#but by principle i will not because it's a ridiculous fucking tweet

[moobloom]

strongly urge y’all to share this, i just got kicked off twitter for having made a joke about an emoji three years ago. twitter is no longer safe and i recommend everyone on here to delete your accounts or log off. 

[nochd]

Tweet by Brady Hardin:

Rapture anxiety is real. It's the fear created by being conditioned into believing the end of the world could begin at any moment. Only people right with God will disappear. It fucks kids up. And is nothing but a ridiculous boogie man tactic. We deserved better from our adults.

The one part of this I'm not sure about is the "nothing but a ridiculous boogie man tactic."

I mean, I'm sure there are some Evangelicals who don't really believe what they say they believe. But I can assure you most of them seriously do think this is real.

The adults believe in the boogie man as well.

If this is giving you trouble, me too. Here's the problem:

Religion is an essential part of culture; religious diversity is a good thing. Abolishing religion, if that were possible, would make the world far poorer, and any serious attempt at it would in practice probably end up becoming genocidal.

Christianity is not The One Bad Religion any more than it's The One True Religion. It's been the cause of more misery than other religions because it's historically held more power over more territory for more time than other religions, not because it's a more miserable religion.

Christianity, especially but not uniquely in its Evangelical and (I guess) Catholic incarnations, is an oppressive, reactionary force that endangers the lives of queer people, people of colour, and others.

Each of these three statements, considered by itself, seems to me to be pretty much true. But I can't make them sit nicely together. Any two of them will fit together until I bring in the third one, at which point they fall apart. I have not found the concord of this discord.

One way out could be, in principle, if it turned out that the oppressive parts of Christianity were not really anyone's actual beliefs; that those Christians who claimed to believe that being gay was bad or that everyone but born-again Evangelicals was bound for Hell, were all consciously faking it for the sake of gaining power.

Some are faking it for power -- but it only works because most aren't.

You can see how this idea would solve the trilemma here if it were true. Then we could say that the "Christianity" in point 3 above was the fake Christianity, and the "Christianity" in point 2 was the sincere Christianity, and since these are two different things there's no contradiction. (Also it gives us a villain we can imagine punching in the face with a clear conscience, and that's always cathartic.)

But I'm afraid it's not true.

And yes -- another potential way out -- people with bigoted ideas are drawn to beliefs that will justify those ideas. But sometimes, and I'm speaking from long experience here, sometimes kind and honest people hold bigoted views, poorly though those views sit with their general character, because their religion's doctrine does in fact imply those bigoted views and they're too honest to pretend otherwise.

If you've figured out a solution to this problem that doesn't involve either of those false escape routes, you're doing better than me.

I was fucking traumatized by this shit

[lemonhemlock]

https://twitter.com/Targ_Nation/status/1611158240359759872?t=bfo77HLITj21KBLCUKx6fA&s=19

Seeing all those likes took years off my life

i don't even know where to begin............

"centrist bs" - the concept of left and right doesn't exist in a medieval setting ...................

where was this energy when cersei was committing abuses left and right and placing her bastard children on the throne? why didn't "the modern audience" "almost unanimously stand by the side of the woman being usurped of her throne" back then? 😵

but this isn't even about one side being more wrong than the other or both sides being awful or war being horrible as a rule or the smallfolk always paying with their lives and livelihoods when the high lords play their game of thrones

that entire tweet is predicated on not grasping the basic principles of the polity they are operating within 😫 you cannot define usurpation based on absolute primogeniture when that society relies on male primogeniture for inheritance, in that context it literally means the opposite

words don't somehow gain whatever meaning you want based on what you think is fair, same how laws don't materialize into existence just because you say so. any kind of law is a social construct, doesn't exist outside the confines of society and requires a certain kind of framework in order to be accepted & enforced. if proposed laws are not accepted by the majority and cannot be enforced, they only exist on the astral plane

there aren't even any proper institutions in westeros. literally the only ones i can identify are the crown and the small council, which serves as a kind of proto-government. there's no parliament, there's no proper justice system, no magna charta. the only courts that seem to operate are Faith-based courts and your liege lord's judgment. medieval-style legal systems and law enforcement are headache-inducing as a rule anyway, but feudal monarchies generally involve constant negotiations and power leverages between kings and their vassals

a more apt characterization of the Dance would be what exactly and how much can the targaryens get away with now that they've decided to impose themselves as rulers of a unified westeros. so far, they had to accept the religion of the land (aegon the conqueror was anointed by the high septon) and were forced to renounce polygamy. they got to keep practicing incest as a result of jaehaerys' successful doctrine of exceptionalism. see? negotiation. now the question remains - are they going to respect succession laws like a normal person (i.e. Andal Law) or are they going to resort to this ridiculous circus every time a targaryen monarch dies? because at the point of the dance, there had hardly been a straightforward transition of power since the conquest

for the internal coherence of this fictional world to be maintained, the nobles should be pushing Andal inheritance rights like crazy, because their own succession is decided on the basis of that and they would be directly interested in not fucking it up for themselves or their descendants by having weird precedents set by the royal family. a lot of these lords, if not most, have bastard siblings/children of their own, as well as elder sisters/daughters. it doesn't make sense for them to threaten their own stability for the sake of rhaenyra of all people, who isn't even good at her job and has done absolutely nothing to endear herself to them. what could they possibly gain by supporting her?

the question of the monarch imposing a law is much more believable in a centralized state, which westeros most definitely is not. imposing laws can also be done via force, of course, as long as """the state""" retains the monopoly on violence. the targaryens' v effective military superiority has so far been conferred by dragons. but rhaenyra's side isn't the only one that has dragons anymore. the opposing faction, i.e. the side who'd perpetuate Andal law, also has them now, as it happens. ergo war.

