🔥 | Latest

Advice, Apparently, and Ass: GOTTA LOVE HOW PEOPLE ARE SO QUICK TO SLAM CAPTIAN MARVEL WHEN EVERYONE WAS CHEERING ON WONDER WOMAN. SO MUCH DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE COMIC BOOK FANDOM IT'S SICKENING. SUPER-HERO-COonFESSIons theamazingcaptainspider: hayley566: waveringwannabevalkyrie: libertarirynn: hayley566: I think I know why that is. It’s because Wonder Woman is more fantasy-esque and Captain Marvel is a more harsh reality. Let me explain, Wonder Woman grew up in a paradise without men or sexism and just now entered the world of man and just now experienced sexism. Carol grew up in the world of man and grew up within this system. That and Wonder Woman takes place further in the past, making it easier to think “wow, back then was awful but we’re way better now” while several comic fans grew up in the 90’s, making it feel not that long ago. While I love both films, I do feel like Captain Marvel took more risks than Wonder Woman in this sense and I applaud it for that. Miss me with that nonsense. The Carol we see at the start of the film only remembers her life on a planet where men and women were equally trained combatants and as far as we can tell have the respect of their male peers. Yes she was technically born on earth but until the latter half of the film she doesn’t remember that part. Her personality is shaped by the world that she remembers. And how is it “taking risks” to have a character that’s almost completely invulnerable and whose only “flaw” is not realizing how awesome she actually is, even though she was already practically all powerful? How is it taking risks to have a character who basically never learns or grows and is just already a badass who dispatches all enemies with little to no difficulty? Diana had to face defeat and the possibility that her simplistic belief in justice and the existence of war need to be re-examined. She had to work with others and listen to wisdom and advice in order to make informed decisions. She was powerful, but not invulnerable. She was relatable and likable. She didn’t go around being cold and rude to people for no damn reason and ooze pretension with every word she spoke. Y'all really can’t distinguish fiction from reality huh? I call bullshit on “wOrLd oF mEn” bullshit because CM’s writing was fucking trash. Literally every single fucking man she met besides Nick Fury and the Skrull guy was a complete misogynistic caricature, to the point that her FUCKING DAD’S first reaction to her getting in a go-cart accident was not desperate fear/concern for his only daughter, but to…immediately belittle her? No babe that’s not reality, that’s shit ass writers who have no sense of nuance and no sense of developing villains because “UHHHHH HERO IS WOMAN AND MAN HATE WOMAN SO ALL MEN BAD”.Take another example, the boot camp scene where apparently like 8 white guys have nothing to do except stand around and taunt Carol? Except in real life boot camp no one has fucking time to stand around, your ass is constantly being drilled and harassed by your drill instructor, and all of the recruits are being shaped into a unit to WORK TOGETHER, with everyone being treated equally harshly. (Also, I’m supposed to believe that boot camp back in the 80’s/90’s was unisex?) If it was just Carol training on her own, that again begs the question of why an entire group of guys was just staring at her while she was training instead of I don’t know… doing their own training? Relaxing on base during what little leisure time they had? But those questions don’t matter because the writers didn’t give a damn about reality. They only gave a fuck about pushing their bullshit man hating agenda, strawmanning all men, and creating a situation where Carol was nothing but a poor innocent victim of evil cruel men. They literally only existed to victimize Carol and make all of her behavior seem acceptable because “they were mean to her first, so if she decides to nearly break a man’s hand off and steal his motorcycle later, it’s okay!” That’s not fucking realism, that’s hack writing.Captain Marvel is bad, she’s not even remarkable by the standards of female characters, and quite frankly it’s insulting that you ignore and downplay other, far more iconic and well-written female heroes just because Carol plays to your politics. @waveringwannabevalkyrie “world of man” is a term used in the Wonder Woman comics several times to describe the world outside of themiscrya. That’s why I used it here. I would go over how abusive men do exist, just like abusive women do and how I’ve had my own experiences with an abusive father but from your tone, I think if I explain anymore you would make fun of me or something with the whole “aw you have daddy issues and that’s why you like the movie lol”. I’m so hope you’re not that cruel but knowing the internet, you cannot be safe. I just hope you’re not like those kind of people that I met and are willing to at least understand that just because you don’t experience something doesn’t mean it’s the same for everyone else.@libertarirynn as someone who’s seen the movie, I feel like the struggle was more than just “not knowing how awesome she was.” She was being lied to about her entire life for six years and we even see her have a breakdown upon realizing this. We see her sobbing out in a field over finding all this out. The idea of finally being free from the control of others, whether male or female (people seem to forget that minn-erva was also a villain in the movie) in both a physical and emotional sense. Despite Carol having her memories wiped in the beginning, the audience gets flashes of the sexism she faced growing up. While I love both films, I will say that captain marvel spoke to me more than Wonder Woman because of my own personal experiences and if it didn’t do the same for you guys, that’s fine. I just feel that the movie gets misrepresented or misinterpreted a lot and that it is unfair. It sucks that Wonder Woman is used to bash captain marvel despite the different approaches the movies take towards women’s issues. In fact, that behavior has caused me to like Wonder Woman less and less and I really don’t want that to happen. Not only do I start to see the flaws in the film being put on a pedestal, I become more defensive of the one that’s being misrepresented. I still love the Wonder Woman movie but the internet makes it hard to sometimes.I guess what I’m saying is…I wish fans wouldn’t use one to bash the other. I honestly wasn’t trying to bash Wonder Woman or use captain marvel to do so in my last reply. I was just explaining how one is more successful since it tried to be more palatable while the other took more risks in being a feminist film. I hope you both can see that I am not looking for a fight and am just explaining myself. I hope this helped you understand where I’m coming from and that instead of arguing or throwing insults like what usually happens online, this can be handled amicably. Both are good movies.People who hate them or use one to trash the other are secist idiots. End of story Or maybe they just have a different opinion and maybe you need to learn how to spell “sexist” before calling anyone else an idiot.
Advice, Apparently, and Ass: GOTTA LOVE HOW PEOPLE ARE SO QUICK TO SLAM
 CAPTIAN MARVEL WHEN EVERYONE WAS CHEERING ON WONDER
 WOMAN. SO MUCH DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE COMIC BOOK
 FANDOM IT'S SICKENING.
 SUPER-HERO-COonFESSIons
theamazingcaptainspider:

