Your
Your

Your

Died
Died

Died

From
From

From

The
The

The

Your So Pretty
Your So Pretty

Your So Pretty

Pregnant Wife
Pregnant Wife

Pregnant Wife

So Pretty
So Pretty

So Pretty

Prevention
Prevention

Prevention

And
And

And

Whoree
Whoree

Whoree

🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Being Alone, Beautiful, and Cats: The 10O Most Beautiful Words in Ailurophile: A cat-lover emblage: A gathering. Becoming: Attr Beleaguer: To exhaust with attacks Brood: To think alone ng Bungalow: A small, cozy cottage Chatoyant: Like a cat's eye ely: Attractive Conflate: To blend together Cynosure: A focal point of admiration. Dalliance: A brief love affair Demesne: Dominion, territory Demure: Shy and reserved Denouement: The resolution of a mystery Desuetude: Disuse. Desultory: Slow, sluggish. Diaphanous: Filmy Dissemble ive Dulcet: Sweet, sugary. Ebullience: Bubbling enthusiasm. Effervescent: Bubbly Efflorescence: Flowering, blooming. Elision: Dropping a sound or syllable in a word r: Eloquence: Beauty and persuasion in speech. Embrocation: Rubbing on a lotion. Emollient: A softener Ephemeral: Short-lived Epiphany: A sudden revelation. Erstwhile: At one time, for a time Ethereal: Gaseous, invisible but detectable Evanescent: Vanishing quickly, lasting a very short time Evocative: Suggestive Fetching:Pretty Felicity: Pleasantness Forbearance: Withholding response to provocation. Fugacious: Fleeting hifty, sneaky Gambol: To skip or leap about joyfully Glamour: Beauty. Gossamer: The finest piece of thread, a spider's silk n: Harbinger: Messenger with news of the future Imbrication: Overlapping and forming a regular pattern. Imbroglio: An altercation or complicated situation. Imbue: To infuse, instill. Incipient: Beginning, in an early stage Ineffable: Unutterable, inexpressible Ingénue: A naive young woman. Inglenook: A cozy nook by the hearth. Insouciance: Blithe nonchalance Inure: To become jaded Labyrinthine: Twisting and turning Lagniappe: A special kind of gift. Lagoon: A small gulf or inlet. Languor: Listlessness, inactivity Lassitude: Weariness, listlessness. Lilt: To move musically or lively Lissome: Slender and graceful. Lithe: Slender and flexible. ve Mellifluous: Sweet sounding. Moiety: One of two equal parts. Mondegreen: A slip of the ear Murmurous: Murmuring Nemesis:An unconquerable archenemy Offing: The sea between the horizon and the offshore Onomatopoeia: A word that sounds like its meaning Opulent: Lush, luxuriant. Palimpsest: A manuscript written over earlier ones Panacea: A solution for all problems Panoply: A complete set. Pastiche: An art work combining materials from various sources. Penumbra: A half-shadow Petrichor: The smell of earth after rain. Plethora:A large quantity. Propinquity: An inclination. Pyrrhic: Successful with heavy losses. Quintessential: Most essential Ratatouille: A spicy French stew. Ravel: To knit or unknit. Redolent: Fragrant. Riparian: By the bank of a stream. Ripple: A very small wave Scintilla: A spark or very small thing Sempiternal: Eternal Seraglio: Rich, luxurious oriental palace or harem. Serendipity: Finding something nice while looking for something else Summery: Light, delicate or warm and sunny Sumptuous: Lush, luxurious. Surreptitious: Secretive, sneaky Susquehanna: A river in Pennsylvania Susurrous: Whispering, hissing Talisman: A good luck charm. Tintinnabulation: Tinkling. Umbrella: Protection from sun or rain. Untoward: Unseemly, inappropriate. Vestigial: In trace amounts Wafture: Waving Wherewithal: The means. Woebegone: Sorrowful, downcast THE META PICTURE laughoutloud-club: Beautiful English Words
Being Alone, Beautiful, and Cats: The 10O Most Beautiful
 Words in
 Ailurophile: A cat-lover
 emblage: A gathering.
 Becoming: Attr
 Beleaguer: To exhaust with attacks
 Brood: To think alone
 ng
 Bungalow: A small, cozy cottage
 Chatoyant: Like a cat's eye
 ely: Attractive
 Conflate: To blend together
 Cynosure: A focal point of admiration.
 Dalliance: A brief love affair
 Demesne: Dominion, territory
 Demure: Shy and reserved
 Denouement: The resolution of a mystery
 Desuetude: Disuse.
 Desultory: Slow, sluggish.
 Diaphanous: Filmy
 Dissemble
 ive
 Dulcet: Sweet, sugary.
 Ebullience: Bubbling enthusiasm.
 Effervescent: Bubbly
 Efflorescence: Flowering, blooming.
 Elision: Dropping a sound or syllable in a word
 r:
 Eloquence: Beauty and persuasion in speech.
 Embrocation: Rubbing on a lotion.
 Emollient: A softener
 Ephemeral: Short-lived
 Epiphany: A sudden revelation.
 Erstwhile: At one time, for a time
 Ethereal: Gaseous, invisible but detectable
 Evanescent: Vanishing quickly, lasting a very short time
 Evocative: Suggestive
 Fetching:Pretty
 Felicity: Pleasantness
 Forbearance: Withholding response to provocation.
 Fugacious: Fleeting
 hifty, sneaky
 Gambol: To skip or leap about joyfully
 Glamour: Beauty.
 Gossamer: The finest piece of thread, a spider's silk
 n:
 Harbinger: Messenger with news of the future
 Imbrication: Overlapping and forming a regular pattern.
 Imbroglio: An altercation or complicated situation.
 Imbue: To infuse, instill.
 Incipient: Beginning, in an early stage
 Ineffable: Unutterable, inexpressible
 Ingénue: A naive young woman.
 Inglenook: A cozy nook by the hearth.
 Insouciance: Blithe nonchalance
 Inure: To become jaded
 Labyrinthine: Twisting and turning
 Lagniappe: A special kind of gift.
 Lagoon: A small gulf or inlet.
 Languor: Listlessness, inactivity
 Lassitude: Weariness, listlessness.
 Lilt: To move musically or lively
 Lissome: Slender and graceful.
 Lithe: Slender and flexible.
 ve
 Mellifluous: Sweet sounding.
 Moiety: One of two equal parts.
 Mondegreen: A slip of the ear
 Murmurous: Murmuring
 Nemesis:An unconquerable archenemy
 Offing: The sea between the horizon and the offshore
 Onomatopoeia: A word that sounds like its meaning
 Opulent: Lush, luxuriant.
 Palimpsest: A manuscript written over earlier ones
 Panacea: A solution for all problems
 Panoply: A complete set.
 Pastiche: An art work combining materials from various sources.
 Penumbra: A half-shadow
 Petrichor: The smell of earth after rain.
 Plethora:A large quantity.
 Propinquity: An inclination.
 Pyrrhic: Successful with heavy losses.
 Quintessential: Most essential
 Ratatouille: A spicy French stew.
 Ravel: To knit or unknit.
 Redolent: Fragrant.
 Riparian: By the bank of a stream.
 Ripple: A very small wave
 Scintilla: A spark or very small thing
 Sempiternal: Eternal
 Seraglio: Rich, luxurious oriental palace or harem.
 Serendipity: Finding something nice while looking for something else
 Summery: Light, delicate or warm and sunny
 Sumptuous: Lush, luxurious.
 Surreptitious: Secretive, sneaky
 Susquehanna: A river in Pennsylvania
 Susurrous: Whispering, hissing
 Talisman: A good luck charm.
 Tintinnabulation: Tinkling.
 Umbrella: Protection from sun or rain.
 Untoward: Unseemly, inappropriate.
 Vestigial: In trace amounts
 Wafture: Waving
 Wherewithal: The means.
 Woebegone: Sorrowful, downcast
 THE META PICTURE
laughoutloud-club:

