Joined January 2024
Meet Buddy Steven’s & Chris Black. They both agree that Jane Doe, myself & all females deserve what they get because they are asking for it when they drink &/or do drugs!!!! It’s shocking to me, given Buddy’s charismatic personality, that he would only have 12 FB friends & why Chris Black is single 😱!!! These boys don’t like to play fair in the sandbox either so feel free to visit their FB pages! Or mine for more context as X won’t allow me to post all my screenshots!!! I tried to warn them that you do not mess with me especially about sexual assault victims! And, thank you Buddy for calling me a CUNT! If that means standing up against boys like you, I’ll gladly wear that title proudly!
1
86
A British writer penned the best description of Donald Trump I’ve ever read: “Why do some British people not like Donald Trump?” A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief. Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty. Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness. There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege. And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down. So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that: • Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are. • You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man. This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump. And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?' If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.” -Nate White
533
4,737
447
13,299
687,891
Hey @berniemoreno, if Natalie Harp were a man & fawning all over 🍊🤡, you bet people would be talking 🤣🤣🤣🤣. Either way, the “optics” are very telling & he’s a “happily” married 🤡🤣🤡. Let’s not forget how he has expressed his disdain for Bill Clinton…hypocrite!!
4
143
Happy Hour & drinks are on the House 🍷
3
65
Can you take the gift and accept my invitation? Only 2 steps, take your free gifts from top-notch activity TEMU Free Gifts and help me get mine! temu.com/a/PShDsKMJ9MP3DNF
3
53
Can you take the gift and accept my invitation? Only 2 steps, take your free gifts from top-notch activity TEMU Free Gifts and help me get mine! temu.com/a/TsxeU078t71zDny
1
46
Can you take the gift and accept my invitation? Only 2 steps, take your free gifts from top-notch activity TEMU Free Gifts and help me get mine! temu.com/a/SOaBwKzIPGkTtNc
1
34
Can you take the gift and accept my invitation? Only 2 steps, take your free gifts from top-notch activity TEMU Free Gifts and help me get mine! temu.com/a/GQkSn5jLtRKlm0
2
28
I could use your help reaching my fundraising goal. Every single share and donation makes a difference. gofund.me/9f6a469d
35
BREAKING: Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor obliterates Donald Trump's lawyer for claiming that his client could legally assassinate political rivals without consequences. Yes. He really said this... "There are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against," Justice Sotomayor said. The arguments were part of the election interference case against Trump and deal with his claim to "presidential immunity." "Now I think... And your answer below I'm going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it..." she went on. "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" she asked Trump's lawyer John Sauer. "It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act," Sauer said. "It could and why? Because he's doing it for personal reasons," Sotomayor responded. "He's not doing it like President Obama is alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist. He's doing it for personal gain." "And isn't that the nature of the allegations here?" she went on. "That he's not doing them, doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility? He's doing it for personal gain." Sauer then claimed that Trump's indictment "confirms immunity because the characterization is that there's a series of official acts that were done for an unlawful or improper—" "No, because immunity says even if you did it for personal gain, we won't hold you responsible," Sotomayor interjected. "How could that be?" She pointed out that "the Founders actually talked about whether to grant immunity to the president, and in fact, they had state constitutions that granted some criminal immunity to governors, and yet, they didn't take it up." "Instead they passed an Impeachment Clause that basically says that you can't remove the president from office except by a trial in the Senate but you can impeach him after," said Sotomayor. "We would be creating a situation in which we would be saying is — this is what you're asking us to say — which is that a president is entitled not to make a mistake, but more than that, a president is entitled for total personal gain to use the trappings of his office. That's what you're trying to get us to hold without facing criminal liability." Sotomayor is absolutely correct and any sane person can see it. If we grant presidents total immunity they will become absolute dictators, insulated from the law and so encouraged to break it. Please retweet and ❤️ if you totally oppose granting presidents legal immunity for crimes — and consider joining the growing exodus to Tribel, a new pro-democracy social network that is exploding in popularity because Twitter and Facebook are trying to stop its growth — which is only making Tribel grow even faster. Please follow us on Tribel to get all of our breaking news alerts sent straight to your phone or computer by clicking the following link: tribel.app.link/okwPIHYCIqb
641
3,959
176
10,575
447,109