White House


                    
                    
                

                

                

            

        
    







            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    

                        


	

	
    

        šŸ”„ | 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, Iā€™m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didnā€™t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell ā€¦ 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? Donā€™t read that with a tone, donā€™t read that as an attack. Thatā€™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 doesnā€™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 authorā€™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 doesnā€™t convince you, thereā€™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. Heā€™s broken literally every one of those rules. Heā€™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 isnā€™t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasnā€™t his to distribute. Thatā€™s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and thatā€™s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, thatā€™s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so thatā€™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, heā€™s on the hook for contempt, if he doesnā€™t then heā€™s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesnā€™t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago heā€™s committing grand larceny by fraud, because heā€™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, ā€œhigh crimes and misdemeanorsā€. 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 heā€™s failing that job. 

Trumpā€™s supporters probably believe heā€™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 didnā€™t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and theyā€™ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





ā€œ

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And heā€™s failing that job.


ā€œ






I like how Bogleech doesnā€™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
Itā€™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. Thatā€™s what ā€˜above reproachā€™ means. An impossible standard, considering people ā€œreproachā€ 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, Iā€™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 saysĀ ā€œmerits thisā€.


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 tenetsā€¦
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You donā€™t need to know the context, or any other point, when youā€™re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trumpā€™s execution, weā€™re 5 paragraphs in and you havenā€™t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, Iā€™m guessing, because Iā€™m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-ā€concoctingā€ a response, and yet youā€™re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isnā€™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, doesnā€™t mean theyā€™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 Trumpā€™s execution. Thatā€™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,Ā ā€œSo, click-bait subtitle that you donā€™t see until youā€™ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, hereā€™s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,ā€ could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
Itā€™s likeā€¦ itā€™s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like,Ā ā€œOh, seems you made a typo,ā€ youā€™d jump in like,Ā ā€œBut what about theyā€™re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. Theyā€™re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates itā€.
You and whatā€™s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, yā€™all keep sayingĀ ā€œbut what of the context?ā€ when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken.Ā ā€œSure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.ā€ 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, Iā€™m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didnā€™t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell ā€¦ 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? Donā€™t read that with a tone, donā€™t read that as an attack. Thatā€™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 doesnā€™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 authorā€™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 doesnā€™t convince you, thereā€™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. Heā€™s broken literally every one of those rules. Heā€™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 isnā€™t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasnā€™t his to distribute. Thatā€™s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and thatā€™s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, thatā€™s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so thatā€™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, heā€™s on the hook for contempt, if he doesnā€™t then heā€™s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesnā€™t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago heā€™s committing grand larceny by fraud, because heā€™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, ā€œhigh crimes and misdemeanorsā€. 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 heā€™s failing that job. 

Trumpā€™s supporters probably believe heā€™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 didnā€™t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and theyā€™ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





ā€œ

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And heā€™s failing that job.


ā€œ






I like how Bogleech doesnā€™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
Itā€™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. Thatā€™s what ā€˜above reproachā€™ means. An impossible standard, considering people ā€œreproachā€ 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, Iā€™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 saysĀ ā€œmerits thisā€.


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 tenetsā€¦
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You donā€™t need to know the context, or any other point, when youā€™re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trumpā€™s execution, weā€™re 5 paragraphs in and you havenā€™t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, Iā€™m guessing, because Iā€™m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-ā€concoctingā€ a response, and yet youā€™re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isnā€™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, doesnā€™t mean theyā€™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 Trumpā€™s execution. Thatā€™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,Ā ā€œSo, click-bait subtitle that you donā€™t see until youā€™ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, hereā€™s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,ā€ could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
Itā€™s likeā€¦ itā€™s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like,Ā ā€œOh, seems you made a typo,ā€ youā€™d jump in like,Ā ā€œBut what about theyā€™re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. Theyā€™re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates itā€.
You and whatā€™s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, yā€™all keep sayingĀ ā€œbut what of the context?ā€ when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken.Ā ā€œSure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.ā€ 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:

