Seriously, GOP? Seriously?

When he was voted into office, tons of people encouraged Obama to level war crime charges against Bush and Cheney.

And it would have been totally legitimate. They demonstrably lied to everyone in order to wage war.

But Obama said no. He didn’t feel that he should be prosecuting his predecessor.

So now the GOP is readying plans to impeach Obama. For issuing fewer executive orders than his predecessors.

Jesus Christ. Remember that guy in “Guardians of the Galaxy” who says, “What a bunch of a-holes?” He’s talking about the GOP.

PAD

52 comments on “Seriously, GOP? Seriously?

  1. To me, the bigger question is what their endgame is. If this is just to drum up turnout for the 2014 midterms, it might do that — but it’ll also shoot the 2016 Republican candidates in the foot: Anyone who didn’t vote for impeachment will be seen as “not a real Republican,” and anyone who did vote for impeachment will have a much harder time convincing independent voters that they can work with Democrats.

    If they know it won’t succeed but try it anyway, it’ll be like their dozens of failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act: Their base will love it, while everyone else will see it as an empty show instead of a way to make America better.

    And if by some miracle they do succeed, what then? Do they think Sarah Palin will ride into the White House on a grizzly bear and take office because the Tea Party-led crazies got their way? If so, they should have another look at that Constitution they seem to always talk about while ignoring that the President was elected — twice — because of it.

    I think it’s all a pathetic show that won’t make America one bit better.

    1. “convincing independent voters that they can work with Democrats.”

      Are any of them still trying? I thought after all the vilification of the left that we’ve seen over the last six years, the very idea of a rethuglicon reaching across the aisle was enough to be branded (quite literally, on the forehead with red-hot iron) a RINO and lose all backing from the RNC.

  2. Not for issuing fewer executive orders. For issuing EOs that bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, and effectively destroy the Rule of Law we used to have.

    While the world burns (at least, in the Middle East, and Eastern Europe), our Glorious Leader goes fund-raising.

    He keeps the XL pipeline securely closed, while opening wide the human pipeline to South America.

    On the other hand, I agree that trying to impeach Obama is a lost cause. It would only increase division (as if that were possible, given how Obama has divided the country) and harden the hearts of lots of people.

    The best course is to let him graciously leave the White House and get his friends to help him write more books – mostly about himself, but also a few about how America is the root of all the world’s evils.

    1. “Not for issuing fewer executive orders. For issuing EOs that bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, and effectively destroy the Rule of Law we used to have.”

      And whose fault is that? Seriously? Whose fault is it that Congress has, every step of the way, endeavored to block Obama on every initiative to the point where the government is at a standstill? Whose major party endeavor is to make certain that the Obama administration can claim no accomplishments? They push him into a situation where Exec Orders are his only means of accomplishing anything and then want to impeach him for it?

      It’s crap, plain and simple.

      PAD

      1. No, not feces, reality. Like many a spoiled brat before him, when confronted and prevented from getting what he wants, he throws a tantrum, and says that he will do it anyway.

        For the first two years, he had both houses of Congress in his party, and he squandered it. He thought he had to merely tell his followers what he wanted done, and it would just happen, as so many things in his life had ‘just happened!’ He could never get his head around the concept that he actually had to DO something for him to accomplish things.

        Then, since he had bølløçkš up things so badly by doing nothing, he lost the House. Now, he was really in a quandary. Since he didn’t know how to do his job, and he now had all these evil people who not only would not do what he asked, but actively opposed him, he decided to just ignore them, and the constitution, and go about his merry way.

        I am convinced he watched too much B5, and has decided to be a Shadow – sow chaos as much as possible. In the mid-east and Asia he made agreements with both sides to either support or ignore them, encouraging them to go to war with one another. Now that they are, he can wring his hands and bemoan his fate while laughing at all the foolishness in private.

        And, we always thought that maybe Shrub was channeling Clarke…

      2. For the first two years, he had both houses of Congress in his party, and he squandered it.

        You conveniently ignore the fact that although Dems controlled both houses of Congress, they only enjoyed a filibuster-proof majority for only a handful of months. And you just as conveniently forget that during the 111th Congress, the GOP engaged in an unprecedented and historic number of filibusters, blocking scads of legislation that enjoyed a comfortable majority from passing and otherwise slowing things down to an absolute crawl.

