🔥 | Latest

Beautiful, Cats, and Crying: northeastartist: cryoverkiltmilk: kindaoffkilter: bemusedlybespectacled: linkislost: sighinastorm: tooiconic: lafayettelabaguette: beasti: clarenecessities: sapphic-matriarchy: system-fail-ure: karinanotcinerina: retro-geek: ultrafacts: gatochick: ultrafacts: pizzaismylifepizzaisking: majikkant: ultrafacts: Source Video of Tama Follow Ultrafacts for more facts The picture in the background of the second one Tama is boss THE TRAINS HAVE CARTOON TAMAS ON THEM Sad update everyone, Tama recently passed away… An estimated 3,000 people, including railway officials, attended Tama the cat’s funeral on Sunday, days after she died of heart failure aged 16. [x] For those who haven’t read articles about it, the local shrine elevated her to a god. She’s now the Eternal Stationmaster and patron god of the station. Beautiful. Now I’m crying thanks and a new cat was hired right? yep! her name is Nitama (essentially ”second tama” or “tama II”) and she served under Tama as an apprentice before being appointed her deputy she works very hard Everytime this crosses my dash, I reblog. It is the law. Law I’m crying at 11pm over train cats Nitama, already now a mature cat (born 2010), has a protege named Yontama (fourth Tama, b. 2016).  There is no information available for either the physical befellment or tragic self-disgrace which has removed Santama from contention. ^Nitama majestic, and below with Yontama Yontama. a legacy okay but actually what happened to santama (or sun-tama-tama, which is her name because it’s a pun on santama) was that she was basically sent to train for the position in okayama and they liked her so much they refused to send her back “Sun-tama-tama” (a pun off of “Santama”, lit. “third Tama”) was a calico cat sent for training in Okayama. Sun-tama-tama was considered as a candidate for Tama’s successor, but the Okayama Public Relations representative who had been caring for Sun-tama-tama refused to give the cat up writing, “I will not let go of this child, she will stay in Okayama.” [25] As of September 2018, Sun-tama-tama is working as the stationmaster in Naka-ku, Okayama and appears occasionally on Tama’s Twitter account. Every time I see this post there’s new info and it gets better You are only allowed to scroll pass this after you pay tribute to the great Tama Station masters.
Beautiful, Cats, and Crying: northeastartist:
cryoverkiltmilk:

kindaoffkilter:

bemusedlybespectacled:

linkislost:

sighinastorm:

tooiconic:

lafayettelabaguette:

beasti:

clarenecessities:

sapphic-matriarchy:

system-fail-ure:

karinanotcinerina:

retro-geek:

ultrafacts:

gatochick:

ultrafacts:

pizzaismylifepizzaisking:

majikkant:

ultrafacts:

Source
Video of Tama

Follow Ultrafacts for more facts

The picture in the background of the second one

Tama is boss



THE TRAINS HAVE CARTOON TAMAS ON THEM

Sad update everyone, Tama recently passed away… An estimated 3,000 people, including railway officials, attended Tama the cat’s funeral on Sunday, days after she died of heart failure aged 16. [x]

For those who haven’t read articles about it, the local shrine elevated her to a god.  She’s now the Eternal Stationmaster and patron god of the station.


Beautiful.


Now I’m crying thanks

and a new cat was hired right?

yep! her name is Nitama (essentially ”second tama” or “tama II”) and she served under Tama as an apprentice before being appointed her deputy
she works very hard


Everytime this crosses my dash, I reblog. It is the law.


Law


I’m crying at 11pm over train cats

Nitama, already now a mature cat (born 2010), has a protege named Yontama (fourth Tama, b. 2016).  There is no information available for either the physical befellment or tragic self-disgrace which has removed Santama from contention.
^Nitama majestic, and below with Yontama
Yontama.


a legacy 

okay but actually what happened to santama (or sun-tama-tama, which is her name because it’s a pun on santama) was that she was basically sent to train for the position in okayama and they liked her so much they refused to send her back


“Sun-tama-tama” (a pun off of “Santama”, lit. “third Tama”) was a calico cat sent for training in Okayama. Sun-tama-tama was considered as a candidate for Tama’s successor, but the Okayama Public Relations representative who had been caring for Sun-tama-tama refused to give the cat up writing, “I will not let go of this child, she will stay in Okayama.” [25]
As of September 2018, Sun-tama-tama is working as the stationmaster in Naka-ku, Okayama and appears occasionally on Tama’s Twitter account.


