🔥 Popular | Latest

ao3tagoftheday: mossrose10: ao3tagoftheday: tinnitusismymuse: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tag reading “My US Gov class did not prepare me to write this fic”] The AO3 Tag of the Day is: Congress right now Are Supreme Court decisions just Constitution fandom discourse? Your third eye is wide open tonight, friend. I think you have a point there. They write fanon based heavily in canon (the Constitution), Extended Universe documents (information about original meaning and intention, history, etc), and existing fanon (precedence). They also get the right to say if new fan theories (new laws, etc) should be considered viable or if they’re canon divergent or AU (unconstitutional). And we thought some of our fandom showdowns were intense! I will pay actual money for a summary of the US political system in fannish terminology.: My US Gov class did not prepare me to write this fic, ao3tagoftheday: mossrose10: ao3tagoftheday: tinnitusismymuse: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tag reading “My US Gov class did not prepare me to write this fic”] The AO3 Tag of the Day is: Congress right now Are Supreme Court decisions just Constitution fandom discourse? Your third eye is wide open tonight, friend. I think you have a point there. They write fanon based heavily in canon (the Constitution), Extended Universe documents (information about original meaning and intention, history, etc), and existing fanon (precedence). They also get the right to say if new fan theories (new laws, etc) should be considered viable or if they’re canon divergent or AU (unconstitutional). And we thought some of our fandom showdowns were intense! I will pay actual money for a summary of the US political system in fannish terminology.

ao3tagoftheday: mossrose10: ao3tagoftheday: tinnitusismymuse: ao3tagoftheday: [Image Description: Tag reading “My US Gov class did n...

Save
armsnotsigns: vaporwavevocap: mr-downer: vaporwavevocap: mr-downer: vaporwavevocap: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: libertarirynn: rook-the-catechumen: hzs-modblog: rook-the-catechumen: gahdamnpunk: This is messed up Eh, monarchies are more stable governments anyways. That is the wrong response, mister! I’m sorry I can’t hear you over the literal multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind. You can take your few hundred years of a democratic-republic system of elected officials that always begins with a mountain of bodies and always ends in plutocracy, societal decay, the rich being in charge anyways, and another mountain of bodies. Monarchists get thrown into the harbor…if they’re lucky “multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind”  Fucking when? Oh my this man is fuckin the cybersmith in disguise isn’t he? Aye you can’t fool me warlock I know your stench! That’s not to say I’m defending the authoritarian cancer of Republican Democracy, but fucking what Monarchy served mankind peacefully? Even if we pretend it was a fictional Biblical monarchy led by Yahweh himself, he is very specifically not peaceful and makes it very clear in “his” own book. Just so we’re clear you know I was talking about the loon above not you, right? I know, I’m just reacting to him more. Sorry for confusion. Holy fucking wow “I mean sure in Saudi Arabia you can be fucking stoned to death for saying the wrong words or wearing the wrong clothes but like it’s stable y’know?”: G-Wiz @gwheele 1 Follow The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO boxes. Only residents with street addresses can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off voting rights to Native Americans in ND. The Supreme Court just made it harder for the Democrats to win the Senate A new ruling will prevent many Native Anericans in the state from voting motherjones.com 3:38 PM-9 Oct 2018 10,286 Retweets 8,321 Likes Follow @lilnativeboy Native Americans were the LAST to get the right to vote & now we are the first to lose it G-WİZ @gwheelel The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO boxes. Only residents with street addresses can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off voting rights to Native Americans in ND. motherjones.com/politics/2018... 12:35 AM-11 Oct 2018 5,610 Retweets9.715 Likes armsnotsigns: vaporwavevocap: mr-downer: vaporwavevocap: mr-downer: vaporwavevocap: friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: libertarirynn: rook-the-catechumen: hzs-modblog: rook-the-catechumen: gahdamnpunk: This is messed up Eh, monarchies are more stable governments anyways. That is the wrong response, mister! I’m sorry I can’t hear you over the literal multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind. You can take your few hundred years of a democratic-republic system of elected officials that always begins with a mountain of bodies and always ends in plutocracy, societal decay, the rich being in charge anyways, and another mountain of bodies. Monarchists get thrown into the harbor…if they’re lucky “multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind”  Fucking when? Oh my this man is fuckin the cybersmith in disguise isn’t he? Aye you can’t fool me warlock I know your stench! That’s not to say I’m defending the authoritarian cancer of Republican Democracy, but fucking what Monarchy served mankind peacefully? Even if we pretend it was a fictional Biblical monarchy led by Yahweh himself, he is very specifically not peaceful and makes it very clear in “his” own book. Just so we’re clear you know I was talking about the loon above not you, right? I know, I’m just reacting to him more. Sorry for confusion. Holy fucking wow “I mean sure in Saudi Arabia you can be fucking stoned to death for saying the wrong words or wearing the wrong clothes but like it’s stable y’know?”
Save
rook-the-catechumen: hzs-modblog: rook-the-catechumen: gahdamnpunk: This is messed up Eh, monarchies are more stable governments anyways. That is the wrong response, mister! I’m sorry I can’t hear you over the literal multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind.You can take your few hundred years of a democratic-republic system of elected officials that always begins with a mountain of bodies and always ends in plutocracy, societal decay, the rich being in charge anyways, and another mountain of bodies. : G-Wiz @gwheele 1 Follow The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO boxes. Only residents with street addresses can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off voting rights to Native Americans in ND. The Supreme Court just made it harder for the Democrats to win the Senate A new ruling will prevent many Native Anericans in the state from voting motherjones.com 3:38 PM-9 Oct 2018 10,286 Retweets 8,321 Likes Follow @lilnativeboy Native Americans were the LAST to get the right to vote & now we are the first to lose it G-WİZ @gwheelel The USPS only gives Tribal residents PO boxes. Only residents with street addresses can vote. The Supreme Court just cut off voting rights to Native Americans in ND. motherjones.com/politics/2018... 12:35 AM-11 Oct 2018 5,610 Retweets9.715 Likes rook-the-catechumen: hzs-modblog: rook-the-catechumen: gahdamnpunk: This is messed up Eh, monarchies are more stable governments anyways. That is the wrong response, mister! I’m sorry I can’t hear you over the literal multi-millennia that monarchy has peacefully and happily served mankind.You can take your few hundred years of a democratic-republic system of elected officials that always begins with a mountain of bodies and always ends in plutocracy, societal decay, the rich being in charge anyways, and another mountain of bodies.