        And the best part? The GOP campaign of total obstruction to anything and everything was a purely political ploy decided upon on Obama’s inauguration day. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obama) In other words, from *literally* day one of Obama’s presidency, the Republicans were committed to making sure absolutely nothing got done — at the expense of their constituents — just to spite the president and make him look bad.

      3. As for the executive orders thing, it’s not the number of EOs that matter or what the composition of Congress is when an EO is issued, it’s the scope of the EOs and whether they’re not they are constitutional.

        Not the Congress thing is terribly relevant – Obama has had a Dem-controlled Senate to work with throughout his presidency (including a supermajority in parts of 2009-10) and two years of a Dem House. The Dems have been able to pass things. Things like Obamacare, a stimulus package, Cash for Clunkers, and other legislation wasteful and counterproductive enough to remind the voters that this letting the Dems control all three branches of government deal was a bad idea. Before you blame the GOP, blame the Dems for overreaching, and blame the voters for calling them on it.

        Now we’re at where we’re at: divided government, which is nothing new, Peter. It certainly is not an excuse to disregard the constitution, which means what it means no matter how our government is aligned.

        -Dave

      4. Like many a spoiled brat before him, when confronted and prevented from getting what he wants, he throws a tantrum, and says that he will do it anyway.

        Sounds familiar. How did we end up in Iraq, again?

        Sasha and Jerry have addressed the rest of it. But I see that Dave ignored those posts.

      5. PAD: And whose fault is that?

        And with that, you just accepted Michael Zorn’s false premise that Obama has “issu[ed] EOs that bypass the Constitution, [etc.]”

        Rather than, in effect, saying “Sure he broke the law.” and “But look what they made him do!” (The most ridiculous and childish excuse people give to avoid responsibility, IMHO.) you should have pointed out that Obams’s use of EOs has NOT been un-Constitutional and that Zorn is lying.

    2. “He keeps the XL pipeline securely closed, while opening wide the human pipeline to South America.”

      That’s a talking point that’s utter baloney. He’s not opening wide a “human pipeline to South America” no matter how badly the Right wants that to be the talking point of the day.

      We have always had an issue with border crossings. He has asked for Congress to give him things to work on the issue and they (the Republicans by and large) have said no. On average we’ve deported twice as many illegals annually as we did under W. Bush. Oh, and the whole busing the children and putting them in comfy places to stay? That’s the law. That’s a law signed off on by George W. Bush in 2008 and it requires us to handle illegal immigrants in a certain way now and that is the way. Maybe the Republicans could help amend the law if they would stop knee-jerk opposing everything Obama says would be a good idea or a helpful measure.

      “For issuing EOs that bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, and effectively destroy the Rule of Law we used to have.”

      You know what’s funny about that? The Republicans couldn’t even say what they were suing him for for weeks on end, and then they finally did and it was in large part about the EOs signed to delay certain aspects of the ACA.

      If I was the defense my exhibit ‘A’ would be a video tape. I would play video of all the Republicans currently championing this lawsuit appearing on chat shows and interviews before the EOs were written. You know, when, rather than getting their whiny áššëš out from in front of cameras and back into Congress to do something, they were whining about these certain aspects of the ACA possibly negatively impacting businesses and demanding that the President do something about it.

      They whined that something needed to be done, they wouldn’t bother actually doing their jobs, and he did what they were asking him to do.

      “While the world burns (at least, in the Middle East, and Eastern Europe), our Glorious Leader goes fund-raising.”

      That’s pretty much overwrought bs statement, but it still beats the hëll out of being the President who actually lit the match and then spent years (literally) on vacation golfing, clearing brush, and mountain biking.

    3. Michael, Charlie, to expand a bit on what PAD said, the problem isn’t so much with the GOP opposing Obama. That’s what they’re supposed to do, as the opposition party.

      But there’s a legimitate way to do opposition, and the GOP has gone far and away past that.

      Case in point: the President has the power to appoint Federal judges as well as heads of various Federal agencies that Congress has created through legislation over the years. But those appointees normally have to be approved by the Senate, unless the Senate is in recess at the time.

      What’s supposed to happen is that, if there are actual, legitimate concerns about an individual appointee, then the Senate can and should debate those concerns, and if they’re found to be real and serious enough, reject the appointee. The President would then have to appoint someone else.

