Donald Trump

see more Donal Trump Memes, Donald Teump Memes, D Trump Memes from Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter & More. 
Related to:  Trumpdonald Com Memes, J Trump Memes, Donald Trump4 Memes
Blank
Blank

Blank

executive
executive

executive

imgflip
imgflip

imgflip

America
America

America

Image
Image

Image

executive order
executive order

executive order

template
template

template

Happy
Happy

Happy

cnn.com
cnn.com

cnn.com

Taxes
Taxes

Taxes

🔥 | Latest

Donald Trump, Megan, and World Cup: Megan Donald Trump watches the United States win the Womens World Cup Final (2019)
Donald Trump, Megan, and World Cup: Megan Donald Trump watches the United States win the Womens World Cup Final (2019)

Donald Trump watches the United States win the Womens World Cup Final (2019)

Abc, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump: @KyleKulinski First it was Fox NewS & everybody scoffed, then it was Rasmussen & people said it doesn't count, now it's ABC/ WaPo 2016 GENERAL ELECTION VOTE PREFERENCE AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS 70% 60 Hillary Clinton 50% 50% 501 46% 46% 40 43% 44% 44% 41% Donald Trump 30 20 9/10/15 12/13/15 3/6/16 NOW abc NEWS SOURCE ABC News/Washington Post poll Bernae samhwils How to defeat Trump in November? Make sure Bernie Sanders has the Democratic nomination, not #RiskyHillary General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Sanders (D) +10.8 39.5 Trump (R) RCP POLL AVERAGE General vs. Clinton 43.4 Trump (R) +0.2 43.2 Clinton (D) POLITICS REAL POLITICS S Election: Trump 54 52 50 48 46 50 48 46 42 42 40 38 40 -10 -15 -20 15 10 March April May 5/23/16, 1:49 AM 121 RETWEETS 141 LIKES RCP POLL AVERAGE General Election: Trump(D) +10.8 vs. Sanders 50.3 REAL CLEAR Sanders 39.5 Trump (R) 54 52 50 48 46 42 40 38 15 10 5 March April May REAL CLEAR POLITICS RCP POLL AVERAGE General Election: Trump vs. Clinton 43.4 Trump (R) +0.2 43.2 Clinton (D) 50 48 46 42 40 0 -10 15 20 March April May 121 <? 141 c-bassmeow: There is now one democrat who can beat Trump, and it isn’t Hillary Clinton. Establishment democrats: you are shooting yourselves in the foot by insisting that she is electable. She can’t even beat a reality tv star who wants to have sex with his own daughter. There are now multiple independent polls proving her weakness and Donald’s slow climb up the polls. He is now turning to the center making himself more appealing to moderates. Vote Hillary if you want to have a president Trump. Vote for Bernie Sanders if you want a different outcome. Your cognitive dissonance can only take you so far, reality doesn’t care. :) hey Democrats it’s me again. vote for Bernie or else we are fucked.
Abc, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump: @KyleKulinski First it was Fox NewS & everybody scoffed, then it was Rasmussen & people said it doesn't count, now it's ABC/ WaPo 2016 GENERAL ELECTION VOTE PREFERENCE AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS 70% 60 Hillary Clinton 50% 50% 501 46% 46% 40 43% 44% 44% 41% Donald Trump 30 20 9/10/15 12/13/15 3/6/16 NOW abc NEWS SOURCE ABC News/Washington Post poll Bernae samhwils How to defeat Trump in November? Make sure Bernie Sanders has the Democratic nomination, not #RiskyHillary General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Sanders (D) +10.8 39.5 Trump (R) RCP POLL AVERAGE General vs. Clinton 43.4 Trump (R) +0.2 43.2 Clinton (D) POLITICS REAL POLITICS S Election: Trump 54 52 50 48 46 50 48 46 42 42 40 38 40 -10 -15 -20 15 10 March April May 5/23/16, 1:49 AM 121 RETWEETS 141 LIKES RCP POLL AVERAGE General Election: Trump(D) +10.8 vs. Sanders 50.3 REAL CLEAR Sanders 39.5 Trump (R) 54 52 50 48 46 42 40 38 15 10 5 March April May REAL CLEAR POLITICS RCP POLL AVERAGE General Election: Trump vs. Clinton 43.4 Trump (R) +0.2 43.2 Clinton (D) 50 48 46 42 40 0 -10 15 20 March April May 121 <? 141 c-bassmeow: There is now one democrat who can beat Trump, and it isn’t Hillary Clinton. Establishment democrats: you are shooting yourselves in the foot by insisting that she is electable. She can’t even beat a reality tv star who wants to have sex with his own daughter. There are now multiple independent polls proving her weakness and Donald’s slow climb up the polls. He is now turning to the center making himself more appealing to moderates. Vote Hillary if you want to have a president Trump. Vote for Bernie Sanders if you want a different outcome. Your cognitive dissonance can only take you so far, reality doesn’t care. :) hey Democrats it’s me again. vote for Bernie or else we are fucked.