hayley566:

waveringwannabevalkyrie:
libertarirynn:

hayley566:

I think I know why that is. It’s because Wonder Woman is more fantasy-esque and Captain Marvel is a more harsh reality. 
Let me explain, Wonder Woman grew up in a paradise without men or sexism and just now entered the world of man and just now experienced sexism. Carol grew up in the world of man and grew up within this system. That and Wonder Woman takes place further in the past, making it easier to think “wow, back then was awful but we’re way better now” while several comic fans grew up in the 90’s, making it feel not that long ago. 
While I love both films, I do feel like Captain Marvel took more risks than Wonder Woman in this sense and I applaud it for that.

Miss me with that nonsense. The Carol we see at the start of the film only remembers her life on a planet where men and women were equally trained combatants and as far as we can tell have the respect of their male peers. Yes she was technically born on earth but until the latter half of the film she doesn’t remember that part. Her personality is shaped by the world that she remembers. And how is it “taking risks” to have a character that’s almost completely invulnerable and whose only “flaw” is not realizing how awesome she actually is, even though she was already practically all powerful? How is it taking risks to have a character who basically never learns or grows and is just already a badass who dispatches all enemies with little to no difficulty? 
Diana had to face defeat and the possibility that her simplistic belief in justice and the existence of war need to be re-examined. She had to work with others and listen to wisdom and advice in order to make informed decisions. She was powerful, but not invulnerable. She was relatable and likable. She didn’t go around being cold and rude to people for no damn reason and ooze pretension with every word she spoke.