      A relatively recent and famous example of this was in June, 1987, when Reagan appointed (the now-late) then-Circuit Judge Robert Heron Bork to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retiring Justice Lewis Powell. There were indeed legitimate concerns about Bork, and the Senate found them to be real and serious concerns, so they rejected him.

      Reagan then appointed Justice Anthony Kennedy instead, and guess what? The Senate confirmed him unanimously, 97–0, thus showing that their problem was with Bork himself, not with the whole concept of Reagan being allowed to appoint anyone.

      This is not what’s been happening with Obama. The Senate GOP have been filibustering practically every appointment he makes, to any position, no matter who it is. It’s not that they have anything against the appointees themselves other than the fact that Obama appointed them.

      It goes further than even that. Remember the global economic near-collapse of 2008 caused by deregulation of banks and Wall Street? You know, that no banker nor Wall Street was ever even threatened with even a day in jail for very nearly destroying all of human civilization itself just to enrich themselves through extremely unethical means?

      Well, during that brief period when the Democrats had reasonably full control (and even that was only on paper, since unlike the GOP, Democratic Congressmen are actually permitted to vote their own consciences and what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents [as in, y’know, actually do their actual Constitutionally mandated jobs] without being pilloried — a GOP Congressman who tries that quickly gets labeled a “RINO” [an incredibly hypocritical term in and of itself — ask me why if you dare]), Congress took steps to at least try to prevent such a thing from happening again. They created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to provide oversight over financial institutions.

      The Dodd-Frank bill which created this Bureau was legitimately passed. It went through the whole “I’m Just a Bill” process and was signed by President Obama.

      Then Obama tried to appoint someone to head it up. The GOP Senate filibustered that, and anyone and everyone else he tried to appoint. Right from the get-go, they vowed to fight any appointment of anyone to head that agencynot because of any actual concerns about the individual appointees themselves, and not even just because Obama was appointing them.

      It went further than that: their corporate masters didn’t want the CFPB to function (or even to exist). They didn’t want any Government agency overseeing them. They were unable to keep the bill from passing, so instead they prevented (and are still preventing, to this very day) the appointment of anyone to head it up. They publicly vowed to reject any appointee as its Director unless the CFPB was hobbled and effectively gutted.

      Obama was finally able to appoint a director (Richard Cordray) by resorting to a recess appointment. Now you know what the fracas over that was actually about. As Paul Harvey would’ve said, “And now you know — the rest — of the story.”

      A similar issue faced the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which (unlike the CFPB) had legitimately existed for decades dating back to FDR. Three vacancies there also had to be filled via recess appointment because the GOP Senators refused to allow any appointees through, both because Obama appointed them as well as because their corporate masters didn’t want a functioning NLRB to exist.

      1. “— a GOP Congressman who tries that quickly gets labeled a “RINO” [an incredibly hypocritical term in and of itself — ask me why if you dare]”

        Republican- “We’re the inclusive, mainstream of America party unlike the Democrats who (regurgitates long ago debunked Rightwing lie about pro-life Democrats not being allowed to speak at national/nominating conventions) and only claim to be a ‘big tent’ party.”

        -Sees Republican politician who has voted party line the last 50 times finally compromise with the Dems/Obama on a single vote-

        Republican- “That bášŧárd RINO betrayed us! Primary his ášš!”

        We actually had Teapublican idiots around here angry at Eric Cantor because he was a “typical liberal RINO” who “went along with Obama all the time” or “compromised with the enemy” when it came to voting in Congress.

        Yes, those are real quotes from multiple Republicans & Teapublicans in my state and not just from one person.

    4. (This is in Reply to Michael Zorn’s Comment #880308 posted July 27 @ 9:59 pm.)

      First off, even if those polls were reliable (which they’re not — more on that in a bit — but even if they were!), even at its lowest, Obama’s approval rating is still roughly quadruple that of the GOP Congress. According to far more reliable polls, it’s been quintuple recently when the GOP Congress was polling in the single digits.

      The GOP Congress is less popular among the American populace than the IRS, lawyers and bankers in general, the fee-happy airline industry, Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal, the NFL replacement refs during the referee strike, used car salesmen, root canals, colonoscopies, traffic jams, the idea of the USA going full-on communist (not just socialist), Genghis Khan, Hugo Chavez, and cockroaches.

