but you, more than anyone and anything, have contributed to that phenomenon with your constant failure to report objectively, your inability to report on the story without sticking your political dick into it, your outright contempt for your audiences, and your intentional and sometimes malicious obfuscation. These egregious misdeeds are well-documented. Your inability to accurately report the story without snark or subjective garbage has made you something to be derided. The public trust in what you dish out is at an all time low.
Are you really surprised that people seek out other sources of information? And are you really shocked when they begin to believe whatever they’re fed – even by ignorant, uninformed bloggers with their own agendas – as long as it’s not through you? Is it any wonder that any number of fake, misleading, biased sites have popped up to fill the void? You suck at your job, so someone else has to do it – no matter how poorly!
You twist words. You omit critical information. You conceal your own opinions in a torrent of word salad, and try and mask it as factual reporting. You obfuscate. You insert inflammatory language into a straight news report to elicit a certain reaction.
Take this current example from NPR. From the very title and first paragraph, not only do we know what the writer feels on the topic of Trump extending a program to afford veterans an opportunity to seek health care from private doctors, but we can also see how said writer tries to shape the reader’s opinion on the topic!
Trump Extends Troubled VA Program That Pays Private Doctors
Yeah, let’s make private doctors seem like a negative, dirty phrase, instead of an opportunity to choose for those who have made significant sacrifices for our country, and are now stuck in a broken, corrupt VA system.
It’s a fix that hasn’t fixed much, but the troubled Veterans Choice program has been extended anyway.
Hasn’t fixed much, according to whom? The author, who quite obviously hates it that veterans have a choice, and is taking the opportunity to slam the administration?
Veterans Choice is designed to allow veterans who have waited more than 30 days for an appointment at a VA facility, or who live more than 40 miles from one, instead to get care from private providers who then bill the VA. But it has been plagued with problems. Many vets complain that Choice actually makes getting care more difficult and time-consuming, and some health care providers have dropped out due to slow payments or administrative hassles.
“Plagued with problems.” Because that’s not inflammatory language or anything!
“Many vets complain.” How many? I checked a Facebook page for Veterans’ complaints about the program itself. There were fewer than 20 since March, 2016. A January 2017 IG report detailed some of the problems investigators found with the program, including VC’s inadequate network of providers (I’m guessing due to the VA having 90 days to implement choice, which for a government bureaucracy is daunting, to say the least), and lack of strong oversight into payments for participating providers.
While, NPR derps about “many vets complaining,” it doesn’t provide actual numbers, nor does it note that only 13 percent of eligible veterans actually took advantage of the program, according to the IG report!
By omitting contextual information and using obviously inflammatory language to obliquely condemn the Trump Administration for having extended the program, the NPR undermined its own credibility in a transparent attempt to influence reader opinion on the issue.
And if you think NPR is a rare culprit, bitch, please! In a quest for audiences and clicks in a market that has become saturated with information, attention-grabbing headlines, no matter how misleading or outright false are gold!
And then you wonder why no one trusts you anymore? Come on! You can’t possibly be this lacking in self awareness!
But then again, maybe you are.
Clueless, arrogant, conceited, and completely lacking in storytelling ability.
Is it no wonder so few people trust you?
Someone who is sick of your shit
There’s fake news, and there’s FAKE NEWS. There’s spin, and then there’s such complete imbecilic fuckery disguised as “reporting,” that the moment you read it, you should ridicule it and block the site. Anyone with a shred of knowledge or an inclination to check actual links in a story that claims to be “news,” should be able to discern fact from bullshit, but just in case, let me demonstrate.
A few days ago, some rabid cock weasel writing for some outfit named DC Memo, that claims to provide “news and commentary from our nation’s capital,” wrote an article titled, “Obama Using Top Secret iPad to Take Pics of Michelle.”
The title unequivocally claims that Barack Obama, who left office in January, is publicly using a classified device that he took from the government to take photos of his wife. This is a federal crime, and the headline is misleading and libelous. Let me explain.
