Seriously, there are actually people this clueless. Usually the same ones who can't find Canada on a map :-/

Yeah coz he's got disqualified and stuff, which means the runner up gets to wear the miss america crown.

He is not actually impeached yet:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats?fbclid=IwAR1mGk4k2ibIE7esoutQgcTyRWL9sBxulP7inUbNZf2xTwcciWq1gctedvM

Ah, I can see you're confused on how impeachment works.

No, Hillary is not President. Trump is. However, now that he has been impeached, he will forever be remembered by History for being one of three Presidents to be impeached by the House of Representatives. Whether or not History will say he was fairly treated is not certain, at this point. It appears that many have very strong opinions on this matter that they're blinded to the evidence they are constantly provided on whether or not it is enough to remove him from office.

Further, because of the hugely partisan congress, it is very unlikely that Trump will be removed from office at all. Democrats are partisan in their efforts, but are trying to uphold the rules of impeachment while Republicans believe they're trying to undermine the 2020 election. So, Republicans are partisan in their efforts as well, but have brazenly come forward in their defense of the President who they believe may not have received an impartial vote from House Democrats.

Hillary will never again run for President. Her time was up. If you didn't vote for her in 2016, then you lost your chance to vote for her ever again. Losing to Donald Trump was such a political disaster that no matter how many good qualities you may believe she had as a leader, are outweighed by her inability to connect with voters, and to seem less corrupt and dangerous than even Donald Trump. She did win the popular vote, but Presidents are not elected by such logical endorsements since we're a republic with rules and regulations that support rich landowners and they would feel threatened today, especially with this increasingly hostile attitude to giving tax breaks to the rich, if that privilege was at all violated. In fact, many argue that we might face a total economic collapse without them.

Actually, he’s not even impeached yet ha ha

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats?fbclid=IwAR1mGk4k2ibIE7esoutQgcTyRWL9sBxulP7inUbNZf2xTwcciWq1gctedvM

A mild technicality. I doubt Democrats would go through all this trouble to not go through with it. I suspect they're trying to appeal to Mitch McConnell or perhaps attempting to remove him somehow. I doubt they'll succeed in any scenario.

Hey everyone, I read this hilariously retarded essay so you wouldn't have to waste your time. I'll copy paste the most retarded thing this inbred potlicker wrote for your entertainment:

"She did win the popular vote, Presidents are not elected by such logical endorsements since we're a republic with rules and regulations that support rich landowners and they would feel threatened today."

This dumbf**k actually just called the millions of rural and suburban Americans not living in garbage and shit encrusted hellpits like San Francisco and Chicago "rich landowners" lol

Never change, Dr Double-Y, never change lolol

Merry Christmas

You understand I agree with most of that, right?

It matters not if you agree with facts. If you see someone who have the facts wrong, correct them without mocking them. If they choose to ignore you, then they have chosen ignorance. If you don’t feel it’s your responsibility to correct them, then leave them in ignorance and focus on bettering yourself.

Mocking people for being stupid accomplishes nothing.

It's called satire. It has a rich history from the Greeks to Swift to modern political cartoons.

You seem not to have read the title on the page. Someone here in fact actually assembled a dozen posts of people out there in internet land SAYING EXACTLY THIS THING.

If your skin is sensitive to satire, the politics thread on a meme website is not for you. Back to your
"safe space."

Careful, you're matching witts with a Harvard law professor/genesis mastermind. 😉

I don’t think my credentials are that impressive. I just like to read. Books preferably.

Yes, I saw the meme of tweets. Posted too. Asked if the ages of those who tweeted such nonsense were older than twenty.

Satire as all well and good, but I don’t revel in the ignorance of my fellow Americans. I take no offense to your actions. You’re free to do as you like but again, it accomplishes nothing.

Sure it does. It exposes the shallowness and manipulability of mobs.

You can't fix an ignorance problem that you deny exists.

I did not say it doesn’t exist. I would be awfully silent if ignorance was not an issue.

Exposure of mob mentality by applying mob mentality to it. An interesting idea but I fail to see what it actually accomplishes. You cannot remove mob mentality by exposing it. It’s a long and arduous process that takes a great deal of patience, sympathy, and persistence.

I can see why you’d think humbling them to be personally satisfying but unfortunately people are too fanatical to see their fanaticism even when it’s satirized.

Intellegent observation of mental deficiency is not mob mentality.

I think your every objection there was answered in my preceding post, which I will now attempt to summarize in three extremely simplified bite-sized chunks:

1. Satire.
2. Meme website.
3. Social criticism of foibles is intrinsically constructive.

'Night.

I disagree that your meme was intelligent observation. A social criticism, yes, but not at all constructive. It’s a deconstruction of your perspective of those who’ve stupidly believe Trump is removed by the House’s articles of impeachment vote alone. Is it inaccurate? Sadly, it is not.

If it is not inaccurate, then criticism of it is per se constructive.

I find it difficult to believe you have difficulty with those three simple and to me self-evident points. So be it.

@Dr Strangelove: So you admit you have a double standard. Satirizing a president is okay, but satirizing people whose objections to him might be rooted in comical ignorance is not.

I consider that a point of really no further discussion necessary or pointful.

Accuracy does not denote whether or not criticism is constructive. Constructive criticisms relies on your intent to build-up rather than mock. There is nothing inherently wrong in this deconstruction as most memes are a deconstructional criticism anyway.

It is my personal opinion that it is petty to make memes about people’s ignorance and celebrating it. It seems much more useful deconstructing a group of people who have all the power but are ignorant in the issues of the common people. Which, I thought, was the whole point of satirizing politics.