      (They’re still somewhat more popular than lobbyists, playground bullies, Fidel Castro, Lindsay Lohan, gonorrhea, and Ebola, so there’s that.)

      And now, the reason those particular polls aren’t so reliable: they’re from Rasmussen, and Rasmussen has even less credibility left than the GOP Congress has approval. You may recall that they predicted that Romney would win in 2012, and for that matter that McCain would win in 2008. They have a statistical error rating well towards the bottom of the barrel, and are consistently biased towards the GOP and right-wing and conservatism in general.

      But they’re not as bad as Gallup in terms of reliability, though Gallup is less biased.

      This isn’t necessarily indicative of deliberate bias on their part. Some of it seems to be due to outdated methodology, such as only robocalling landlines. Younger people who tend to be more liberal on average are far more likely to be among those who no longer have landlines, having opted to pay only one phone bill and for that to be a mobile phone bill. Landlines are still mainly used by older people who don’t “get” all this newfangled technological stuff, who tend to be more conservative.

      These analyses are from Nate Silver, the statistics whiz who used and analyzed all of the major media polls (including both Rasmussen and Gallup, though he used their error rates and biases in his formulæ as well) to accurately predict numerous elections including a state-for-state exact Electoral Results for 2012.

    5. …”It would only increase division (as if that were possible, given how Obama has divided the country)…”

      That division is going to continue increasing regardless of who our next president is. The media, and how we consume it now, is to blame for that. When I was growing up there were the local news, the newspaper and CNN. Now,we have multiple tv channels and websites dedicated to keep followers of each party in an increasing state of alert. They need you to keep looking, to click links so they can make their money. To do that they need to feed the fanatic mentality. Reporting facts are just minutes of the day and the rest are the “experts”. The editorials and the opinions. They are filtering how you percieve all the political news so you think what they want you to think. The other side is “bad”. If you stop watching something terrible is going to happend and you won’t be able to do anything about it!

      Then perception becomes reality. In the old days politician would pandered to their base and then go on and do backdoor deals to at least move things ahead. But now the base is hyper-aware thanks to twiter, facebook, etc.. All this outlets that are available 24 hours in our phones. If a polititian makes a deal contrary to what their base is about he gets crucified or worst – primaried.

    1. They’re mind boggingly bad word salad, just throwing up crap. It insults the intelligence of anyone with an IQ over room temperature.

      At least for the leaders. And since they’ve instilled a distrust of expertise in their followers, they’re not worried about being gainsaid. That’s why we get such stupid arguments, bereft of facts and totally destroyed by anyone with a casual relationship with the facts (e.g. the number of illegal immigrants in the US steadily WENT DOWN during the years Obama was President. Human pipeline my ášš).

      1. “Human pipeline my ášš.”

        You’re either illiterate, or have had no contact with news of any kind over the last 6 months. There really is a southern border. There really is a huge influx of people, mostly children, from as far away as Honduras and El Salvador, streaming across the border, and being taken to all parts of the country – without anyone bothering to tell the governors or the local authorities about it.

        Do try to keep up.

      2. Do try to keep up.

        And it has been like this since the days of Saint Reagan.

        Yet, for some reason, it’s only an issue now…

  3. Hëll, it would have been totally legitimate because of the whole torture thing.

    But this is, IMHO, just the latest example of the Right monetizing Obama-hate. Trust me, all of these demands and messages calling for impeachment also conveniently have donation requests attached. And the sad part is that they’ll get a good amount of cash out of it too.

  4. The GOP will go forward with impeachment to satisfy their base if they believe that there is no way they can take the White House in 2016 from Hilary Clinton.

    1. If the repubs lose the WH in 2016 after 8 years of Obama, they are done at the Executive level barring a total shift in the party line.

      Whenever I hear the repubs demonize Obama (and he’s not a great president by any stretch), I have to immediately remind them that he still beat the “best” the repubs had to offer, TWICE, and one of those was after 4 years of Obama’s own base getting tired of him not living up to his campaign promises.

      Lesser if two evils is NOT the republican candidate at the national level.

      Both parties are awful, but one is less awful on the human rights sides, and human rights trump financial greed and profit for the already rich….