Every time I see this post there’s new info and it gets better


You are only allowed to scroll pass this after you pay tribute to the great Tama Station masters.

northeastartist: cryoverkiltmilk: kindaoffkilter: bemusedlybespectacled: linkislost: sighinastorm: tooiconic: lafayettelabaguette: be...

Ass, Cinderella , and Click: kaylapocalypse:  ok  so i know what you’re thinking “oh i remember that scene i don’t need to click on the video to recall it”. But you should. Like… if you’re anywhere near your mid-twenties, chances are that you watched shrek (1) when you were a kid and maybe a few times again in your late teens, but your memory absolutely doesn’t do it justice. The comedic timing through this whole movie is insane. Also, the fact that the animation style is aging literally just adds to the hilarity instead of poorly dating it. The nuance of every gesture is so well done and specific.  I am literally convinced that this movie is a masterpiece and that will be historically relevant maybe 100 years from now as a perfect time capsule of our culture. This scene in particular illustrates it especially well; particularly for being only like 1 minute long. Highlights/Breakdown The timing in the way Robin says savior and the way he says beast.  the character solidifying disregard and disrespect of “Please! Monster!” Fiona’s sheer brute strength when she pokes him in the shoulder so hard it spins him around–strength that he disregards which is why hes surprised as hell when he gets his ass beat Just the entire french accent that isn’t even a good french accent at all. The accordion man in the tree, the prop bushes. that one of the prop bushes falls down to reveal that its a wood cut-out subtly in the background  Shrek and fiona watching with horror as he begins his song. Donkey never cracking his excited smile, fully immersed in the Lore™; which is actually part of a longer running joke through the film which is that occasionally when certain characters do things would be reacted to poorly irl, the surrounding characters react like you would if you saw that irl not like characters in a story. Like instead of getting drawn into the lore of their circumstances they just stand there, staring like “yikesssss” shrek’s exhaustion and impatience when the song goes into the “saucy little maid” bit.  “what hes basically saying is he likes to get paid.”  the chaos of that statement. combined with shrek and fiona having a eye contact conversation above the performance, exchanging “wtf” gestures.  When the song escalates into a dance fight, Shrek’s exhaustion turns into general mounting amusement like “wow is this really turning into a dance fight. wow hes really snapping in unison” which is additionally apart of the above long running joke Fiona interrupting robin with a kick. the fuckin sound his head makes when it hits the rock.  The fight after isn’t as dynamic timing wise, just a classic animated fight scene but that song though. *kisses fingers like a chef* Watching this does give me an appreciation for 2D animation though because say what you will but Cinderella has aged a lot better than Shrek in terms of visual quality.With 2D you get fairly consistent quality. With old 3D you get uncanny valley nightmares.
Ass, Cinderella , and Click: kaylapocalypse:
 ok 
so i know what you’re thinking “oh i remember that scene i don’t need to click on the video to recall it”. But you should. Like… if you’re anywhere near your mid-twenties, chances are that you watched shrek (1) when you were a kid and maybe a few times again in your late teens, but your memory absolutely doesn’t do it justice.
The comedic timing through this whole movie is insane. Also, the fact that the animation style is aging literally just adds to the hilarity instead of poorly dating it. The nuance of every gesture is so well done and specific. 
I am literally convinced that this movie is a masterpiece and that will be historically relevant maybe 100 years from now as a perfect time capsule of our culture.
This scene in particular illustrates it especially well; particularly for being only like 1 minute long.
Highlights/Breakdown
The timing in the way Robin says savior and the way he says beast. 
the character solidifying disregard and disrespect of “Please! Monster!”
Fiona’s sheer brute strength when she pokes him in the shoulder so hard it spins him around–strength that he disregards which is why hes surprised as hell when he gets his ass beat
Just the entire french accent that isn’t even a good french accent at all.
The accordion man in the tree, the prop bushes. that one of the prop bushes falls down to reveal that its a wood cut-out subtly in the background 
Shrek and fiona watching with horror as he begins his song. Donkey never cracking his excited smile, fully immersed in the Lore™; which is actually part of a longer running joke through the film which is that occasionally when certain characters do things would be reacted to poorly irl, the surrounding characters react like you would if you saw that irl not like characters in a story. Like instead of getting drawn into the lore of their circumstances they just stand there, staring like “yikesssss”
shrek’s exhaustion and impatience when the song goes into the “saucy little maid” bit. 
“what hes basically saying is he likes to get paid.”  the chaos of that statement. combined with shrek and fiona having a eye contact conversation above the performance, exchanging “wtf” gestures. 
When the song escalates into a dance fight, Shrek’s exhaustion turns into general mounting amusement like “wow is this really turning into a dance fight. wow hes really snapping in unison” which is additionally apart of the above long running joke
Fiona interrupting robin with a kick.
the fuckin sound his head makes when it hits the rock. 
The fight after isn’t as dynamic timing wise, just a classic animated fight scene but that song though. *kisses fingers like a chef*
Watching this does give me an appreciation for 2D animation though because say what you will but Cinderella has aged a lot better than Shrek in terms of visual quality.With 2D you get fairly consistent quality. With old 3D you get uncanny valley nightmares.