this situation is absolutely not similar in any way to today's democracies where laws are voted by parliament and the rest of the country have no choice but to abide by them or else the police come knocking on your door and hand you over to the our modern justice system, where your punishment is set by objective specialists & not decided by crazy stunts like trial by ordeal or the whims of your liege lord

tldr: there is no incentive for westerosi nobility to break andal succession law for rhaenyra, since it would be legal self-sabotage by setting a precedent that could come to bite those very same people in the a*se. rhaenyra is NOT an only child - by having trueborn brothers, the only way she can ascend is by breaking the laws & customs of the land. ergo disgruntled lords will inevitably flock to alicent's sons to form covert alliances & subversive power centres that, in time, will erupt in open rebellions. real-world historical examples attest to this happening with or without the consent of their respective figureheads (eg. lady jane grey) - i.e. it doesn't matter if aegon/aemond/daeron play happy families or not. in turn, the only way rhaenyra can prevent this is by executing her brothers/their male descendants. the greens don't want to die => the only way of achieving security for them is by claiming the throne.

alternatively, rhaenyra's life is not in danger as long as she bends the knee, as no-one in-universe would take her claim seriously with 3 living brothers. rhaenys also bent the knee to viserys after losing an election and is still alive. i'll say it again: it is not in the lords' best interest to support rhaenyra in the first place. if we are to go by any logic - what would they gain, should they flock to her? they would destabilize the line of succession for themselves for a (pretty terrible) queen, a reviled king consort and a bastard heir. but, as far as advantages and favours are concerned, what would they be, specifically? in order to outweigh the above-mentioned disadvantages?

you should all blame viserys for getting remarried and fathering sons, because had rhaenyra remained an only child or had only sisters, none of this would be happening & she would have become the first ruling queen of westeros

[gothicprep]

speaking of shit that happened 11 years ago, i have this story from high school that reflects very poorly on my character, but it's so dark and so funny that i can't resist sharing it.

there are two important bits of context that i need to get out of the way for this to make any sense. the first of which is that a girl in my friend group had extremely overprotective parents who were adamantly against her using social media, and if i had to speculate on why, it was because she spent a ridiculous amount of time on this site called myyearbook. i don't know how many of my followers are old enough to remember myb, but basically it was a cross between facebook, myspace, and a 2000s aol homepage. the only people i remember using it in high school were hormonal teens desperate to lose their virginity using it to connect with other hormonal teens equally desperate to lose their virginity who went to different schools in the general area. it's since rebranded to a straightforward dating site, but that's a snapshot of it in 2011. but, anyway, she was always going behind her parents' backs, made a facebook anyway, kept getting caught, kept getting her phone confiscated and internet access restricted.

there was also a very surreal situation i was caught up in that involved this guy who i had a major falling out with for reasons that were unclear to me at the time, and frankly, still are. he just flipped a switch and started being very, very vicious to me. started posting all this weird shit about me on facebook and just talking constant shit on me. i was very confused and angry about it, and whenever i'd subtweet him, he'd complain to the school and i'd get called into the vice principle's office, get chewed out and hear vague threats about having the cops called on me. i also probably made it worse for myself by being antagonistic towards the vp and saying shit like "you can't call the cyber police over tweets that don't mention anybody by name 🙄" but i stand by the cuntiness. this went on for TWO YEARS, i missed so much class time because of this shit, single-handedly ruined high school for me, and it makes even less sense in hindsight. what made matters much worse is that most of my friends (strict parents friend included) sort of refused to take my side in the matter, even though this was clearly out of line, and i had a lot of suspicions that they were egging him on behind my back and making matters worse.

okay, onto the story.

friend with strict parents is out of school recovering from a surgery and i go to her house and drop off some of the classwork she missed. she has no phone access, again, so she asks if she can use my phone to check her facebook before her parents get home from work. i let her, she scrolls for a little bit, and gives my phone back to me. when i get home, i realize she forgot to log out.

so i'm thinking to myself, "jackpot". now i can keep tabs on Evil Ex Friend and i can also check the DM history and confirm or dismiss my suspicions about her and the others egging him on behind my back. i pull their DM history and, sure enough, i was right. i call one of the few people who stood by me through the cyber police situation and ask her if i can come by and talk shit.

i drive to her house, we go through the DMs, we talk shit, and while we're doing this, another message comes in from some guy strict parents friend met on myb: "hey, you got your phone back". we ignore him at first, but then he sends another message. so we're like, fuck, he's going to keep this up as long as he sees her profile online, so we come up with the brilliant idea to reply, mimic her typing style as faithfully as possible, and delete the individual messages in the conversation when he's done to cover our tracks. but the conversation turns sexual very, very quickly and he starts asking for titty pics. obviously we can't comply – we obviously don't have nudes of her and we aren't going to send anything ourselves. so we keep dodging the request and this guy flips his lid and blocks her.

shit. this is bad.

so we go along with the original plan to delete that specific conversation, log out because we don't want to draw the ire of any more simps, and cross our fingers that karma doesn't have its kiss for us.

strict parents friend gets her phone back eventually and she eventually casually mentions to our lunch table "oh, johnny deleted his facebook and myb. i wonder what happened :/ i don't have his phone number so i guess i've lost touch with him". and she was speaking earnestly, tbh she had no reason to suspect riley and i were responsible. but it's been more than a decade at this point and i don't think she ever found out we were responsible for this. and she probably never will because we haven't spoken in 8 years lmfao.

i thought this would be a lot funnier before i typed it out, but i still think it's a gem nonetheless.