  5. It’s like the line from The Wild One (I think), “What are you rebelling against?” “What have you got.” And I love how Charlie and his ilk always talk about the “imperial leader” or if Obama reacts to something the GOP says it’s ‘whining.’ That’s just projection, no GOPer is capable of talking back to someone in a higher position than they are unless they rationalize they’re RINO or not loyal. Has anyone of the other party ever denied the birthed idea or any other crackpot theory. And also, if you consider Obama a dictator, you lose all rights to call him ‘weak.’ It’s an oxymoron.

  6. No, not feces, reality. Like many a spoiled brat before him, when confronted and prevented from getting what he wants, he throws a tantrum, and says that he will do it anyway.

    BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAHAH!

    You should give up your day job.

  7. Sez who? I see a GOP effort to sue Obama, and the White House speculating that the GOP might try to impeach Obama, but no partywide impeachment effort.

    Whereas in Wisconsin, the Dems initiated recall efforts (which went to a vote) against Gov. Scott Walker before his first year was up in 2011, based simply on Walker’s policies regarding government employee benefits. That’s what a true party of a**holes does, Peter.

    -Dave

    1. Considering that the recall did go to a vote – which means that a sizable portion of the state’s voters signed off on it – i’d say that the Democrats were doing what their constituents actually wanted done.

      Considering that Walker had (in conjunction with Republican legislators) rammed through legislation that was repugnant to many of the citizens of his state, a recall effort was reasonable.

      And considering that nobody tried to impeach the Shrub over his signing statements – “I don’t like part of this law, so we won’t be enforcing it” and HIS Executive Orders and demonstrable lies that pushed us into an unneeded and immoral war … i really don’t think the GOP has a leg to stand on.

      Especially since Obama’s popularity with the constituency is higher than theirs.

      1. Obama’s popularity has fallen from about 70% in 2008 to about 47% now. And that’s in spite of the MSM sycophantically supporting everything he’s done.

        “Republicans continue to be trusted more by voters on the majority of issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports including major concerns like the economy, government spending and immigration.”
        “Republicans have a 44% to 39% lead in voter trust in that area. Since June 2009, the GOP has led in voter trust on the economy in all but one survey.”
        (Rasmussen)

      2. “Rasmussen Reports “

        Rasmussen Reports has been weighting their numbers for the Republicans for a while now. Rasmussen Reports was among the least accurate pollsters of the 2012 election cycle. Granted, they’re no McLaughlin & Associates, but still…

      3. As usual, attack the messenger when the facts are inconvenient.

        Peter Beagle has written one of the most endearing fantasy novels, and one of the finest short stories ever written (“Bronsky’s Dates With Death”), and I can’t see arguing about inconsequentials in his forum.

    2. That’s what a true party of a**holes does, Peter.

      In Iowa, after the State Supreme Court struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban, áššhølëš, supported by a lot of out of state money and the in-state governor, Branstad, got 3 of the Justices in the decision voted out of office in a retention election, based simply on this one court case.

      Since then, a bunch more states have struck down same-sex marriage bans, and the world has yet to end. Úšhølëš, indeed.

    3. Can you show me even one campaign ad, one campaign website, one line of dialogue from a pre-election interview or a Gubernatorial debate, in which Scott Walker stated that one of his goals if elected Governor would be to dismantle and disempower unions? In other words, can you show me in any way that Walker let the voters of Wisconsin know in advance that that was what he intended to do?

  8. “I’ll take ‘History of U.S. Presidents’ for $2,000, Alex.”

    [musical chime]

    “Ah-ha! The Daily Double! How much of your current winnings do you wish to wager?”

    “All of it, Alex.”

    “Okay, going for double or nothing, I see. And the Answer is: ‘He was the most recent U.S. President to have issued fewer Executive Orders per day in office than Barack Obama has to date.’“

    [quickly presses buzzer button] “Uhm, Who is Grover Cleveland?”

    “That is correct! You’ve doubled your winnings! Yes, as it turns out, you have to go all the way back to the Nineteenth Century to find a President of the USA who has issued fewer Executive Orders per day in office than Barack Obama has so far.”

