🔥 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
Ass, Bad, and Chill: Citizen of Arcterra @PhilodoxPils Svar till @_hoemo Nazis: Let's commit genocide. Antifa: Let's not. BLM: Please stop shooting us. Centrist: I cannot tell these apart officially-kim-jung-un: siryouarebeingmocked: kamiyu910: the-darkest-of-souls: nazis: lets commit genocide Antifa: lets dismantle our current government and instigate a horrendous for of government that commits mass murder and genocide for other reasons while using facist methods to try and silence other people  BLM: lies, lies, lies, bullshit riots, and cop shooting centrist: everyone needs to chill the fuck out  Nazis: “The Jews are too privileged, they have too much power, they’re oppressing the German people!” SJWs (AntiFa, BLM, etc): “The whites are too privileged, they have too much power, they’re oppressing the non-white people!” “Hitler’s first written utterance on political questions dating from this period emphasized that what he called “the anti-Semitism of reason” must lead “to the systematic combating and elimination of Jewish privileges. Its ultimate goal must implacably be the total removal of the Jews.“” “…the vile, anti-Semitic propaganda of the 1930’s, when splashed across Der Spiegel was blaming Jews - and so called disproportionate Jewish wealth - for Germany’s losing WWI and the country’s subsequent economic downturn. Canards about Jews controlling world finances - first promulgated by the Tsarist forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” - was anti-Semitic back then and it is anti-Semitic today…” Why are these considered only bad if “white” is turned to something else? It’s the same rhetoric that the nazis spread. Why should we consider anyone who uses this any better than the nazis, when they said the same stuff?  Someone defending Antifa or BLM deliberately ignores what they actually flippin’ do. Take a shot. remember that time a guy did an experiment where he did an entire speech at an antifa rally using only hitler quotes and everyone cheered I’m screaming Antifa is literally a terrorist group “let’s just not commit genocide” my ass
Save
Children, Doctor, and Family: Celeste Wohl Pantsuit Nation 39 mins Talked to my husband about this being the time to share my story. He agreed it is time. In 1985 1 wasn't feeling well and the doctor did a battery of tests/ bloodwork. It turned out I was pregnant. I had always wanted a large family (8 kids). I had a two year old at home and had suffered miscarriages before she was born. I was sent to a specialist because it was felt there was something wrong. Off I went to the specialist; he was even a fertility doctor and surgeon Basically he said yes your pregnant, yes something is very wrong and We don't believe you and the baby will survive the pregnancy. The recommendation was an abortion. I was traumatized. One part of me thought if I had enough faith l should just risk it all and stay pregnant. Then there was the mental discussion of okay- so my choices are stay pregnant and possibly die and leave my daughter without a mother or stay pregnant and both the baby and I die or what if by some miracle the baby survived I could end up leaving two children motherless Thinking through scenarios was and is its own form of torture. Then one evening I looked into my 2 yr old daughter's eyes and she giggled at me and I knew the answer. How could l possibly consider not watching her grow up? How could I intentionally leave her without a mother. She had not asked to be brought into this world so abandoning her was not an option. I equate death with abandonment in this situatiorn I am from a religion that believes the soul enters the body with the first breath. It did not make my decision any easier. A part of me still felt like I was turning my back on G-d by not trvina to stav pregnant I had the abortion. The week before protestors had broken into the clinic rooms while the doctor and nurses were with patients, The protesters wreaked medical havoc. I honestly don't remember if they interrupted fertilization procedures or something else lt was terrifying going to the clinic. The abortions that were scheduled that day were insanely early in the morning and each patient had a special code word. I had to knock at a specified time. The other women there (all three of us) looked equally terrified During the abortion the doctor told me I had made the right decision because the baby had stopped developing. Once all the rest of the tests came back we found out why the baby was not developing. I had uterine cancer. To weeks later I had a hysterectomy to save my life. A few years ago, after sharing my story with a close friend and lay minister, she pointed something out to me I had never thought of. She told me that maybe G-d had sent the pregnancy(baby) to me to save my life. Without the pregnancy we never would have found the cancer Here is what I know. I have told this story maybe 1/2 a dozen times. The telling does not make it easier. Knowing that both the baby and I would have been dead doesn't make it any easie How much worse would the process have been if abortion was illegal? Anytime someone tells me no abortion under any circumstances I want to yell in their face they are advocating that my daughter grow up motherless My name is Celeste Wohl. This is my story. If it helps anyone please share it. As women we have inalienable rights and the right to be a person Il'm sorry about the typos but I'm not proofreading this it was hard enough to write
Save