After leaving the presidency, Barack Obama has been spotted using his favorite iPad to take photos of his wife while on a David Geffen-owned megayacht in Tahiti. But this may be no ordinary iPad. A government watchdog speculates that he may have taken the Top Secret version out of the Oval Office, a big no-no.
Note the language.
Barack Obama is using his favorite iPad to take photos of his wife, but it MAY be no ordinary iPad. This is already speculative. The idiot who wrote the piece links to Judicial Watch, claiming that the organization speculates Obama may have taken the TS version of the tablet out of the Oval when he left.
This is no longer fact, as claimed in the title, but conjecture. Further, if you click on the links provided as evidence for said claim, you will see this:
We can’t tell what iPad is being used by the former president, and the story postulates that this is a TS tablet that he somehow stole from the intelligence community and is now publicly using it to take photos of his wife.
But do you know what photo comes up when the story is linked on social media?
Does this look like the photo was taken on a yacht, as the article claims? What kind of fucktard would wear a suit and tie on a yacht?
So what is this absurd claim based on?
The link to Judicial Watch claiming that the organization speculates he may have taken the iPad leads to the organization’s home page. I have done several different searches to find out what, if anything, Judicial Watch has written about an ostensibly missing presidential daily brief (PDB) tablet. I couldn’t find a thing. No speculation about any missing iPad. No accusation – not even an indirect one – about Obama having taken the tablet out of the White House.
Additionally, the TS tablet that contains the PDB is completely disabled and cannot in any way connect to any wi-fi, why in the world would Obama take a photo of her that he cannot share? Being a pretty tech savvy guy, one would think any device he would use to photograph his wife would be able to connect to the net, so that these photos can be shared.
The report claims there is a top secret iPad that went missing during the transition, and claims White House staffers were searching for it. There is no link to any reporting confirming this claim, and no actual source is named. Additionally, the fuckwit who wrote this travesty claims, “The iPad device that Obama is suspected to have taken with him into civilian life still has access to current Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs). Trump associates believe this device may be giving the ex-president an “over the shoulder” view inside the secret workings of the Trump Administration.”
Now, I’m wondering how it is that a tablet that is not wi-fi enabled, and requires the intelligence community to load the information onto it in a secure location daily, which means the old data on it is deleted, can possibly contain information about the “secret workings of the Trump Administration.”
Here’s a clue, it can’t. The “journalistic” douche circus is so eager for a “gotcha” story against Obama, that he contradicts himself in froth flecked zeal to nail the former POTUS. And if you don’t think there’s a mechanism on this tablet that erases all the information on it automatically after a certain amount of time, in case the device gets accidentally lost or left behind, you’re as much of a moron as this “writer” is.
The National Archives, this chucklefuck claims, was also “unaware” of the existence of the iPad, because somehow he thinks the PDB staff can’t reuse the tablets and would hand them over to the National Archives instead.
“A member of the Obama team declined to comment for this report,” he concludes, as if somehow this is a condemnation against the former President.
Perhaps said member thought the story was so stupid, that he considered it to have been a waste of his time to even bother talking to this retardified butt penguin.
So let’s recap.
The title makes a definitive claim that Obama is committing a crime.
The story then speculates that Obama is committing a crime, based on the fact that he has a personal iPad and on spurious claims that there’s a missing presidential iPad that somehow, even though it’s not wi-fi enabled, is receiving current presidential daily briefs, and that Obama is reading them to get intel on the Trump administration… or something.
And to add insult to injury, it provides links that absolutely do not support said speculation and sets a default photo that when shared shows the President in a completely other situation, at another time, that has nothing to do with the original claim that he was using an iPad on a boat while on vacation to take photos of his wife.
This, boys and girls, is how you spot bullshit.
By the way, if you want to keep your sanity, do NOT read the comments at the bottom of the original story. The retardulous FAIL will make your brain bleed.
Don’t say you haven’t been warned.
UPDATE: Looks like the idiotarians removed that “story.” Maybe someone sent them my article? Hmmmmm?