    1. It is all about context. This fact means nothing without context. For all I know Cleveland’s party had full control of the house and senate. I don’t know and I don’t feel like looking it up but that is beside my point. Heck, for all I know it took longer to draft the executive order back then because they did not have computers. Maybe the amount of executive orders we signs were the most that were humanly possible. These are all exagerations of course but my main point stands: it is all about context.

      1. Yes, I’m sure that Cleveland’s immediate successors in the early Twentieth Century prior to and around the time of WWI and the Spanish Flu, over a generation before WWII, just whipped out their Macbook Air laptops and quickly jotted out EOs.

  9. Wow, Peter makes an original blog post, and it’s a political one, no less, one that results in a considerable thread of responses.

    As Batman said in The Dark Knight Returns, it’s been a while. 🙂

  10. Wait, so if they actually succeed at impeaching him (which I doubt will happen or if they do it will be like what happened to Clinton), does that make Biden president? And if given the chance, would he most likely run for re-election in 2016 instead of quitting and letting other candidates run (namely Hilary Clinton)? Which I guess might give the republicans half a chance to win if they don’t pick the biggest bozo they can find?

    Personally, they’re all full of crap. And it’s a shame that our government has been reduced to these power plays fueled by fake outrage instead of actual governing.

    1. Even if he’s impeached, it doesn’t mean he’ll leave office. But if he did, yes, Biden would become president.

      Even if Biden does seek reelection, it doesn’t necessarily mean that other Dems might not run. Incumbents still need the nomination of the party, and if the party felt Hillary (or some other candidate) stood a better chance of winning, they could decide not to nominate Biden.

    2. Even if the House voted articles of impeachment (essentially the same as a grand jury indicting a suspect), the odds that the Senate would vote for conviction (said conviction requiring a two-thirds supermajority) are roughly equivalent to the odds of Vladamir Putin starting to wear women’s clothing in public: zero. But if they did convict him, he would automatically be removed from office. At that point, Vice President Biden, would become President for the remainder of Obama’s second term.

      1. I forgot to mention: this would leave the VP’s office vacant. My understanding is that President Biden would then nominate a new person to be appointed as VP. That person would need to be confirmed by Senate like a Cabinet position.

        If Biden were impeached for something after the new VP was confirmed, then this new VP would become President. This is pretty much the process that got Gerald Ford into the White House.

      2. There’s also the small matter that, under the Twenty-Second Amendment (the one that the GOP pushed through after FDR served three full terms and part of a fourth, and that cut short only because he died in office), if Obama were somehow impeached, convicted, and removed from office, with less than two full years remaining in his term, then not only would Biden become President and serve out the remaining up to two full years, but that up-to-½-term would not count against him under the 22nd Amendment!

        He would still be eligible to run for and be elected to two more full terms in addition to the up-to-½-term remaining from Obama, for a total of up to a full decade as President!

      3. COMALiteJ,

        Yeah, I know about how the term limits work under our current Constitutional order. I just didn’t want to go through the effort of summarizing it into even a halfway readable fashion. So thanks for that!

  11. So, is this attempt by the legislative branch to sue to the executive branch (has this ever been done before?) merely testing the waters of what these morons think they can get away with?

    I mean, I guess if you’re going to get buried by the hypocrisy of your own party, you might as well keep digging the hole deeper?

    1. They figure if they keep digging deep enough, they’ll come out on top on the other side….

    2. Under the rules of Federal Courts, someone who brings a frivolous suit can be prosecuted.

      We can hope.

  12. You’ve gotta love it.

    The House Republicans, largely the Tea Party Republicans, just killed their own border/immigration bill in the House. Boehner then goes before the cameras, essentially blames Obama for it, and demands that Obama takes unilateral action regardless of what Congress has or has not done.

    So the same asshat that’s the face of the lawsuit against the President for acting without Congress is now telling Obama to act without Congress because the dysfunctional Republicans can’t manage to either govern or actually do their jobs.

    And this is right on the heels of Texas Governor Dukakis… er… I mean Perry… demanding that Obama act without Congress after being one of the Republicans to parrot the “lawless” talking points crap.

    At this point I honestly can’t figure out whether or not these guys are simply clueless or just brainless.

    1. They’re áššhølëš. Úšhølëš relying on a clueless and brainless electorate to keep them in office and the promise of power via the White House in 2 years.

Comments are closed.