🔥 | Latest

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

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




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

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

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





“

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


“






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

So this:


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


Is a question of this:


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


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


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


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


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


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

Delicious

This was quite a ride

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

Arguing, cnn.com, and Driving: BuzzFeed News 2 hrs. BuzzFeetD NEWS A Texas woman who refused to remove a "Fuck Trump" decal from her truck after being called out by a sheriff on Facebook has been arrested on a previous outstanding warrant. TRUMP AND FUCK YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM A Texas Woman Is In Jail After A Sheriff Called Out Her "Fuck Trump" Sticker On Facebook BuzzFeed Fonseca said that she and her husband ordered the giant, white sticker that boldly reads: "FUCK TRUMP AND FUCK YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM" 11 months ago, telling CNN, "That's our opinion on him." While she said has been repeatedly stopped by law enforcement while driving the truck and received negative reactions, "particularly among older white men," she has refused to remove the decal legitimatelala: zurizaldun: justbewhereveryouare: gaylor-moon: lesbianrey: ok legend…. CAN WE PLEASE TALK ABOUT HOW THE RIGHT WILL KICK AND SCREAM AND CRY AND PISS THEMSELVES OVER THEIR SUPPOSED FREE SPEECH, CALLING OTHER PEOPLW SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES AND MAKING FUN OF SAFE SPACES? SO HOLD UP. SEVEREAL OF THESE SNOWFLAKES GOT MAD, AT A STICKER, A FUCKING STICKER PEOPLE,, SO MAD AT A STICKER THEY LITERALLY CALLED THE POLICE, AND TRIED TO ARREST THIS WOMEN,,, NAH DOG BUT LEFT LEANING PEOPLE ARE THE SENSITIVE ONES OHHHHHKAYYYY DUDE hey so I looked it up and she was released on bail, so that’s good. also, the police were trying to argue that she should be charged with DISORDERLY CONDUCT for this and the ACLU was just like… no. Y’all she added ANOTHER sticker saying fuck the sheriff who arrested her and she’s considering a civil rights lawsuit against him. Making all us Texans proud y’all. https://theslot.jezebel.com/woman-targeted-by-sheriff-for-fuck-trump-decal-says-fuc-1820612922 YOURE DOING AMAZING SWEETIE
Arguing, cnn.com, and Driving: BuzzFeed News
 2 hrs.
 BuzzFeetD
 NEWS
 A Texas woman who refused to remove a "Fuck
 Trump" decal from her truck after being called out by
 a sheriff on Facebook has been arrested on a previous
 outstanding warrant.
 TRUMP
 AND FUCK YOU
 FOR VOTING FOR HIM
 A Texas Woman Is In Jail After A Sheriff Called Out
 Her "Fuck Trump" Sticker On Facebook
 BuzzFeed

 Fonseca said that she and her husband ordered
 the giant, white sticker that boldly reads:
 "FUCK TRUMP AND FUCK YOU FOR
 VOTING FOR HIM" 11 months ago, telling
 CNN, "That's our opinion on him."
 While she said has been repeatedly stopped by
 law enforcement while driving the truck and
 received negative reactions, "particularly
 among older white men," she has refused to
 remove the decal
legitimatelala:

zurizaldun:

justbewhereveryouare:

gaylor-moon:

lesbianrey:
ok legend….
CAN WE PLEASE TALK ABOUT HOW THE RIGHT WILL KICK AND SCREAM AND CRY AND PISS THEMSELVES OVER THEIR SUPPOSED FREE SPEECH, CALLING OTHER PEOPLW SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES AND MAKING FUN OF SAFE SPACES? SO HOLD UP. SEVEREAL OF THESE SNOWFLAKES GOT MAD, AT A STICKER, A FUCKING STICKER PEOPLE,, SO MAD AT A STICKER THEY LITERALLY CALLED THE POLICE, AND TRIED TO ARREST THIS WOMEN,,, NAH DOG BUT LEFT LEANING PEOPLE ARE THE SENSITIVE ONES OHHHHHKAYYYY DUDE

hey so I looked it up and she was released on bail, so that’s good. also, the police were trying to argue that she should be charged with DISORDERLY CONDUCT for this and the ACLU was just like… no.

Y’all she added ANOTHER sticker saying fuck the sheriff who arrested her and she’s considering a civil rights lawsuit against him. Making all us Texans proud y’all. https://theslot.jezebel.com/woman-targeted-by-sheriff-for-fuck-trump-decal-says-fuc-1820612922


YOURE DOING AMAZING SWEETIE

legitimatelala: zurizaldun: justbewhereveryouare: gaylor-moon: lesbianrey: ok legend…. CAN WE PLEASE TALK ABOUT HOW THE RIGHT WILL KICK ...