rook-the-catechumen: hzs-modblog: rook-the-catechumen: gahdamnpunk: This is messed up Eh, monarchies are more stable governments anyw...

Save
uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒 the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs. Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language. “For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip. For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert. But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)” ^^^!!! : DAPASTOR YOO uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒 the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs. Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language. “For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip. For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert. But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)” ^^^!!!
Save
BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica: ONEWS RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: Jordan Stein Director of Communications jordan.stein@gunowners.org AMER 703-321-8585 January 22, 2019 For immediate release GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City's Draconian Gun Laws Springfield, VA Today the United States Supreme Court qranted a Writ of Certiorari in P v. NY City, a case in which Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have submitted an amicus brief. This case challenges New York City's near-prohibition on possessing or transportin handguns, and this is the first major Second Amendment challenge to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in almost a decade. GOA's executive director, Erich Pratt, stated, "Gun owners across the country especialy those behind enemy lines living in anti-qun states are rejoicing that the Supreme Court is taking up a Second Amendment case. For far too long, judges have ignored the Second Amendment, along with the Heller and McDonald decisions, instead employing a alancing' test that effectively leaves gun owners in anti-gun states with a second-class right to keep and bear arms In fact, GOA's brief specfically challenges the "balancing" approach taken by judges in the lower courts GOA's brief states, "Heller and McDonaldleave little doubt that courts are to assess qun Ewhere judges] usurp the role of the Framers of the Second Amendment. "GOA's hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution and the text of the Second Amendment rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text," Pratt concluded. GOA's brief can be viewed here Erich Pratt, or another GOA spokesman, is available for interviews. Gun Owners of America BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief before the Supreme Court cuts to the heart of this problem by arguing that judges have to follow the Constitution - and the text of the Second Amendment - rather than imposing their own preconceived views upon the text,” - GOA's Erich Pratt SCOTUS 2A nyc secondamendment goasupporters gunowners gunownersofamerica

BREAKING: GOA Applauds Supreme Court for Granting Cert in Case Involving New York City’s Draconian Gun Laws “GOA’s hard-hitting brief bef...