...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Easter, Hello, and Joe Biden: Joe Biden says hello to a young child at the White House Easter Egg Roll (2010)
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Easter, Hello, and Joe Biden: Joe Biden says hello to a young child at the White House Easter Egg Roll (2010)
                
            

            
            
Joe Biden says hello to a young child at the White House Easter Egg Roll (2010)

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Pablo Escobar, Reddit, and Tumblr: historicaltimes:

Pablo Escobar and his son in front of the White House via reddit
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Pablo Escobar, Reddit, and Tumblr: historicaltimes:

Pablo Escobar and his son in front of the White House via reddit
                
            

            
            
historicaltimes:

Pablo Escobar and his son in front of the White House via reddit

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    4chan, Baked, and Drone: Follow
 New Zealand terrorist attack suspect
 grins in court, qives 'okay' hand gesture
 a symbol signalling support for white
 supremacist ideology aje.io/fhjqn
 2:11 AM-16 Mar 2019
 129 t 417472

 AT&T
 6:58 PM
 * 46%
 -
 Tweet
 @jackieraimo
 Replying to @chrislhayes
 Gosh, what a coincidence!
 MAKE AOR
 GREAT AGAN
 Media Matters
 Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit used their first visit to
 White House press briefing room to flash racist
 Pepe hand signal: mm4a.org/2kpCMS
 9/4/18, 5:32 PM
 Tweet your reply
 2
keyhollow:

nunyabizni:

noblepeasant:
ohnoagremlin:

maswartz:
At this point we can stop with the whole ā€œitā€™s just a meme thingā€ These 
people obviously believe it means exactly what 4chan said it does.

shout out to the pissy jerk who lit my asks up like two months back because ā€œyou people want everything to be a supremacist symbolā€ 


Y'all believe Al-Jazeera? Really?

This guy is running every half baked meme and conspiracy that exists in the hopes that he can confuse idiots into thinking anything other than he is a deranged psychopath.And the useful idiots in the media are falling for it and their npc drone followers are doing the same damn thing.

Everyone is just as stupid as that madman had hoped 

Oh for fucks sake how can somebody explicitly state what their goal is and yā€™all still do his exact bidding?
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                4chan, Baked, and Drone: Follow
 New Zealand terrorist attack suspect
 grins in court, qives 'okay' hand gesture
 a symbol signalling support for white
 supremacist ideology aje.io/fhjqn
 2:11 AM-16 Mar 2019
 129 t 417472

 AT&T
 6:58 PM
 * 46%
 -
 Tweet
 @jackieraimo
 Replying to @chrislhayes
 Gosh, what a coincidence!
 MAKE AOR
 GREAT AGAN
 Media Matters
 Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit used their first visit to
 White House press briefing room to flash racist
 Pepe hand signal: mm4a.org/2kpCMS
 9/4/18, 5:32 PM
 Tweet your reply
 2
keyhollow:

nunyabizni:

noblepeasant:
ohnoagremlin:

maswartz:
At this point we can stop with the whole ā€œitā€™s just a meme thingā€ These 
people obviously believe it means exactly what 4chan said it does.

shout out to the pissy jerk who lit my asks up like two months back because ā€œyou people want everything to be a supremacist symbolā€ 


Y'all believe Al-Jazeera? Really?

This guy is running every half baked meme and conspiracy that exists in the hopes that he can confuse idiots into thinking anything other than he is a deranged psychopath.And the useful idiots in the media are falling for it and their npc drone followers are doing the same damn thing.

Everyone is just as stupid as that madman had hoped 

Oh for fucks sake how can somebody explicitly state what their goal is and yā€™all still do his exact bidding?
                
            

            
            
keyhollow:

nunyabizni:

noblepeasant:
ohnoagremlin:

maswartz:
At this point we can stop with the whole ā€œitā€™s just a meme thingā€ These 
peo...