Beautiful English Words

laughoutloud-club: Beautiful English Words

Drinking, Iphone, and Money: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC He can stay, he can go. He can be impeached, or voted out in 2020 But removing Trump will not remove the infrastructure of an entire party that embraced him; the dark money that funded him; the online radicalization that drummed his army; nor the racism he amplitied +reanimated 11:00 AM 3/24/19 Twitter for iPhone sliceosunshine: drinking-tea-at-midnight: typhlonectes: AOC. sure, but not having him front and center will hurt a lot of this and at the very least stop him from making things worse and allow us to actively work towards improving things. This almost kinda feels like “getting rid of the cancer won’t solve the environment that allowed the cancer to happen in the first place.” I can get how that tweet feels like that! Especially since it’s on its own here, pulled out of its original context. Originally, it was part 2/3 in response to this tweet: So in response to the question “How did a guy like this get elected?” (and the implied “How do we prevent someone like this being elected again?”) The representative said this: (x) I can understand why OP pulled the one tweet that they did, since it is, by itself, a good insight that received more attention than even the start of the thread. But it’s getting a “diagnosis” without the proposed “solution” which can make it seem like a hollow insight 
Drinking, Iphone, and Money: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
 @AOC
 He can stay, he can go. He can be
 impeached, or voted out in 2020
 But removing Trump will not remove the
 infrastructure of an entire party that
 embraced him; the dark money that
 funded him; the online radicalization
 that drummed his army; nor the racism
 he amplitied +reanimated
 11:00 AM 3/24/19 Twitter for iPhone
sliceosunshine:
drinking-tea-at-midnight:

typhlonectes:
AOC.
sure, but not having him front and center will hurt a lot of this and at the very least stop him from making things worse and allow us to actively work towards improving things.
This almost kinda feels like “getting rid of the cancer won’t solve the environment that allowed the cancer to happen in the first place.”

I can get how that tweet feels like that! Especially since it’s on its own here, pulled out of its original context. Originally, it was part 2/3 in response to this tweet:
So in response to the question “How did a guy like this get elected?” (and the implied “How do we prevent someone like this being elected again?”) The representative said this:
(x)
I can understand why OP pulled the one tweet that they did, since it is, by itself, a good insight that received more attention than even the start of the thread. But it’s getting a “diagnosis” without the proposed “solution” which can make it seem like a hollow insight 

sliceosunshine: drinking-tea-at-midnight: typhlonectes: AOC. sure, but not having him front and center will hurt a lot of this and at the v...