c-bassmeow: There is now one democrat who can beat Trump, and it isn’t Hillary Clinton. Establishment democrats: you are shooting yourselve...

America, Candy, and Children: If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful? That's our Syrian refugee problem. TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! PENCE 2010 Donald Trump Jr. @Donald.TrumpJr·4h 5.8K 8.4K This image says it all. Let's end the politically correct agenda that doesn't put America first. freedomjusticewarrior: yahooentertainment: lmao😂/smh🙄 Eli Bosnick had the best response to this ridiculousness. “If I gave you a bowl of skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?” “Are the other skittles human lives?” “What?” “Like. Is there a good chance. A really good chance. I would be saving someone from a war zone and probably their life if I ate a skittle?” “Well sure. But the point-” “I would eat the skittles.” “Ok-well the point is-” “I would GORGE myself on skittles. I would eat every single fucking skittle I could find. I would STUFF myself with skittles. And when I found the poison skittle and died I would make sure to leave behind a legacy of children and of friends who also ate skittle after skittle until there were no skittles to be eaten. And each person who found the poison skittle we would weep for. We would weep for their loss, for their sacrifice, and for the fact that they did not let themselves succumb to fear but made the world a better place by eating skittles. Because your REAL question…the one you hid behind a shitty little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor is, IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND TERRIFIED CHILDREN… … and what kind of monster would think the answer to that question… is yes?”
America, Candy, and Children: If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful? That's our Syrian refugee problem. TRUMP MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! PENCE 2010 Donald Trump Jr. @Donald.TrumpJr·4h 5.8K 8.4K This image says it all. Let's end the politically correct agenda that doesn't put America first. freedomjusticewarrior: yahooentertainment: lmao😂/smh🙄 Eli Bosnick had the best response to this ridiculousness. “If I gave you a bowl of skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?” “Are the other skittles human lives?” “What?” “Like. Is there a good chance. A really good chance. I would be saving someone from a war zone and probably their life if I ate a skittle?” “Well sure. But the point-” “I would eat the skittles.” “Ok-well the point is-” “I would GORGE myself on skittles. I would eat every single fucking skittle I could find. I would STUFF myself with skittles. And when I found the poison skittle and died I would make sure to leave behind a legacy of children and of friends who also ate skittle after skittle until there were no skittles to be eaten. And each person who found the poison skittle we would weep for. We would weep for their loss, for their sacrifice, and for the fact that they did not let themselves succumb to fear but made the world a better place by eating skittles. Because your REAL question…the one you hid behind a shitty little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor is, IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND TERRIFIED CHILDREN… … and what kind of monster would think the answer to that question… is yes?”

freedomjusticewarrior: yahooentertainment: lmao😂/smh🙄 Eli Bosnick had the best response to this ridiculousness. “If I gave you a bowl of s...

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: ...