[ranboo5]

Actually no I will address it tee emm. Sayin my piece 

Been seeing Technoblade enjoyers, including some whom I generally respect, out here making fake/satirical Technoblade (streamer) detraction tweets with unhinged accusations, faked Techno screenshots of him saying Ridiculously Cancellable:tm: shit, etc. 

I understand this comes from a place of frustration and wanting to poke fun at something that at this point everyone who isn’t in the thick of recognizes as long past anything productive or reasonable

However. All due respect, but can you people think for like five seconds 

Can we all remember the basic fucking principle of “jokes about [x bad thing] that are literally indistinguishable from actual [x bad thing] rhetoric are bad, actually, and literally just contribute to [x bad thing]”? This is a streamer fandom, so maybe not, actually, but I’d like to stay optimistic 

Like. Can you people think for like five seconds about what those tweets are going to look like to anyone who isn’t you and the mutual you made them with in DMs. People legitimately talk like this and people who are sick of this shit may well fail to recognize it as satire and either way will see it as perpetuating this bullshit, because it is; honestly, most people in that echo chamber earnestly are going to take the material you made to make fun of them into their body of rhetoric, because they fundamentally don’t care about whether something is good faith or true 

If someone sees a burner account posting wild accusations and reaches that are phrased as if to slander Technoblade, you are assuming WAY too much if you think people on either side of the debate will recognize it as a joke. And frankly at that point if that’s all people see that’s all the effect it has! 

Doing this shit contributes to it! Doing this shit keeps this economy alive! I realize we all have to laugh at Twitter or we’ll go insane but how about instead of actively stoking the fire to do so we do something else, or better yet, just log off Twitter dot com and not look at those weird ass echo chambers and let them starve themselves to death instead of FEEDING THEM NEW CONTENT 

Like. This really should not be a complicated concept. If people are making stupid unhinged accusations, making more stupid unhinged accusations... is going to make it so there are more stupid unhinged accusations... 

This isn’t even a “you’re not achieving anything” it’s “you are literally actively making it worse” 

[nuttyrabbit]

The thing I'm finding annoying here is that... This is like, what the first bad issue we've had in this arc? Everything up to this point? Solid. We get this one bad issue, and everybody is now using it to say that all of IDW is shit. All that good will that Ian's worked hard to foster in the community, completely gone. All because of one bad issue.

The thing is that it's not even a bad issue, just a merely okay one. The whole Shadow thing could've been handled a lot better than it was (for starters it could've actually conveyed the self sacrifice thing it seemed to be going for), but it's by no means bad.

Honestly it really just feels like fandoms, not just this one, love to talk a big game about how much they want the character's flaws to come into play or for them to face consequences right up until the point they actually do or have those things, at which point they turn around and scream how it's bad writing because the characters *gasp* aren't perfect and actually made a mistake or have genuine flaws.

This is not something exclusive to IDW Sonic or even this franchise by any means. Hell, just look at the critical tags for any franchise that has one and you see this time and time and time again.

Of course I'm not saying that the execution of this particular mistake was perfect or that characters can't make mistakes because of bad writing, that'd be fucking ridiculous. But what I am saying is that it more often feels like people don't like this kind of thing on principle rather than on a case by case basis

Also I'll close this out with a great tweet a friend of mine made that I feel perfectly sums up my feelings on this

[onisiondrama]

onision.co questions part 1

Greg / James is answering questions on one of his sites. I don’t suggest posting any questions or even going there to read his answers because he’ll just deflect and profit off the site traffic due to the excessive ads. I posted kinda relevant questions he answered so you don’t have to visit the site. I’ll post more as the day goes on.

Why are you a pedofile? Just that,love to know considering im an ex fan of yours 

Onision Staff replied 2 hours ago

Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent kids. There is nothing attractive about kids.

hey dude how does it feel to have videos about the horrible shit you did show up before your channel does on YouTube search results 

Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago

It’s nice to know so many people think I’m relevant.

Why are you like this? Seriously greg wtf is your problem???? 

Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago

Who is Greg? And I mean, we all have problems. You have to be specific.

What steps are you making to overcome your NPD? I know its fairly rare for sufferers of NPD to seek treatment but I am curious as to whether you’ve ever overcome this hurdle and looked into therapy/counselling. Apologies if this is too personal. Love the content and I know you’re more than just your disorder. 

Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago

I’ve only ever been diagnosed with depression. Maybe you’re mistaking me for someone else.

Tweets  hey are you trying to bust a nut on twitter right now or something?  like bruh wtf.

Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago

Gotta live a little.

replied 2 hours ago

fair enough. got that hentai and incest porn all ready to go?

Onision Staff replied 2 hours ago

Sounds like you do.

replied 2 hours ago

lmao peace out tell your dogs I say hi

Change in your views? First of all, thanks for taking the time to answer questions 🙂I’m a little miffed, it must be said since it seems your principles have changed over the past few years. Previously you said you wouldn’t associate with anyone who sent minors nudes. Why is Kai the exception to that rule? Or have you changed your overall opinion?Hope you’re holding up okay x

Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago

Kai has never had any interest in doing anything like that. If you knew him, you’d know that. What you see online is a massive distortion of the truth. Sending anyone images like that has always been wrong.

sad boi  is lainey crying?

Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago

Who is Lainey?

Behavior… Hey James! Another question for you! Can you explain why you were rude as all hell to Sarah up until a month before she turned 18? Could it possibly be that you wanted her to want that validation and niceness from you after years of cruelty? And why the fuck are you shaming a child about her sexual activity to the point that she cries about it? A child, dude.

Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago

I was rude because I only want adult friends.