Y'all really can’t distinguish fiction from reality huh? I call bullshit on “wOrLd oF mEn” bullshit because CM’s writing was fucking trash. Literally every single fucking man she met besides Nick Fury and the Skrull guy was a complete misogynistic caricature, to the point that her FUCKING DAD’S first reaction to her getting in a go-cart accident was not desperate fear/concern for his only daughter, but to…immediately belittle her? No babe that’s not reality, that’s shit ass writers who have no sense of nuance and no sense of developing villains because “UHHHHH HERO IS WOMAN AND MAN HATE WOMAN SO ALL MEN BAD”.Take another example, the boot camp scene where apparently like 8 white guys have nothing to do except stand around and taunt Carol? Except in real life boot camp no one has fucking time to stand around, your ass is constantly being drilled and harassed by your drill instructor, and all of the recruits are being shaped into a unit to WORK TOGETHER, with everyone being treated equally harshly. (Also, I’m supposed to believe that boot camp back in the 80’s/90’s was unisex?) If it was just Carol training on her own, that again begs the question of why an entire group of guys was just staring at her while she was training instead of I don’t know… doing their own training? Relaxing on base during what little leisure time they had? But those questions don’t matter because the writers didn’t give a damn about reality. They only gave a fuck about pushing their bullshit man hating agenda, strawmanning all men, and creating a situation where Carol was nothing but a poor innocent victim of evil cruel men. They literally only existed to victimize Carol and make all of her behavior seem acceptable because “they were mean to her first, so if she decides to nearly break a man’s hand off and steal his motorcycle later, it’s okay!” That’s not fucking realism, that’s hack writing.Captain Marvel is bad, she’s not even remarkable by the standards of female characters, and quite frankly it’s insulting that you ignore and downplay other, far more iconic and well-written female heroes just because Carol plays to your politics.
@waveringwannabevalkyrie “world of man” is a term used in the Wonder Woman comics several times to describe the world outside of themiscrya. That’s why I used it here. I would go over how abusive men do exist, just like abusive women do and how I’ve had my own experiences with an abusive father but from your tone, I think if I explain anymore you would make fun of me or something with the whole “aw you have daddy issues and that’s why you like the movie lol”. I’m so hope you’re not that cruel but knowing the internet, you cannot be safe. I just hope you’re not like those kind of people that I met and are willing to at least understand that just because you don’t experience something doesn’t mean it’s the same for everyone else.@libertarirynn as someone who’s seen the movie, I feel like the struggle was more than just “not knowing how awesome she was.” She was being lied to about her entire life for six years and we even see her have a breakdown upon realizing this. We see her sobbing out in a field over finding all this out. The idea of finally being free from the control of others, whether male or female (people seem to forget that minn-erva was also a villain in the movie) in both a physical and emotional sense. Despite Carol having her memories wiped in the beginning, the audience gets flashes of the sexism she faced growing up. While I love both films, I will say that captain marvel spoke to me more than Wonder Woman because of my own personal experiences and if it didn’t do the same for you guys, that’s fine. I just feel that the movie gets misrepresented or misinterpreted a lot and that it is unfair. It sucks that Wonder Woman is used to bash captain marvel despite the different approaches the movies take towards women’s issues. In fact, that behavior has caused me to like Wonder Woman less and less and I really don’t want that to happen. Not only do I start to see the flaws in the film being put on a pedestal, I become more defensive of the one that’s being misrepresented. I still love the Wonder Woman movie but the internet makes it hard to sometimes.I guess what I’m saying is…I wish fans wouldn’t use one to bash the other. I honestly wasn’t trying to bash Wonder Woman or use captain marvel to do so in my last reply.  I was just explaining how one is more successful since it tried to be more palatable while the other took more risks in being a feminist film. I hope you both can see that I am not looking for a fight and am just explaining myself. I hope this helped you understand where I’m coming from and that instead of arguing or throwing insults like what usually happens online, this can be handled amicably.

Both are good movies.People who hate them or use one to trash the other are secist idiots. End of story

Or maybe they just have a different opinion and maybe you need to learn how to spell “sexist” before calling anyone else an idiot.

theamazingcaptainspider: hayley566: waveringwannabevalkyrie: libertarirynn: hayley566: I think I know why that is. It’s because Wonder W...

