🔥 | Latest

Apparently, College, and Complex: r/AskReddit What perfectly true story of yours sounds like an outrageous lie? RamsesThePigeon 13d, 17h Just up the street from my apartment in San Francisco, there was one of those fast food restaurants that was either a KFC or a Taco Bell, depending on the angle from which it was viewed. The establishment was a frequent stopping point for students coming from the nearby college... and those students were a frequent target for a remarkably bright crow Now, on most days, the bird in question would just hang around the restaurant (as well as other ones nearby) and scavenge for scraps. Every once in a while, though - I saw this happen twice, and had it happen to me once - it would enact a much more complex scheme than simply going through the gutter: The crow had apparently discovered that money could be exchanged for food, so it would wait until it saw a likely mark, squawk at them to get their attention, then pick up and drop a coin. Anyone who responded would witness the bird hopping a few feet away, then following its "victim" toward the source of its next snack. When the crow approached me, it dropped a nickel on the ground. I stooped, picked up the coin, and then jumped slightly when the bird made a noise that sounded not unlike "Taco!' Needless to say, I bought that crow a taco. The final out-of-pocket cost for me, minus the nickel, was something like >l.T5. Even so, I figured a bird that smart deserved a reward simply for existing Of course, that was probably exactly what I was supposed to think. TL;DR: A crow paid me five cents to buy it a taco. onyourleftbooob: nadiaoxford: I don’t have a hard time believing this.
Apparently, College, and Complex: r/AskReddit
 What perfectly true story of yours sounds like
 an outrageous lie?

 RamsesThePigeon 13d, 17h
 Just up the street from my apartment in San Francisco,
 there was one of those fast food restaurants that was
 either a KFC or a Taco Bell, depending on the angle from
 which it was viewed. The establishment was a frequent
 stopping point for students coming from the nearby
 college... and those students were a frequent target for a
 remarkably bright crow
 Now, on most days, the bird in question would just hang
 around the restaurant (as well as other ones nearby) and
 scavenge for scraps. Every once in a while, though - I saw
 this happen twice, and had it happen to me once - it would
 enact a much more complex scheme than simply going
 through the gutter: The crow had apparently discovered
 that money could be exchanged for food, so it would wait
 until it saw a likely mark, squawk at them to get their
 attention, then pick up and drop a coin. Anyone who
 responded would witness the bird hopping a few feet
 away, then following its "victim" toward the source of its
 next snack.
 When the crow approached me, it dropped a nickel on the
 ground. I stooped, picked up the coin, and then jumped
 slightly when the bird made a noise that sounded not
 unlike "Taco!'
 Needless to say, I bought that crow a taco.
 The final out-of-pocket cost for me, minus the nickel, was
 something like >l.T5. Even so, I figured a bird that smart
 deserved a reward simply for existing
 Of course, that was probably exactly what I was supposed
 to think.
 TL;DR: A crow paid me five cents to buy it a taco.
onyourleftbooob:

nadiaoxford:
I don’t have a hard time believing this.

onyourleftbooob: nadiaoxford: I don’t have a hard time believing this.