"Barely Legal"???? Hey James! So I’m curious. You said that you have a preference for women in their 20s/30s, and that the last “barely legal” person you were with was Kai. Did you forget about Sarah and Billie?

Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago

Legal age in Washington state is 16… I have not been with anyone who is 16 in my life. The last time I dated anyone who was even close, was Kai about 7 years ago, who I have been married to about seven years as well.

Ew… Hey James! So, my question was… Why are you so fucking nasty? First the news breaks that you and Kai groomed and bedded Sarah within 4 months of her turning 18 and after being her legal guardians and adults who were supposed to keep herself. You yourself described her as a foster daughter didn’t you? And now we know the real story behind all of those disgusting videos you posted of your poor ex… who you also groomed while still married to your ex wife! Wow, what a busy man. 

Onision Staff answered 2 hours ago

It’s funny seeing people believe everything they read online.

replied 2 hours ago

I mean the receipts are there. Your silence on the matter also speaks volumes. You can dismiss it as not wanting ‘drama’. The truth is that you know you don’t have a leg to stand on. The truth is out there and you’re not HONEST enough to admit it.

Onision Staff replied 2 hours ago

Johnny Depp was pretty silent too ~ Some people are just grown ups who don’t want to participate in meaningless wastes of time, that is, internet drama. If you don’t like me, you’re welcome to leave. Go be happy.

replied 2 hours ago

Being accused of grooming children isn’t “internet drama”. Johnny Depp also denied the accusations. The fact that you don’t have any actual defense except “I don’t wanna talk about it” really speaks on the validity of it.

Onision Staff replied 57 mins ago

Johnny Depp and I both denied the accusations because both accusations are ridiculous.

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

Hi Ralph! I don’t think you saw it but yesterday Halsey tweeted a few things about sex work, and I wanted to know your position on that (sex work, not Halsey’s opinion, but if you want to expand on that I wouldn’t oppose. For what is worth I think she’s having a very limited view of the subject).

Hi anon,

I hadn’t seen it and I’m finding it a bit hard to piece together exactly what happened.  But that her initital statement #supportsexworkers is at all controversial among feminists and the left is a fucking indictment.  

Supporting workers is basic - I’ve no way of knowing the number of times that I’ve said “Support X Workers” - in chants, or while collecting money, or on picket lines, or in leaflets, or in conversation. 

I don’t necessarily agree with what I’ve seen of Halsey’s response once she got challenged, but I think that was mostly because a simple a vital act of solidarity was being twisted to mean ridiculous things - and knowing how to respond to that in a consistent and principled way is a skill.

My position on sex work is pretty straight forward - sex work is work.  Work is generally pretty terrible under capitalism, but we do know how to make it better.  Workers organising together have improved their lives so much.  

I understand that a lot of people, particularly people who aren’t cis-men, will have complicated feelings and thoughts about sex work.  That makes total sense, both work and sex are made infinitely worse than they could be for those who don’t have power in our society, and at the same time infused with a lot of meaning.  But I think one of the powers of solidarity is that it can help people navigate complicated situations.  Responding to sex workers the same way you respond to other workers and offering them solidarity is a way of getting political clarity even if your responses are complex.

Similarly, I think there is only one legal model that is consistent with women’s liberation and meaningful feminism.  People with a wide range of feelings, thoughts and analysis can and should support decriminalisation.  The difference it makes to marginalised people’s lives when law changes reduce hte power the police have over their communities - are real and obvious.  Feminists all over the world can support sex workers by campaigning for decriminalisaton (a very different thing from legalisation). 

None of this is very complicated for me, because I come from NZ, one of the only places in the world to decriminalise sex work.  And perhaps because of that I’ve known a lot of people who do sex work and listened to them talk about their lives and their work.  I’m very happy to talk more about qualms or questions that you have - I also recommend the book Revolting Prostitutes.  

[aijee]

I agree. I can’t ever see sending death threats as justifiable, no matter the circumstances. How is that better than making inappropriate jokes when you’re a teenager? How is that better than bullying? This culture of people, in particular ifans, feeling like they have power or have a higher moral ground over their faves/an idol’s life irks me, really. (I guess that’s a result of fans being idols’ source of livelihood, I guess. But what can we do.)

As someone in my twenties who experienced not being on the internet 24/7 and then transitioning into this era where we are, I just get sad seeing how some of the early warnings about the internet (which I personally think still applies) get lost in this generation. Things like “the internet isn’t a safe place. be careful” and “don’t believe everything you see on the internet, people can write anything” are just completely lost now. I’ve always been cautious with information I stumble upon on the internet, and no matter how people younger than me tell me I’m ridiculous for that, I will stand by my principle.

re: intersectionality. I think this intersectionality isn’t just Korea as a whole, but different places in Korea also has these sociocultural circumstances intersect in a different way, albeit maybe being similar. Just as it is in any other place in the world. Even as someone living in asia with some similar values, I can’t just say I know how everything is in Korea. We can’t never know the whole picture of that particular neighborhood and middle school in which mg grew up in. (Also lmao unironic koreaboos...)

It’s disheartening to see people tear someone down without knowing everything. A culture that I hope will die down or at least mellow out in the upcoming decade. At this point people will believe what fits their narrative best about this mg situation. The situation is hard and upsetting for different reasons for different people. I just hope everything will be resolved carefully for all the parties involved. I agree that it is a clusterfuck, but as you said: being empathetic is important, to everyone, to every side :)

Thank you aijee, it’s pleasant to have these discussions with you even when we don’t know each other personally! Although you’re probably tired of me clogging your inbox by now haha! - 🎐

I often use the analogy of blackened windows of a car to describe communicating on the Internet. Outside of it, you might think you’re screaming and flipping the bird at a wall, but there could very well be a real human being on the other side who can see and hear that. The Internet isn’t always the void we think it is. Bots aside, real fucking people use social media sites. CRAZY. Even if we do recognize that, there are simply people there who don’t care because of “free speech” or “it’s the Internet get over it.” Shitty reasons to be an asshole, really. Losing humanity to the digital sea is somehow poetic.