kaylapocalypse:  ok  so i know what you’re thinking “oh i remember that scene i don’t need to click on the video to recall it”. But you shou...

Being Alone, Crime, and Drinking: Woman gave boy, 14, drug so she could RAPE him It s AWOMAN whraped a 14-year by MARK BRANAGAN old boy after giving him the anti-anxi ety drug Xanax has been jailed Garrett had learning difficulties and Jamie Garrett slipped the youngstera suffered psychological abuse as a tablet beforwarapingtshe added: There hasn't been one The offences took place in August bright spot in the defendant's life so 2016 when Garrett, then aged 22, had far, save for her relationship with her been drinking, smoking cannabis and grandfather. And that came at a price es with him. n risk when she became a carer taking Xanax herself Before a pingschoolboy, Gar Her grandfather has since died, leav- rett gave him a tabet to disinhibit ing Garrett, now 24, alone. She admit- him, Sheffield Crown Court was told. ted sexual activity with a child and Prosecutor lan Goldsack said Garrett supplying a controlled drug. told police she had taken five or six Jailing her for two years and five tablets herself and 'drunk a variety of months, Judge Jeremy Richardson QC alcoholic drinks and also smoked can said: I take into account there was the te nabis. Garrett later told police she had use of drugs trapet the boy You engaged in a variety of sexual acts with the boy. You have had a dreadful life, and have a range of per- re is named for legal reasons, said he was sonal vulnerabilities. But you have, been prescribed the Xanax by her doc- The boy's mother, who cannot be acutely embarrassed' by what had happened Katherine Goddard, mitigating, said however, committed a serious crime. Garrett was also placed on the sex offenders' register for ten years. darthlampman: Just gonna leave these edits here…
Being Alone, Crime, and Drinking: Woman gave
 boy, 14, drug
 so she could
 RAPE him
 It
 s AWOMAN whraped a 14-year by MARK BRANAGAN
 old boy after giving him the anti-anxi
 ety drug Xanax has been jailed
 Garrett had learning difficulties and
 Jamie Garrett slipped the youngstera suffered psychological abuse as a
 tablet beforwarapingtshe added: There hasn't been one
 The offences took place in August bright spot in the defendant's life so
 2016 when Garrett, then aged 22, had far, save for her relationship with her
 been drinking, smoking cannabis and grandfather. And that came at a price
 es
 with him.
 n risk
 when she became a carer
 taking Xanax herself
 Before a pingschoolboy, Gar Her grandfather has since died, leav-
 rett gave him a tabet to disinhibit ing Garrett, now 24, alone. She admit-
 him, Sheffield Crown Court was told. ted sexual activity with a child and
 Prosecutor lan Goldsack said Garrett
 supplying a controlled drug.
 told police she had taken five or six Jailing her for two years and five
 tablets herself and 'drunk a variety of months, Judge Jeremy Richardson QC
 alcoholic drinks and also smoked can said: I take into account there was the
 te nabis. Garrett later told police she had use of drugs trapet the boy
 You engaged in a variety of sexual
 acts with the boy. You have had a
 dreadful life, and have a range of per-
 re is named for legal reasons, said he was sonal vulnerabilities. But you have,
 been prescribed the Xanax by her doc-
 The boy's mother, who cannot be
 acutely embarrassed' by what had
 happened
 Katherine Goddard, mitigating, said
 however, committed a serious crime.
 Garrett was also placed on the sex
 offenders' register for ten years.
darthlampman:

Just gonna leave these edits here…

darthlampman: Just gonna leave these edits here…

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: ...