College, Complex, and Doctor: Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 1/8 Yesterday, Francisco Galicia, a high school senior born in Dallas, TX called his mother for the first time after being released from nearly a month of illegal detainment in U.S. Concentration camps at the hands of CBP and ICE. He was held in "inhumane" conditions, he told me. South Texas 566 Veterans Drive 3:02 PM Jul 24, 2019 Twitter for iPhone Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h Replying to @GaretBleir 2/8 Francisco, a U.s. born citizen, was detained by Border Patrol on June 27th at a checkpoint in Falfurrias, Texas while driving with his friends on their way to a college soccer scouting event. At the checkpoint, he showed Border Patrol agents proof of his birth in the U... 1 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h 3/8 he had on him - his Texas State ID, his wallet-sized birth certificate, and his social security card, but the agents told him they believed the documents weren't real, his attorney told me. For the entire three weeks he was held captive in CBP custody, Francisco was not... 1 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h 4/8 allowed to use the phone, even for calls to his attorney or to his mother who feared he would be deported. It wasn't until Saturday, after being transferred to ICE custody, that he was allowed to make a collect phone call. 3 1 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h 5/8 Despite multiple attempts by family members and his attorney to give further proof of his U.S. citizenship, it wasn't until the attorney took this to the news media and grassroots activists throughout Texas that ICE finally released Francisco, she says. 1 t 1 4 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h 6/8 The attorney was told that she would have to present the documents to ICE officials upon arrival at South Texas Detention Complex in Pearsall, TX but after a handful of activists and reporters arrived at the detention facility... 9 1 3 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h 7/8. we watched as ICE officials released Francisco without even speaking to the attorney. This further shows that the officials not only had the proper documentation for his release, they also knew that they had the proper documentation and that he was a U.S. citizen. 1 t 2 5 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h 8/8 I'll be sharing more updates soon, along with videos and photos showing what happened while we were there as soon as possible. Photo: Garet Bleir - Journalism arctic-hands: swan2swan: swan2swan: If you haven’t seen this story, look up his name: Francisco Galicia.  Expect to see him come 2020, when the debates begin and the political battle heats up. Expect to see him in a suit testifying in court, or before Congress. This young man is a witness and a victim, and the fact that this isn’t a more prominent story on every news station is what truly frightens me. From The Dallas News: Galicia says he lost 26 pounds during that time in a South Texas immigrant detention center because officers didn’t provide him with enough food. He said he wasn’t allowed to shower and his skin was dry and dirty. He and 60 other men were crammed into an overcrowded holding area where they slept on the floor and were given only aluminum-foil blankets, he said. Some men had to sleep on the restroom area floor. Ticks bit some of the men and some were very sick, Galicia said. But many were afraid to ask to go to the doctor because CBP officers told them their stay would start over if they did, he said. I would remind you that concentration camps are actually real.  “I told them we had rights and asked to make a phone call. But they told us, ‘You don’t have rights to anything’,” Francisco Galicia said. This is happening. [the screencapped tweets are in initial link]
College, Complex, and Doctor: Garet Bleir
 @GaretBleir
 1/8 Yesterday, Francisco Galicia, a high school senior born in
 Dallas, TX called his mother for the first time after being
 released from nearly a month of illegal detainment in U.S.
 Concentration camps at the hands of CBP and ICE. He was
 held in "inhumane" conditions, he told me.
 South Texas
 566 Veterans Drive
 3:02 PM Jul 24, 2019 Twitter for iPhone

 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h
 Replying to @GaretBleir
 2/8 Francisco, a U.s. born citizen, was detained by Border Patrol on June 27th at a
 checkpoint in Falfurrias, Texas while driving with his friends on their way to a college
 soccer scouting event. At the checkpoint, he showed Border Patrol agents proof of
 his birth in the U...
 1
 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h
 3/8 he had on him - his Texas State ID, his wallet-sized birth certificate, and his social
 security card, but the agents told him they believed the documents weren't real, his
 attorney told me. For the entire three weeks he was held captive in CBP custody,
 Francisco was not...
 1
 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h
 4/8 allowed to use the phone, even for calls to his attorney or to his mother who
 feared he would be deported. It wasn't until Saturday, after being transferred to ICE
 custody, that he was allowed to make a collect phone call.
 3
 1
 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h
 5/8 Despite multiple attempts by family members and his attorney to give further
 proof of his U.S. citizenship, it wasn't until the attorney took this to the news media
 and grassroots activists throughout Texas that ICE finally released Francisco, she says.
 1
 t 1
 4

 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h
 6/8 The attorney was told that she would have to present the documents to ICE
 officials upon arrival at South Texas Detention Complex in Pearsall, TX but after a
 handful of activists and reporters arrived at the detention facility...
 9 1
 3
 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h
 7/8. we watched as ICE officials released Francisco without even speaking to the
 attorney. This further shows that the officials not only had the proper documentation
 for his release, they also knew that they had the proper documentation and that he
 was a U.S. citizen.
 1
 t 2
 5
 Garet Bleir @GaretBleir 21h
 8/8 I'll be sharing more updates soon, along with videos and photos showing what
 happened while we were there as soon as possible. Photo: Garet Bleir - Journalism
arctic-hands:
swan2swan:

swan2swan:

