馃敟 | 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鈥檓 now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn鈥檛 want to be here. Okay, @angrybell 鈥 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鈥檛 read that with a tone, don鈥檛 read that as an attack. That鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檚 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鈥檛 convince you, there鈥檚 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鈥檚 broken literally every one of those rules. He鈥檚 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鈥檛 *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn鈥檛 his to distribute. That鈥檚 aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that鈥檚 treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that鈥檚 an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that鈥檚 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鈥檚 on the hook for contempt, if he doesn鈥檛 then he鈥檚 on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn鈥檛 go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he鈥檚 committing grand larceny by fraud, because he鈥檚 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, 鈥渉igh crimes and misdemeanors鈥. 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鈥檚 failing that job. Trump鈥檚 supporters probably believe he鈥檚 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鈥檛 like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they鈥檝e ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. 鈥 His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he鈥檚 failing that job. 鈥 I like how Bogleech doesn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 what 鈥榓bove reproach鈥 means. An impossible standard, considering people 鈥渞eproach鈥 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鈥檝e 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聽鈥渕erits this鈥. 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鈥 Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don鈥檛 need to know the context, or any other point, when you鈥檙e indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump鈥檚 execution, we鈥檙e 5 paragraphs in and you haven鈥檛 even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I鈥檓 guessing, because I鈥檓 not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-鈥漜oncocting鈥 a response, and yet you鈥檙e waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 mean they鈥檙e 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鈥檚 execution. That鈥檚 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,聽鈥淪o, click-bait subtitle that you don鈥檛 see until you鈥檝e already clicked on the article link out of the way, here鈥檚 what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,鈥 could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It鈥檚 like鈥 it鈥檚 like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like,聽鈥淥h, seems you made a typo,鈥 you鈥檇 jump in like,聽鈥淏ut what about they鈥檙e perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They鈥檙e lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it鈥. You and what鈥檚 his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y鈥檃ll keep saying聽鈥渂ut what of the context?鈥 when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken.聽鈥淪ure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.鈥 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鈥檓 now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn鈥檛 want to be here. Okay, @angrybell 鈥 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鈥檛 read that with a tone, don鈥檛 read that as an attack. That鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檚 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鈥檛 convince you, there鈥檚 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鈥檚 broken literally every one of those rules. He鈥檚 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鈥檛 *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn鈥檛 his to distribute. That鈥檚 aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that鈥檚 treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that鈥檚 an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that鈥檚 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鈥檚 on the hook for contempt, if he doesn鈥檛 then he鈥檚 on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn鈥檛 go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he鈥檚 committing grand larceny by fraud, because he鈥檚 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, 鈥渉igh crimes and misdemeanors鈥. 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鈥檚 failing that job. 

Trump鈥檚 supporters probably believe he鈥檚 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鈥檛 like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they鈥檝e ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





鈥

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


鈥






I like how Bogleech doesn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 what 鈥榓bove reproach鈥 means. An impossible standard, considering people 鈥渞eproach鈥 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鈥檝e 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聽鈥渕erits this鈥.


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鈥
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don鈥檛 need to know the context, or any other point, when you鈥檙e indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump鈥檚 execution, we鈥檙e 5 paragraphs in and you haven鈥檛 even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I鈥檓 guessing, because I鈥檓 not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-鈥漜oncocting鈥 a response, and yet you鈥檙e waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 mean they鈥檙e 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鈥檚 execution. That鈥檚 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,聽鈥淪o, click-bait subtitle that you don鈥檛 see until you鈥檝e already clicked on the article link out of the way, here鈥檚 what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,鈥 could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It鈥檚 like鈥 it鈥檚 like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like,聽鈥淥h, seems you made a typo,鈥 you鈥檇 jump in like,聽鈥淏ut what about they鈥檙e perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They鈥檙e lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it鈥.
You and what鈥檚 his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y鈥檃ll keep saying聽鈥渂ut what of the context?鈥 when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken.聽鈥淪ure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.鈥 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: ...