I distinctly recall this one time I saw on the rare time I’m on Twitter, in some iteration of a hateful trending tag, really pitiful tweets along the lines of “Well I’m depressed as fuck, so I’m going to hate on people if I want to” as if having mental illness justifies hate. Nothing justifies being hateful; bad histories are only the explanation.

I respect you greatly for holding on to those principles. I feel a strange sort of pity for the younger generation who were born in a digital world. Despite how much the Internet generation can grate on my nerves sometimes, being submerged in capitalistic advertisement and algorithms isn’t their fault. So many Internet gen kids think they know everything, too, just because their accessibility to media is vast compared to what older generations had at such impressionable ages. There definitely needs to be far more education about how to safely, mindfully navigate the Internet. But with so many schools hesitant to give accurate sex education, we’re fucking eons away from legit Internet safety, my dudes.

Okay, at this point I don’t think I’ve replied to every possible point you’ve made, but my brain honestly feels a bit like mush now (for a number of reasons). Hopefully the dissertations I’ve offered thus far are satiating enough.

[eeveelutionsforequality]

"Oh, I’m sorry. Did I take a generalized, no context, flat statement and interpret it in the most literal, straightforward manner? Did I accidentally take a statement of “everyone killed by a cop (implicitly including anyone killed in self defense) is innocent without a single exception” and interpret it as “everyone killed by a cop (implicitly including anyone killed in self defense) is innocent without a single exception”? My bad."

As I said in my other post:

"Seems like people need a refresher course: “innocent until proven guilty” does not mean “this person is empirically and objectively innocent of any and all wrongdoing”, it means that one behaves solely with the presumption of innocence - essentially it is the opposite of “stranger danger”, wherein you assume any person could potentially be dangerous and thus treat all as a potential threat, in that you assume that any person could potentially be innocent and thus treat all as if they are going to be proven innocent and thus you will have to bear the weight on your conscience and on their life and on their family of having done that to an innocent party… by extension not doing that because it would be unethical and an affront to freedom to have in place a system that does that to innocent parties."

"tl;dr - my reblog of that post was obviously not to say that all people who died before a trial objectively never did anything wrong, and you'd have to assume me stupid to say that it was, but it was to say that the legal system, very much including the police who very often forget this fundamental principle, are obliged to treat even them, even in death, with the aforementioned presumption of innocence, in order to protect the freedoms and safety of all who come after them"

To interpret "innocent until proven guilty" as "empirically innocent of wrongdoing" is a misinterpretation.

"Also I like how you accuse me of bad faith argument, then go on to not only be an asshole because I dared ask the intentions of the seemingly nonsense statement that makes no sense in any real applicable form without the further context you provided, while being an asshole,"

I'm really not the one being an asshole here. Anyway, as I said in my other post "my reblog of that post was obviously not to say that all people who died before a trial objectively never did anything wrong, and you'd have to assume me stupid to say that it was". It was either bad faith or you genuinely think that I'm stupid. Your "question" was dumb because the inherent implication of your incessant babbling is that I'm dumb enough to be unreasonably claiming for nefarious murderer-supporting victim-insulting goals that objective innocence with regards to actions somebody did or didn't take is dictated by the trial, and without the trial one cannot have committed the actions... and not that I'm in agreement with the principle that is directly referenced within the tweet.

"but accuse me of wanting you to discard your morals and further accuse me of demanding that people “apologize to corpses” when I never fucking once said anything about either of those."

"Apologise to corpses" was an extension of your ridiculous suggestion that one would be saying something like this to appease the corpses, which was "I doubt it’s for the corpse. It’s a corpse. I doubt it will care what we think of it." And the point about principles is that you're debating the principle of innocent until proven guilty here, specifically a tweet that mentioned it, and you're trying to condemn both the actual tweet (and thereby the principles encompassed within) and your version of it by bringing up murderers, victims, family members, and so forth in appeals to emotion - the general vibe of doing that being "You shouldn't say this because you're saying something empathic that includes murderers and you might hurt the remaining victims." Neither of those is an actual argument (nor were they at all phrased as genuine good faith questions), they're very obvious appeals to emotion... as is calling me an asshole repeatedly.

"But apparently you think this is such a crux of my argument that you felt the need to mention it repeatedly. While being an asshole."

Oh, you've misunderstood - I repeated the bit about corpses because it was funny, not because I thought that it was your main point.

"Then I went on to ask if it was for the accused’s family or the survivors of their victims. Because people who have lived through something like having their family or friend murdered in the street by some random monster tend not to take statements of “yeah, but he was innocent because he never got a trial though” very well"

Appeal to emotion. Both the point itself and the unnecessary use of the term "monster". I don't give a fuck if the principle of innocent until proven guilty hurts people's feelings. Just like I don't give a fuck, when I say that we should rehabilitate people who've committed crimes and treat them with humanity, if somebody says that they think that I'm being dismissive of their pain and that they want people to pay - those are your feelings and you can go deal with them in therapy, but I'm not going to support giving the government more power to hurt people just because you want to hurt people, that's not how this works. I've been a victim too, but that doesn't give me a free pass to legislate away people's humanity or principles that protect innocents.

"telling people “yeah, but he was innocent because he never got a trial though” is how you get people who continue to proclaim that people who have been proven by later evidence to have been instigators in the confrontation and demonstrating themselves to be an active threat when they were killed were innocent and didn’t do anything."