Arguing, cnn.com, and Driving: BuzzFeed News 2 hrs. BuzzFeetD NEWS A Texas woman who refused to remove a "Fuck Trump" decal from her truck after being called out by a sheriff on Facebook has been arrested on a previous outstanding warrant. TRUMP AND FUCK YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM A Texas Woman Is In Jail After A Sheriff Called Out Her "Fuck Trump" Sticker On Facebook BuzzFeed Fonseca said that she and her husband ordered the giant, white sticker that boldly reads: "FUCK TRUMP AND FUCK YOU FOR VOTING FOR HIM" 11 months ago, telling CNN, "That's our opinion on him." While she said has been repeatedly stopped by law enforcement while driving the truck and received negative reactions, "particularly among older white men," she has refused to remove the decal goodvibedtribe: legitimatelala: zurizaldun: justbewhereveryouare: gaylor-moon: lesbianrey: ok legend…. CAN WE PLEASE TALK ABOUT HOW THE RIGHT WILL KICK AND SCREAM AND CRY AND PISS THEMSELVES OVER THEIR SUPPOSED FREE SPEECH, CALLING OTHER PEOPLW SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES AND MAKING FUN OF SAFE SPACES? SO HOLD UP. SEVEREAL OF THESE SNOWFLAKES GOT MAD, AT A STICKER, A FUCKING STICKER PEOPLE,, SO MAD AT A STICKER THEY LITERALLY CALLED THE POLICE, AND TRIED TO ARREST THIS WOMEN,,, NAH DOG BUT LEFT LEANING PEOPLE ARE THE SENSITIVE ONES OHHHHHKAYYYY DUDE hey so I looked it up and she was released on bail, so that’s good. also, the police were trying to argue that she should be charged with DISORDERLY CONDUCT for this and the ACLU was just like… no. Y’all she added ANOTHER sticker saying fuck the sheriff who arrested her and she’s considering a civil rights lawsuit against him. Making all us Texans proud y’all. https://theslot.jezebel.com/woman-targeted-by-sheriff-for-fuck-trump-decal-says-fuc-1820612922 YOURE DOING AMAZING SWEETIE i ❤️ my pit bull
Arguing, cnn.com, and Driving: BuzzFeed News
 2 hrs.
 BuzzFeetD
 NEWS
 A Texas woman who refused to remove a "Fuck
 Trump" decal from her truck after being called out by
 a sheriff on Facebook has been arrested on a previous
 outstanding warrant.
 TRUMP
 AND FUCK YOU
 FOR VOTING FOR HIM
 A Texas Woman Is In Jail After A Sheriff Called Out
 Her "Fuck Trump" Sticker On Facebook
 BuzzFeed

 Fonseca said that she and her husband ordered
 the giant, white sticker that boldly reads:
 "FUCK TRUMP AND FUCK YOU FOR
 VOTING FOR HIM" 11 months ago, telling
 CNN, "That's our opinion on him."
 While she said has been repeatedly stopped by
 law enforcement while driving the truck and
 received negative reactions, "particularly
 among older white men," she has refused to
 remove the decal
goodvibedtribe:
legitimatelala:


zurizaldun:

justbewhereveryouare:

gaylor-moon:

lesbianrey:
ok legend….
CAN WE PLEASE TALK ABOUT HOW THE RIGHT WILL KICK AND SCREAM AND CRY AND PISS THEMSELVES OVER THEIR SUPPOSED FREE SPEECH, CALLING OTHER PEOPLW SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES AND MAKING FUN OF SAFE SPACES? SO HOLD UP. SEVEREAL OF THESE SNOWFLAKES GOT MAD, AT A STICKER, A FUCKING STICKER PEOPLE,, SO MAD AT A STICKER THEY LITERALLY CALLED THE POLICE, AND TRIED TO ARREST THIS WOMEN,,, NAH DOG BUT LEFT LEANING PEOPLE ARE THE SENSITIVE ONES OHHHHHKAYYYY DUDE

hey so I looked it up and she was released on bail, so that’s good. also, the police were trying to argue that she should be charged with DISORDERLY CONDUCT for this and the ACLU was just like… no.

Y’all she added ANOTHER sticker saying fuck the sheriff who arrested her and she’s considering a civil rights lawsuit against him. Making all us Texans proud y’all. https://theslot.jezebel.com/woman-targeted-by-sheriff-for-fuck-trump-decal-says-fuc-1820612922


YOURE DOING AMAZING SWEETIE


i ❤️ my pit bull

goodvibedtribe: legitimatelala: zurizaldun: justbewhereveryouare: gaylor-moon: lesbianrey: ok legend…. CAN WE PLEASE TALK ABOUT HOW THE...