🔥 Popular | 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
Save
Butt, Community, and Crush: penfairy I visited the museum and I heard two bros in the dinosaur exhibit having an earnest discussion about the best way to kill a T-Rex with a sword and what kind of armour should be worn into the battle and they spoke with such passion I really wish the scientific community could have heard them. I'd love to know how palaeontologists would weigh in on The Great Debate penfairy For instance, was the bro in the weed shorts right? is it pointless to wear heavy armour when battling a T-Rex? Is it truly better to go into battle naked wielding dual swords? Or was the bro in the backwards cap correct? Should you go for a double-handed sword and iron armour? Will light bouncing off the armour really confuse and blind the beast? Realistically, what protection is armour against a dinosaur? Was Weed Shorts right when he proposed to use his superior agility to slash its tendons and stab the eyes when he brought it down? Or was Backwards Cap right when he said charge and slash open its sot belly?? What is the truth??17? excessively-english-little-b Hello, palaeontologist-in-training herel Thought I'd have a litte think into this because hey, who wants to do coursework on trilobites when you could be considering T, rex instead? Light and maneuverable is probably best when facing a rex. It's big and t's powerful but it's not going to making any quick sharp tums any time soon. According to our current estimates, a T rex would be able to crush a small car with its jaws, so realistically, no amount of armour is gonna protect you if it grabs you If the T. rex manages to grab you you re dead regardless. It could probably eat you within a couple of bites if it was trying Figures 1 & 2: Theoretical T. rex bite-force model fucking up a mini. Thank you, Bill Oddie and BBC's The Truth About Killer Dinosaurs. As far as armour goes, lighter is better, and at the end of the day isn't going to mean shit anyway. T rex can't slash at you with claws, so it's bite or bust, and if it bites YOU'RE bust So, lets say a point to Weed Shorts. Why NOT fight a T rex butt naked with swords T rex had good binocular vision. Dont believe Jurassic Park's lies-T rex was a hunter and could probably see you brilliantly whether you moved or not. " .That said, a T rex's eyesight will work about the same as modem birds of prey. Think hawk, or eagle. I reckon light bouncing off anything would be a fairly minor hindrance, or at least, wouldn't affect it any more than any other hunting bird. So, using light to blind and confuse the rex? May potentially work but might be hard and wouldn't do much for long. Don't rely on this for strategy τ rex actually had gastralia, sometimes called 'belly-ribs. protected and supported the internal organs. There would also be some seriously thick abdominal muscles to get through. Unless you're planning to do some precision stabbing with a very long sword, chances are you're not gonna be killing a rex by slicing open it's stomach. Also, being under its stomach is gonna put you in-reach of the Jaws of Death. These " I'm not sure how easy it would be, or how well it would work, to try and cut a T rex's tendons. Theoretically, sounds like it should work. However you're gonna need a lot of strength to get through them, probably I'd personally cut the throat rather than stab through the eyes once the rex is down, but that's probably personal preference. Once you've felled it, it's dead either wayl A T. rex unable to hunt is a dead T rex . Gastralia Figure 3: The gastralia of a T. rex. Bless u Scott Hartman for your skeletal As far as attack goes, the belly is not as weak a s pot as it seems. So, point to Weed Shorts on his execution plan. Sounds pretty solid. Overall, I'd say that Weed Shorts had the best plan to defeat the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex. If you ever see him again, congratulate him on his solid plan of attack My favorite thing about paleontologists (and any scientist really, but paleontologists in particular) is that you can ask them COMPLETELY BATSHIT INSANE questions and by God, they will give you a completely Serious answer Source penfairy move it #trex #dinosaurs #go for the throat is how wolverine did it #science side of tumblr So you need to sword fight a T. rex
Save