Anaconda, Bad, and Facts: calleo: anoracleofwar: calleo: candiikismet: alittlebitridiculous: arciifer: babyanimalgifs: this is the angriest bird i鈥檝e ever seen To the people in the comments saying the guy is doing this 鈥渏ust for show鈥 He鈥檚 not With this kind of bird, they are VERY attached to their cages, so if you need to replace the cage, you need to the show the bird you鈥檝e destroyed it so it will accept the new one. It鈥檚 upset bc the cage it liked is gone, but the cage was too small for it so it needs to be replaced. The bird is fine. Thank you for explaining that! I鈥檝e been wondering about this video. That bird was livid! @arciifer is so incredibly wrong about the behavior here I can barely form coherent thoughts to explain how and why, it鈥檚 just 100% wrong. It is absolutely a myth that聽鈥測ou need to show the bird you鈥檝e destroyed it so it will accept the 聽new one鈥 or that the bird is angry at all; their whole comment shows a 100% lack of understanding about parrot behavior. I don鈥檛 know what facts-I-just-made-up blog that came from, but it鈥檚 laughably untrue.聽 You don鈥檛 need to destroy a parrot鈥檚 previous cage to聽鈥榮how鈥 it that it鈥檚 gone, you could just do what pretty 聽much every other parrot owner does if they need to replace a cage: Either sell it or give it away if it鈥檚 a safe cage and still in good condition, or throw it away. You don鈥檛 have to聽鈥榮how the bird鈥, that鈥檚 completely and utterly absurd to think that. That cockatoo isn鈥檛聽鈥渓ivid鈥 either, it鈥檚 having fun and joining in the noise party; that particular bird just happens to have been taught to swear by previous owners and is just yelling along with the noise and having a great time. Our parrot鈥檚 last owners taught him to swear and, though he mostly doesn鈥檛 anymore, if he gets SUPER excited, he鈥檒l start dropping f-bombs in his excitement; it doesn鈥檛 mean he鈥檚聽鈥渓ivid鈥, it 聽means he鈥檚 excited. See, the thing about parrots, and especially cockatoos: They LOVE a good noisy, banging, bell ringing, clanging, screaming, lots of movement and LOUDNESS party and everything about that聽鈥榯oo鈥檚 body language says,聽鈥淭HIS IS AN AMAZING LOUD PARTY I WILL JOIN!鈥 So鈥.is the guy in the vid just trashing a crappy cage to have a good time with his parrot (because who wouldn鈥檛 to have a healthy screaming match and noise party with their beloved parrot) and posting it on line because it鈥檚 a thing that bird owners do or was he promoting the myth that the bird has to see the cage destroyed and get angry to move on? I can鈥檛 really tell what鈥檚 going on- I don鈥檛 speak bird or bird owner.聽 I mean, if it鈥檚 a guy and his bird having a good noisy fun screaming match time and that鈥檚 just what some bird owners do to have fun with their birds- great. I promote this level of pet bonding. Fantastic happy, healthy bird moment. This is also why I will never own a bird.聽 The guy is destroying the shitty round cage because round cages are bad for all birds (lack of corners makes them feel constantly exposed and stressed), he鈥檚 doing it on camera and with the cockatoo likely just for the fun factor and because birds like to be included in safe flock activities, which smashing this piece of shit cage is. It鈥檚 noisy, it鈥檚 not dangerous, it鈥檚 full of movement, it鈥檚 fun for the cockatoo. Some random dingus on Tumblr made up the nonsense about 鈥渘eeding to show the bird鈥 and the rest of you non-Google using people went along with it.
Anaconda, Bad, and Facts: calleo:
anoracleofwar:

calleo:

candiikismet:

alittlebitridiculous:


arciifer:

babyanimalgifs:

this is the angriest bird i鈥檝e ever seen

To the people in the comments saying the guy is doing this 鈥渏ust for show鈥
He鈥檚 not
With this kind of bird, they are VERY attached to their cages, so if you need to replace the cage, you need to the show the bird you鈥檝e destroyed it so it will accept the new one. It鈥檚 upset bc the cage it liked is gone, but the cage was too small for it so it needs to be replaced. The bird is fine.


Thank you for explaining that!  I鈥檝e been wondering about this video.


That bird was livid!

@arciifer is so incredibly wrong about the behavior here I can barely form coherent thoughts to explain how and why, it鈥檚 just 100% wrong.
It is absolutely a myth that聽鈥測ou need to show the bird you鈥檝e destroyed it so it will accept the 聽new one鈥 or that the bird is angry at all; their whole comment shows a 100% lack of understanding about parrot behavior. I don鈥檛 know what facts-I-just-made-up blog that came from, but it鈥檚 laughably untrue.聽
You don鈥檛 need to destroy a parrot鈥檚 previous cage to聽鈥榮how鈥 it that it鈥檚 gone, you could just do what pretty 聽much every other parrot owner does if they need to replace a cage: Either sell it or give it away if it鈥檚 a safe cage and still in good condition, or throw it away. You don鈥檛 have to聽鈥榮how the bird鈥, that鈥檚 completely and utterly absurd to think that.
That cockatoo isn鈥檛聽鈥渓ivid鈥 either, it鈥檚 having fun and joining in the noise party; that particular bird just happens to have been taught to swear by previous owners and is just yelling along with the noise and having a great time.
Our parrot鈥檚 last owners taught him to swear and, though he mostly doesn鈥檛 anymore, if he gets SUPER excited, he鈥檒l start dropping f-bombs in his excitement; it doesn鈥檛 mean he鈥檚聽鈥渓ivid鈥, it 聽means he鈥檚 excited.
See, the thing about parrots, and especially cockatoos: They LOVE a good noisy, banging, bell ringing, clanging, screaming, lots of movement and LOUDNESS party and everything about that聽鈥榯oo鈥檚 body language says,聽鈥淭HIS IS AN AMAZING LOUD PARTY I WILL JOIN!鈥

So鈥.is the guy in the vid just trashing a crappy cage to have a good time with his parrot (because who wouldn鈥檛 to have a healthy screaming match and noise party with their beloved parrot) and posting it on line because it鈥檚 a thing that bird owners do or was he promoting the myth that the bird has to see the cage destroyed and get angry to move on?
I can鈥檛 really tell what鈥檚 going on- I don鈥檛 speak bird or bird owner.聽
I mean, if it鈥檚 a guy and his bird having a good noisy fun screaming match time and that鈥檚 just what some bird owners do to have fun with their birds- great. I promote this level of pet bonding. Fantastic happy, healthy bird moment.
This is also why I will never own a bird.聽

The guy is destroying the shitty round cage because round cages are bad for all birds (lack of corners makes them feel constantly exposed and stressed), he鈥檚 doing it on camera and with the cockatoo likely just for the fun factor and because birds like to be included in safe flock activities, which smashing this piece of shit cage is.
It鈥檚 noisy, it鈥檚 not dangerous, it鈥檚 full of movement, it鈥檚 fun for the cockatoo.
Some random dingus on Tumblr made up the nonsense about 鈥渘eeding to show the bird鈥 and the rest of you non-Google using people went along with it.

calleo: anoracleofwar: calleo: candiikismet: alittlebitridiculous: arciifer: babyanimalgifs: this is the angriest bird i鈥檝e ever seen...