Save
GOA-GOF Fund Challenge to NFA in U.S. Supreme Court "The arguments presented by GOA and GOF cut to the heart of the National Firearms Act.” - GOA’s Erich Pratt Learn more with thelink in our bio. 2A KettlerCase gunowners gunownersofamerica goasupporters repealthenfa: GOA NEWS RELEASE MEDIA CONTACT: JORDAN STEIN DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS JORDAN.STEIN@GUNOWNERS.ORG 703-321-8585 January 16, 2018 For immediate release GOA/GOF Fund Challenge to NFA in U.S. Supreme Court The arguments presented by GOA and GOF cut to the heart of the NationlFirearms Act." GOA's Erich Pratt Springfield, VA Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its legal arm, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), this week continued their defense of Jeremy Kettler, who is a disabled combat veteran. GOA/GOF submitted a petition for writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Kettler, after he was convicted for violating the National Firearms Act (NFA) The Obama Justice Department brought criminal felony charges against Kettler for illegally possessing an unregistered firearm suppressor, despite the fact that Kansas' "Second Amendment Protection Act" protected his actions. GOA and GOF have stood with Kettler, both in his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and now in the U.S. Supreme Court. GOA-GOF Fund Challenge to NFA in U.S. Supreme Court "The arguments presented by GOA and GOF cut to the heart of the National Firearms Act.” - GOA’s Erich Pratt Learn more with thelink in our bio. 2A KettlerCase gunowners gunownersofamerica goasupporters repealthenfa

GOA-GOF Fund Challenge to NFA in U.S. Supreme Court "The arguments presented by GOA and GOF cut to the heart of the National Firearms Act...