If you haven’t seen this story, look up his name: Francisco Galicia. 
Expect to see him come 2020, when the debates begin and the political battle heats up. Expect to see him in a suit testifying in court, or before Congress. This young man is a witness and a victim, and the fact that this isn’t a more prominent story on every news station is what truly frightens me.

From The Dallas News:

Galicia says he lost 26 pounds during that time in a South Texas immigrant detention center because officers didn’t provide him with enough food. 
He said he wasn’t allowed to shower and his skin was dry and dirty. 
He and 60 other men were crammed into an overcrowded holding area where they slept on the floor and were given only aluminum-foil blankets, he said. Some men had to sleep on the restroom area floor.
Ticks bit some of the men and some were very sick, Galicia said. But many were afraid to ask to go to the doctor because CBP officers told them their stay would start over if they did, he said. 

I would remind you that concentration camps are actually real. 


“I told them we had rights and asked to make a phone call. But they told us, ‘You don’t have rights to anything’,” Francisco Galicia said.


This is happening.


[the screencapped tweets are in initial link]

arctic-hands: swan2swan: swan2swan: If you haven’t seen this story, look up his name: Francisco Galicia.  Expect to see him come 2020, whe...

Alive, Beard, and Children: feniczoroark: minority-cubed: princemetalthunder: skrill-cosby: drucila616: How Do Court Reporters Keep Straight Faces?These are from a book called Disorder in the Courts and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place.ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?WITNESS: He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?’ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?WITNESS: My name is Susan!_______________________________ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?WITNESS: No, I just lie there.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?WITNESS: July 18th.ATTORNEY: What year?WITNESS: Every year._____________________________________ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?WITNESS: Forty-five years._________________________________ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?WITNESS: I forget..ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?____________________________________ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?WITNESS: He’s 20, much like your IQ.___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?WITNESS: Are you shitting me?_________________________________________ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?WITNESS: Getting laid____________________________________________ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: How many were boys?WITNESS: None.ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?____________________________________________ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?WITNESS: By death..ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?WITNESS: Take a guess.___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beardATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I’m going with male._____________________________________ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.______________________________________ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight._________________________________________ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?WITNESS: Oral…_________________________________________ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PMATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?______________________________________And last:ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?WITNESS: No..ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law. oh my god these are great fuck this is like reading a jokes and not actual quotes The last one is how I feel about all my schoolmates I can feel the frustration
Alive, Beard, and Children: feniczoroark:

minority-cubed:

princemetalthunder:

skrill-cosby:

drucila616:

How Do Court Reporters Keep Straight Faces?These are from a book called Disorder in the Courts and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place.ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?WITNESS: He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?’ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?WITNESS: My name is Susan!_______________________________ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?WITNESS: No, I just lie there.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?WITNESS: July 18th.ATTORNEY: What year?WITNESS: Every year._____________________________________ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?WITNESS: Forty-five years._________________________________ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?WITNESS: I forget..ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?____________________________________ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?WITNESS: He’s 20, much like your IQ.___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?WITNESS: Are you shitting me?_________________________________________ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?WITNESS: Getting laid____________________________________________ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: How many were boys?WITNESS: None.ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?____________________________________________ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?WITNESS: By death..ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?WITNESS: Take a guess.___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beardATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I’m going with male._____________________________________ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.______________________________________ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight._________________________________________ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?WITNESS: Oral…_________________________________________ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PMATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?______________________________________And last:ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?WITNESS: No..ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

oh my god these are great

fuck this is like reading a jokes and not actual quotes


The last one is how I feel about all my schoolmates

I can feel the frustration

feniczoroark: minority-cubed: princemetalthunder: skrill-cosby: drucila616: How Do Court Reporters Keep Straight Faces?These are from a...

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: ...