Advice, Life, and Love: GOTTA LOVE HOW PEOPLE ARE SO QUICK TO SLAM CAPTIAN MARVEL WHEN EVERYONE WAS CHEERING ON WONDER WOMAN. SO MUCH DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE COMIC BOOK FANDOM IT'S SICKENING. SUPER-HERO-COonFESSIons hayley566: I think I know why that is. It’s because Wonder Woman is more fantasy-esque and Captain Marvel is a more harsh reality. Let me explain, Wonder Woman grew up in a paradise without men or sexism and just now entered the world of man and just now experienced sexism. Carol grew up in the world of man and grew up within this system. That and Wonder Woman takes place further in the past, making it easier to think “wow, back then was awful but we’re way better now” while several comic fans grew up in the 90’s, making it feel not that long ago. While I love both films, I do feel like Captain Marvel took more risks than Wonder Woman in this sense and I applaud it for that. Miss me with that nonsense. The Carol we see at the start of the film only remembers her life on a planet where men and women were equally trained combatants and as far as we can tell have the respect of their male peers. Yes she was technically born on earth but until the latter half of the film she doesn’t remember that part. Her personality is shaped by the world that she remembers. And how is it “taking risks” to have a character that’s almost completely invulnerable and whose only “flaw” is not realizing how awesome she actually is, even though she was already practically all powerful? How is it taking risks to have a character who basically never learns or grows and is just already a badass who dispatches all enemies with little to no difficulty? Diana had to face defeat and the possibility that her simplistic belief in justice and the existence of war need to be re-examined. She had to work with others and listen to wisdom and advice in order to make informed decisions. She was powerful, but not invulnerable. She was relatable and likable. She didn’t go around being cold and rude to people for no damn reason and ooze pretension with every word she spoke.
Advice, Life, and Love: GOTTA LOVE HOW PEOPLE ARE SO QUICK TO SLAM
 CAPTIAN MARVEL WHEN EVERYONE WAS CHEERING ON WONDER
 WOMAN. SO MUCH DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE COMIC BOOK
 FANDOM IT'S SICKENING.
 SUPER-HERO-COonFESSIons
hayley566:
I think I know why that is. It’s because Wonder Woman is more fantasy-esque and Captain Marvel is a more harsh reality. 
Let me explain, Wonder Woman grew up in a paradise without men or sexism and just now entered the world of man and just now experienced sexism. Carol grew up in the world of man and grew up within this system. That and Wonder Woman takes place further in the past, making it easier to think “wow, back then was awful but we’re way better now” while several comic fans grew up in the 90’s, making it feel not that long ago. 
While I love both films, I do feel like Captain Marvel took more risks than Wonder Woman in this sense and I applaud it for that.
Miss me with that nonsense. The Carol we see at the start of the film only remembers her life on a planet where men and women were equally trained combatants and as far as we can tell have the respect of their male peers. Yes she was technically born on earth but until the latter half of the film she doesn’t remember that part. Her personality is shaped by the world that she remembers. And how is it “taking risks” to have a character that’s almost completely invulnerable and whose only “flaw” is not realizing how awesome she actually is, even though she was already practically all powerful? How is it taking risks to have a character who basically never learns or grows and is just already a badass who dispatches all enemies with little to no difficulty? Diana had to face defeat and the possibility that her simplistic belief in justice and the existence of war need to be re-examined. She had to work with others and listen to wisdom and advice in order to make informed decisions. She was powerful, but not invulnerable. She was relatable and likable. She didn’t go around being cold and rude to people for no damn reason and ooze pretension with every word she spoke.

hayley566: I think I know why that is. It’s because Wonder Woman is more fantasy-esque and Captain Marvel is a more harsh reality. Let me e...