Save
onceuponamirror: helenofhere: snarksandkisses: Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind: This is the most important post on this platform since early 2016. WE ARE NOT FUCKING IT UP TWICE. DO NOT LET PROPAGANDA AND MANIPULATION DIVIDE US AGAINST GETTING THIS MONSTER OUT. thanks : Emily Holmes January 2 at 11:26 AM Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay pigeons I repeat. DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor? It goes like this One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision Our job is not to shoot them. Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being absolutely perfect. Not likeable enough. BOOM Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back together into a candidate who can win the general election. And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016, apparently Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and they will continue to do so for as long as we let them So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN. I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember, but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear ourselves apart? Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't have to. I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability" and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare administration in our wake. BOOM 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares onceuponamirror: helenofhere: snarksandkisses: Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind: This is the most important post on this platform since early 2016. WE ARE NOT FUCKING IT UP TWICE. DO NOT LET PROPAGANDA AND MANIPULATION DIVIDE US AGAINST GETTING THIS MONSTER OUT. thanks
Save
snarksandkisses: Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind: : Emily Holmes January 2 at 11:26 AM Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay pigeons I repeat. DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor? It goes like this One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision Our job is not to shoot them. Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being absolutely perfect. Not likeable enough. BOOM Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back together into a candidate who can win the general election. And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016, apparently Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and they will continue to do so for as long as we let them So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN. I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember, but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear ourselves apart? Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't have to. I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability" and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare administration in our wake. BOOM 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares snarksandkisses: Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:
Save
heatheralicewatson: snarksandkisses: Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind: You can have a favorite in the primaries, and even make a passionate case for your favorite, without drilling down on why the other candidates are monsters. You really truly can. : Emily Holmes January 2 at 11:26 AM Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay pigeons I repeat. DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor? It goes like this One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision Our job is not to shoot them. Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being absolutely perfect. Not likeable enough. BOOM Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back together into a candidate who can win the general election. And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016, apparently Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and they will continue to do so for as long as we let them So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN. I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember, but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear ourselves apart? Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't have to. I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability" and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare administration in our wake. BOOM 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares heatheralicewatson: snarksandkisses: Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind: You can have a favorite in the primaries, and even make a passionate case for your favorite, without drilling down on why the other candidates are monsters. You really truly can.
Save
snarksandkisses: Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind: : Emily Holmes January 2 at 11:26 AM Liberal Friends, listen to this right now: Democratic Nominees are not clay pigeons I repeat. DEMOCRATIC NOMINEES ARE NOT CLAY PIGEONS But, Emily, whatever do you mean? What is this metaphor? It goes like this One by one, over the next couple of months, Democratic nominees are going to launch their official bids for President. They are going to launch themselves, one by one, into the sky, right into our line of vision Our job is not to shoot them. Our job is NOT, the second we see them cross the sky, to reach out for the gun being handed to us by conservatives (because duh, conservatives and guns) and take aim, and blast them, one by one out of the air, for not being absolutely perfect. Not likeable enough. BOOM Not an inspiring enough speaker. BOOM Said that awkward thing that one time. BOOM I wouldn't want to have a beer with them. BOOM Too old. BOOM. Too female. BOOM. Too white. BOOM Not a fucking flawless progressive superhero. BOOM Because what happens next? We shoot the candidates down. We degrade them. We belittle them. We smear them. Then we hand the gun to the media. They do the same. They hand the gun to the conservatives. They do the same. Then the bots start reloading. BOOM. BOOM. BOOM And then at the end of primary season, we have to pick up the shattered remains of whoever got the most votes and attempt to glue them back together into a candidate who can win the general election. And we will lose. Because we learned fucking NOTHING from 2016, apparently Trump didn't win because every conservative loves him. Most of them hate his fucking guts. But they held their noses and voted for him because he was the only way to push their agenda forward. And holy shit, have they pushed it. Despite his complete ineptitude, his bumbling, his gross incompetence, his blatant corruption, they have shoved through some really damaging policies that are hurting real people every single day, and they will continue to do so for as long as we let them So, here we are. You're not jazzed about Liz Warren? Awesome. Beto not your boy? Swell. Sick of Biden memes? Good for you, friend. Keep it to yourself. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT WHO RUNS IS INFINITELY BETTER FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY THAN THE FLAMING RACIST POPULIST TRASH CURRENTLY STEERING THIS COUNTRY DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN. I'm not sure if you noticed, but we already elected a guy based on a cult of personality rather than on whether he was qualified in any way to do the iob, and we're going to be putting out the flames for DECADES But what do we do instead, you ask? Watch debates. Compare platforms Be informed. Choose your favorite BASED ON REAL FACTUAL POLICIES AND EXPERIENCE, NOT ON YOUR DELICATE FEELINGS AND WHETHER YOU FEEL SUFFICIENTLY ENTERTAINED OR INEXPLICABLY HAPPY AT THE VERY SIGHT OF THEIR GLOWING FACE. Then get involved. Register people. Drive to the polls. Hold signs on street corners. Write postcards Knock on doors. Don't tell us why the other candidates suck, tell us why yours is THE BEST. Fight FOR them. Remember how we used to fight FOR things, rather than against them? I know Trump makes it hard to remember, but I promise, that's a thing we used to know how to do Then we all, collectively, wholeheartedly, throw our weight and energy and voice behind whoever gets the nomination. If we do that, we win. Period It's not a question of who can beat Trump, don't you get it? A sentient fucking houseplant with a liberal platform could beat Trump, if we do this right. It's a question of whether WE can beat him, or would we rather tear ourselves apart? Look around you, folks. The stock market is in free-fall. Our international reputation is in tatters. Our foreign policy is for sale to dictators. Our free press is under daily attack. Our Supreme Court is one conservative white dude away from full-on Gilead, and we can't keep asking an 84-year-old woman recovering from broken ribs and a third bout of cancer to hang on for six more years because we can't get our heads out of our own asses. I mean, she'll do it, obviously, because RBG is a BOSS, but she shouldn't have to. I repeat. This is not a test of our candidates. There are lots of good, solid options. It's a test of US. Of OUR ability to unite. Of OUR strength. Of OUR ability to put aside selfish arbitrary purity tests and scales of "likeability" and to just FUCKING GET IT DONE. We don't need the perfect candidate to rescue us. We need to realize that we can rescue ourselves So, how about it, Resistance? They want us to forget that we have the numbers, the motivation, and the power. They want us to implode. Let's explode instead, and leave nothing but a charred ruin of this nightmare administration in our wake. BOOM 1.4K Comments 6.7K Shares snarksandkisses: Also good to keep THIS SHIT in mind:
Save
my-pen-is-the-barrel-of-the-gun: Misleading headlines from a snot rag of a publication. A bill has been proposed to make abortions after 6 weeks illegal. One of the women behind the bill brought her children with her to make the point that “Motherhood isn’t easy but it’s necessary.” The headline intentionally wants to make you believe that Republicans want to forcibly inseminate women and they use a picture of Kavanaugh, instead of the woman they’re quoting, to try and relate their already misleading headline with accusations of rape and sexual misconduct. At least try a little harder with the lying propaganda. I didn’t even have to do research I just read the rest of the article. : Salon @Salon Follow Ohio Republicans declare motherhood "necessary," want to make it mandatory Ohio Republicans declare motherhood "necessary," want to make i.. Ohio Republicans, empowered by the Kavanaugh Supreme Court, move aggressively toward forcing childbirth on women salon.com 8:12 AM-21 Noy 2018 my-pen-is-the-barrel-of-the-gun: Misleading headlines from a snot rag of a publication. A bill has been proposed to make abortions after 6 weeks illegal. One of the women behind the bill brought her children with her to make the point that “Motherhood isn’t easy but it’s necessary.” The headline intentionally wants to make you believe that Republicans want to forcibly inseminate women and they use a picture of Kavanaugh, instead of the woman they’re quoting, to try and relate their already misleading headline with accusations of rape and sexual misconduct. At least try a little harder with the lying propaganda. I didn’t even have to do research I just read the rest of the article.
Save
libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. : 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Save