I've already explained repeatedly that there's a difference between saying "innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the legal system" (which is what the tweet was saying, hence why it referenced the constitution) and "objectively innocent of any and all wrongdoing".

"So note to self: don’t try and be nice. Just be an asshole because at least then I have the satisfaction of knowing that the other person being an asshole is just being an asshole because I’m an asshole and reciprocating their assholeness,"

"I'm gonna be a big meanypants because I interpreted what you said as being mean and nasty, and I definitely didn't deserve that when I assumed you a big dummy and went on a long, accusatory, emotive rant because you reblogged a picture that I didn't like, which I'm now painting as me just asking a question." You sound like a horse girl on Facebook who just broke up with her boyfriend and went on a wine-drunk rant about how she'll stop treating men like kings from now on, when everybody knows that she walks all over her boyfriends and serves as the village bicycle when they're away for work.

"not because I dared not interpret their flat generic statements in the absolute perfect way and hope I’ve managed to find the invisible bridge of logic that connects “everyone who has ever been killed by a cop (implicitly including those killed in self defense) is innocent without a single exception” and “cops shouldn’t beat people they’ve arrested.” Or clearly I’m just bad at being nice."

Evidently. Had you just asked nicely what I meant by my reblog, instead of leaping halfway to Sirius, maybe things would've gone more smoothly - I don't expect people to interpret everything perfectly, I know that people aren't mindreaders, but there's a difference between missing the point slightly, and missing the point so hard that you'd have to think that I had a brain transplant where my teddy bear was the donor to believe it, and then just running with that to post a big ass emotive rant.

"Either way, shouldn’t bother with it."

https://youtu.be/GgSa8Ca3iKs

"My long asshole spiel also made it much clearer that I was talking about self defense thanks to the inclusion of “You’re not allowed to defend yourself until the suspect has been apprehended, read his rights, transported to holding, interviewed by the judged, had a trial scheduled, been tried, and convicted. Then you can do something about them stabbing you in the chest sixty-seven times while they were high out of their brain on meth. Because they’re innocent until proven guilty and are guaranteed by the Constitution a fair and speedy trial” since you also pulled that I think no one should ever be arrested out of somewhere in your ass."

So you elected to remove the paragraph that clarified your position (although it doesn't change my argument whatsoever), and then lectured me because you were annoyed that a third party's tweet didn't phrase something exactly how you wanted it to? You can't de-clarify your own position while lecturing somebody for allegedly not being clear enough (despite it referencing the clarifying documents). And again, as I said in my reply, nobody was saying anything about self-defence (I most definitely never claimed that you think that nobody should be arrested, rather I rebutted the implication that I was suggesting that). I clarified that the person defending themselves is also innocent until proven guilty, because it is a principle and not a statement of objective innocence. Self-defence is not covered by this because were an innocent man to come at you with a raised gun then you would defend yourself - the principle is about ensuring that the system doesn't do anything to a person that we wouldn't be okay with being done to every innocent party. You asked me "what are you hoping will be the response to thinking that someone killed" - evidently, a safe and respectful arrest, then a trial. The implication of your statement being that you don't know, you couldn't possibly fathom what I want to happen when somebody is suspected of murder... the only conclusion to be drawn is that you think that I think something other than the obvious answer.

"And no, nowhere in that generalized flat no context statement did anyone say jack fuck shit about having an investigation afterwards (you know, that thing they already do all the time and is kind of how we know whether a shooting was justified or not) nor did it anywhere include a clause for self defense or justified shootings proven in an investigation."

You don't need a clause for self-defence in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, because you can defend yourself from an innocent person... it's like clarifying that I don't eat bananas if I say that I don't eat fruit. I literally said in my reply "You are aware that, after a person has died, it is possible to conduct an investigation into their death and the actions taken before it, in order to get a clearer picture of what happened - although the fact remains that we cannot give them a fair trial?" Don't copy what I said back to me and then act like you're the one pointing out to me that investigations exist. The principle remains even after the ensuing investigation though, because the person hasn't had a fair trial - in the eyes of the legal system we will never have heard their case, but it can simultaneously be true that in the eyes of the legal system the person defending themselves was found innocent, because that's just how the principle works. However, didn't you just say "Internal reviews and report systems are a joke." and "Cops have become bullies with a badge where even good ones have become indoctrinated into the ‘brotherhood’." I figured we were on the same page about how reliable those investigations sometimes are. Anyway, it's not the job of a fucking tweet to lay out the entire legal system and the nuances therein when it comes to specific situations... especially when those are just things that you should be able to safely assume everybody is aware of (on account of the referenced documents), and that nobody would approach it in such bad faith that they'd sit here with a straight face and say that you were essentially saying that genuinely defending yourself without holding an impromptu trial is not okay.

"It said “every single”, as in: “1. a. Constituting each and all members of a group without exception.”"

boys we got a dictionary out now

"That would be why I made the statement that your logic should be applied to everyone from the most provably innocent to the most provably guilty."

It does apply to everyone, thank you for asking. That's how principles work.

"THAT is why I specifically mentioned Nova Scotia, not because I was trying to be melodramatic or because I wanted you to throw away your morals, because That is the range that your logic is trying to apply itself to. “Every single person killed by a cop” includes not just Floyd, not just an autistic child, not just someone they left to be abused, “every single person killed by a cop” includes people who died while in the process of trying to cause harm to others like Nova Scotia."