Amazon, Chrome, and Destiny: a Live Chat with Amazon.com- Google Chrome https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/c45e-9461b3f74d40&token &callMeC2Cld-e7bd2 Sound End Chat 3 Chat You are now connected to Amazon from Amazon.com Me: Tracking shows delivered but shipment not recieved Amazon: Warmest greetingsmy name is Thor Me: Greeting, Thor. Can I be Odin? Odin, Father, How art thy doing on this here fine day? Amazon: Thor, my son. Agony raises upon my life Me: Amazon: This is outrageous! Who dares defy The All Father Odin! What has occured to cause this agony? Me: I am afraid the book I ordered to defeat our enemies has been misplaced. How can we keep Valhalla intact without our sacred book. Amazon: This is blasphemy! Wherever this book has been taken to, I shall make it my duty to get it back to youl I fear it is Loki but I dare not blame him for such things. I shall have your fortune returned to you and thereafter we can begin to create a new quest in order to get the book back to you. Very well my son. Me: Allow me some time to round up my allies and complete this please Father. Amazon: Me: Do it for me Thor, but most imporantly do it for the mortals whose destiny (and grades) rely on this book. Amazon: Alas, the treasure has been returned to you. You now need to reinstate the book into your archive so that you may yet receive it soon I shall have the Valkyrie deliver it to you as fast as their wings can move Me: ok so roleplay aside i have my money back and i reorder the book haha yes I have refunded you and you need to reorder the book Amazon: Me: Great Have you placed the order Amazon: Me: let me do that done Amazon: Okay let me edit it for you That good? Me: Wow hooking me up with one day delivery? Sweet haha yeah man gotta get you your book asap! Amazon: Me: Ive heard Amazon had great customer service and this just proves it! thanks man Amazon: No problemIs there any other issue or question that I can help you with? Me: Nah that was it. Really appreciate it Anytime bro. Have a great day. Goodbye Odin Amazon: Me: Bye my son Send Amazon from Amazon.com is online Secure Connection lolzandtrollz:Best Customer Service Ever
Amazon, Chrome, and Destiny: a Live Chat with Amazon.com- Google Chrome
 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/c45e-9461b3f74d40&token &callMeC2Cld-e7bd2
 Sound
 End Chat 3
 Chat
 You are now connected to Amazon from Amazon.com
 Me: Tracking shows delivered but shipment not recieved
 Amazon: Warmest greetingsmy name is Thor
 Me: Greeting, Thor. Can I be Odin?
 Odin, Father, How art thy doing on this here fine day?
 Amazon:
 Thor, my son. Agony raises upon my life
 Me:
 Amazon: This is outrageous! Who dares defy The All Father Odin! What has occured to cause
 this agony?
 Me: I am afraid the book I ordered to defeat our enemies has been misplaced. How can we
 keep Valhalla intact without our sacred book.
 Amazon: This is blasphemy! Wherever this book has been taken to, I shall make it my duty
 to get it back to youl I fear it is Loki but I dare not blame him for such things.
 I shall have your fortune returned to you and thereafter we can begin to create a new quest
 in order to get the book back to you.
 Very well my son.
 Me:
 Allow me some time to round up my allies and complete this please Father.
 Amazon:
 Me: Do it for me Thor, but most imporantly do it for the mortals whose destiny (and grades)
 rely on this book.
 Amazon: Alas, the treasure has been returned to you. You now need to reinstate the book
 into your archive so that you may yet receive it soon
 I shall have the Valkyrie deliver it to you as fast as their wings can move
 Me: ok so roleplay aside i have my money back and i reorder the book
 haha yes I have refunded you and you need to reorder the book
 Amazon:
 Me: Great
 Have you placed the order
 Amazon:
 Me: let me do that
 done
 Amazon: Okay let me edit it for you
 That good?
 Me: Wow hooking me up with one day delivery? Sweet
 haha yeah man gotta get you your book asap!
 Amazon:
 Me:
 Ive heard Amazon had great customer service and this just proves it! thanks man
 Amazon: No problemIs there any other issue or question that I can help you with?
 Me:
 Nah that was it. Really appreciate it
 Anytime bro. Have a great day. Goodbye Odin
 Amazon:
 Me: Bye my son
 Send
 Amazon from Amazon.com is online
 Secure Connection
lolzandtrollz:Best Customer Service Ever

lolzandtrollz:Best Customer Service Ever

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: ...