Be careful or you will lose credibility.sweet jesus.
(not whining, just exasperation)
or worse, i may force someone to support trump against their will.Be careful or you will lose credibility.
And since you specifically said it was whiny I specifically pointed out how it wasn't whiny.Well, since the mocking thread title is specifically what I mentioned about the OP...
Not in the same stratosphere means.......? Come on little fella, you can figure this one out!So, your contention is that widespread corruption did not exist in the Federal Government, that massive overspending wasn't occurring, and that - for example - children weren't being separated from the parents by INS under Obama?
So, as long as it isn't quite as bad and the President has a "D" by his name, you're okay with significant levels of corruption and violations of human rights. Gotcha.And since you specifically said it was whiny I specifically pointed out how it wasn't whiny.
Not in the same stratosphere means.......? Come on little fella, you can figure this one out!
How you got that from his posts is beyond me. Good grief.So, as long as it isn't quite as bad and the President has a "D" by his name, you're okay with significant levels of corruption and violations of human rights. Gotcha.
How you got that from his posts is beyond me. good grief.
Nope, I'm not. You're whining louder than anyone here.You're confusing whining with mocking derision.
Now that sounds a little whiny.So, as long as it isn't quite as bad and the President has a "D" by his name, you're okay with significant levels of corruption and violations of human rights. Gotcha.
If you look at the big picture....best analogy I can think of is America is having a root canal done!The day to day stuff coming out of the WH is so insane that this doesn't even register on the radar of the news media. Just insane.
He didn't say it wasn't "quite as bad" under Obama he said it wasn't in the same stratosphere. And its not in the same stratosphere at least as long as you keep out the crazy conspiracy theories.So, as long as it isn't quite as bad and the President has a "D" by his name, you're okay with significant levels of corruption and violations of human rights. Gotcha.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/21/17488454/scott-pruitt-tactical-pants-scandalThe latest and greatest in the never-ending scandals of Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt: “tactical pants.”
The Intercept reported on Wednesday evening that as part of the EPA’s eye-popping $4.6 million in taxpayer dollars spent on security, the administrator’s office had spent nearly $3,000 on “tactical pants” and “tactical polos.”
Records released under the Freedom of Information Act list expenditures totaling $288,610 on a range of security-related items. The EPA, according to three expense line items for April, spent a total of $2,749.62 on “tactical pants” and “tactical polos.”
Pruitt’s office spent $24,115 on a variety of tactical clothing and body armor in seven separate orders. All of the tactical gear was purchased in 2018, more than a year into Pruitt’s tenure as EPA chief. The agency spent a staggering $88,603 on radios and accessories, including holsters and travel chargers.
According to the expense records, Pruitt’s office also spent $150,900 on leasing vehicles. The list of expenditures does not break down how many vehicles were leased or any specific details about them, but the rate is considerably higher than past expenses along these lines. By contrast, when Pruitt received an upgraded Chevy Suburban with bullet-resistant seats, the one-year lease for that vehicle cost $10,200.
As the New York Times reported in late May, Pruitt is spending nearly twice as much money on security as EPA administrators who served under President Barack Obama.