Again, the principle of innocent until proven guilty must apply to everybody, otherwise we get... well, what we have now. Cops who harass, harm, beat, badger, and otherwise degrade people, even on national television shows, because they think that they get to be judge, jury, and executioner for every person that they run into - that's not just about police killings, that's about cops constantly, every single day, deciding to treat the people that they interact with as less than human because they've already decided their guilt. The principle meant to counteract that must be applied universally, otherwise you've just opened up a new crack to be chipped away at. You're taking that sentiment and twisting it into a proclamation of objective innocence, claiming that your interpretation is the correct one because of wording while ignoring the referenced documents, and talking about the worst scenario imaginable, emotively, dramatically, asking if I wanted to say that to survivors and victims (as if something being a principle means that I walk up to the grieving and traumatised and scream it at them, apparently assuming that I have as little tact as you), all in an attempt to argue against what was being said (which literally references the constitution, hence being about the principle and not claims of objective innocence) - in doing all of that, you are being hyperbolic, making appeals to emotion, and cherry-picking to make a principle look bad because sometimes the people it protects are scary, not objectively innocent, etc.

"And the statement is that every single one of them is innocent. Not “presumed innocent”. Not “assumed to be innocent”. Not “innocent until proven by an investigation”. Innocent. Without clause. Without exception."

Yes, presumed innocent... it referenced the fucking constitution, how much more of a giant neon arrow do you need to point to the fact that it's about the principle in the justice system and not objective innocence?

"Because you can’t give a corpse a trial. Therefor I must assume that your statement applies in perpetuity or at least until we can find a way of speaking with the dead"

Oh, I'm sorry - you don't want me to apologise to corpses but you do want me to commune with ghosts. In my defence, it's pretty easy to get those two jumbled up.

"You want me to interpret your statement of “everyone killed by a cop (implicitly including self defense killings) is presumed innocent“ then include that one single additional word."

Again, it literally pointed you directly to what it meant and what it was talking about when it referenced the constitution. I'm sorry that you want to be spoon-fed everything, but not everybody is aware that they're talking to a five year-old... I certainly wasn't until right now. Whoops sorry, I mean "I certainly wasn't aware that I was talking to a five year-old until right now. Now being the time that I am writing this and not the time that you are reading it."

"You want me to interpret your statement as not applying to people proven afterwards to have been killed in self defense by an independent and thorough investigation, then fucking include that as well."

Woah woah woah there mister, you don't need to keep demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension. I specifically pointed out that people who've been investigated afterwards still haven't had a chance to defend themselves in a fair trial in my initial reply to you when I said "although the fact remains that we cannot give them a fair trial". The principle applies to them, the legal system should not treat them as guilty because they haven't had the opportunity to defend themselves in a fair trial. As I've said, that doesn't mean that it's obliged to treat the person defending themself as guilty of a crime - you're making jumps that don't need to be made. Also again, it's a tweet... it's not supposed to spell out everything in the document that it's pointing you towards and beyond.

"And I’m probably not going to bother asking for clarification on it either, because doing so just gets me told that I’m arguing in bad faith and that I’m demanding others throw away their morals apparently."

As I said earlier, had you actually just asked for clarification then that wouldn't be a problem, but that wasn't what you did (and given what you did, I think that I did a pretty damn good job of giving a reasonable and clear clarification). You came at me with a long ass rant full of hyperbole and accusatory badgering questions, and you expected me to come back with... what? A box of chocolates and your favourite equine magazine? You aren't even addressing the points - you spend half of this calling me an asshole, and the other half just trying to obfuscate the fact that the tweet references the constitution and the fact that you did quite a bit more than "just ask a question uwu".

[sinrau]

Donald Trump during CNN debate (Photo: Screen capture via video )

The Republican Convention would normally have many meetings among party loyalists and state chairs working on updates to the GOP platform. But this year, there won’t be a Republican Party platform. The new platform is supporting Trump, the party said in a press release.

What they have done, however, is copy and paste the platform from 2016, which trashes the current administration. They meant for it to be an attack on former President Barack Obama, but it doesn’t say the name.

Because the GOP moved their convention from Charlotte, North Carolina to Jacksonville, Florida, back to Charlotte and then ultimately virtually and at the White House, it didn’t give enough time to conduct an actual national convention. Instead, the GOP convention will be just be all about Donald Trump.

It was something that made Twitter politicos note how emblematic it is of a Republican Party that has no real policies or plans than of Donald Trump.

You can see the mockery in the tweets below:

https://twitter.com/JWLmageditor/status/1297721089150169088

Nobody paying attention to what has been happening the last 3-plus years should be surprised that the Republican Party has no platform other than saluting and normalizing the whims of their divisive and mercurial leader.

— Dan Rather (@DanRather) August 24, 2020

The GOP just announced that there is no 2020 platform this year other than to reassert “the Party’s strong support for President Donald Trump and his Administration.” pic.twitter.com/0wEF2Dnco3

— Jennifer Taub (@jentaub) August 24, 2020

Amazingly this is not a parody. pic.twitter.com/GtxS1l1uWC

— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) August 24, 2020

Makes perfect sense. No agenda, no principles, no convictions, no ideology. Stand for nothing other than adoring the leader. https://t.co/NxP0ILzYoj

— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) August 24, 2020

This is dry language, so let me translate:

“There will be no Republican Party platform this year, only support for Trump.”

Really. pic.twitter.com/kIOgA73iPZ

— Joshua A. Geltzer (@jgeltzer) August 24, 2020

The GOP announces that there will be no substantive republican platform. It simply is to support Donald Trump. That, folks, is a hallmark of fascism.

— A Worried Citizen (@ThePubliusUSA) August 24, 2020

Over time parties taken over by authoritarians lose identity apart from the leader- their resources and time are monopolized by the need to defend him no matter what he says or does. https://t.co/s33CslP0tW

— Ruth Ben-Ghiat (@ruthbenghiat) August 24, 2020

I remember a @GOP lawyer once telling me how much the Republican Party cared about its platform. That regardless of the nominee, the GOP rank and file cared about the individual policies in it.

Apparently that was complete bullshit. [^PartyOfTrump](https://twitter.com/hashtag/PartyOfTrump?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) https://t.co/xX0LtK6xN4

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) August 24, 2020

Both hilariously pathetic and terrifying, but also if Trump proposed a modest progressive tax increase or nominated a judge the Federalist Society didn’t like, we’d be quickly reminded that the Republican Party has a platform that even Trump can’t override. https://t.co/jdoXWUu5d8

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) August 24, 2020

Trump’s Plan for 2nd Term: There is no planTrump’s Health Care Plan to replace ACA: There is no planTrump’s Response to the COVID-19 Crisis: There is no planRepublican Party Platform for 2020:

There is no plan

— Max Zeppelin (@zeppelin_max) August 24, 2020

Remember when all the very serious political journalists were concern trolling how ‘light on policy’ the DNC was? The Republican party literally stands for nothing other than as a personality cult for Trump (and a lot of racism). That’s it. https://t.co/vjVrwzLAzf

— Centrism Fan Acct

(@Wilson__Valdez) August 24, 2020

John did you notice the Republican Platform now consists of nothing but blind obedience to Donald? And did you see the RNC schedule? I did and you’re not even invited.

You’re a sucker, John. We are all laughing at you pic.twitter.com/8K6Q9o8U4V

— Pissed off Dad in Texas (@pissed_off_dad) August 24, 2020

Both hilariously pathetic and terrifying, but also if Trump proposed a modest progressive tax increase or nominated a judge the Federalist Society didn’t like, we’d be quickly reminded that the Republican Party has a platform that even Trump can’t override. https://t.co/jdoXWUu5d8

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) August 24, 2020

With the RNC deciding to nuke its platform, and fully endorse Trumpism, there is no longer the excuse of being a Republican even though you disagree with Trump.

There is no Republican party anymore, it’s 100% the Trump Party.

— Godless Iowan says 72 days! (@GodlessIowan) August 24, 2020

So, I guess the GOP just announced that the 2020 Republican platform will be whatever fascist policies that Donny comes up with.

Certainly makes the stakes clear on November 3rd.

— Wallis Weaver (@wallisweaver) August 24, 2020

Anyone who doesn’t think the United States is heading down the same Autobahn Nazi Germany used better look at this.

No Republican platform. Just whatever Trump wants. https://t.co/rh8dc5a7Ms

— Harry Turtledove (@HNTurtledove) August 24, 2020

Most of this was written as though someone else has been president for four years, but Rube Nation will love it. https://t.co/upZ9DofFs4

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 24, 2020

Full cult. https://t.co/HLMaQmbhqB

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) August 24, 2020

Party platforms have never counted for a ton with me, but we now are headed into a GOP Convention that will be 75% the President or his family members, and has no platform attached just a “whatever the fuck Trump says is fine with us.”

— Liz Mair (@LizMair) August 24, 2020

The Republican party will not release a platform during the 2020 RNC convention.

Their resolution is to follow and support whatever Donald Trump says the party should do, and to resolve that the media should be nicer to them.

This should be a fun week. pic.twitter.com/GJN0Dm14wv

— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) August 24, 2020

The latest reminder that in just four years one of America’s two major political parties was quite easily overtaken by a demagogue/con man and became a cult. https://t.co/hwVoN8yBvL

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) August 24, 2020

Party dogma is Comrade Stalin‘s personal affair and it’s none of our business, comrade https://t.co/dXrWCDo11q

— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 24, 2020

How’s this for Christian Values? @JerryFalwellJr used to have his biz partner have sex with his wife @BeckiFalwell so he could watch!

A panel of MSNBC commentators and political analysts couldn’t help but ridicule President Donald Trump for his new claim that he has done more in his first term than he promised, touting the “Space Force.”

“I would strengthen what we have done and do new things,” Trump told Fox News’ Steve Hilton in a Sunday interview. “Space Force, as an example, I have done more — I have an interesting distinction, and actually sort of a bad person in terms of doesn’t like Republicans or me said Trump is whether you like him or not, he’s done more than he said he was going to do, like, I never mentioned Space Force, that campaign, and we did Space Force, and I never mentioned a lot of things.”

On Monday, Republican Voters Against Trump dropped a new ad featuring Miles Taylor, a former Homeland Security chief of staff in the Trump administration who recently came out in support of Joe Biden.

“I served as the chief of staff of the Department of Homeland Security under the Donald Trump administration, and it was my job to help the Department of Homeland Security to keep our country safe,” said Taylor. “What we saw was terrifying.”

“The president told us to stop giving money to people whose houses had burned down because California didn’t support him,” said Taylor. “He said he wanted to have a deliberate policy of ripping children away from their parents. He was unfocused, undisciplined. I have to support Joe Biden for president.”

Republicans ridiculed for not having a platform and just being a ‘cult’: ‘Hilariously pathetic and terrifying’

[eliottweetsill]

The Daily 30th: Chicago Bulls

Welcome to The Daily 30th, a project whose life expectancy ranges somewhere between the end of this sentence and forever. The idea, at least, is to pick a team each day and write about that team. This rotisserie style of thought will not conform to the latest headlines, meaning we'll spend some days being some of the few folks thinking about certain teams. Essentially, the decision regarding which team to write about will be made randomly. I literally wrote down each team name on a piece of paper, cut said paper into 30 pieces, placed each piece of paper in a hat, and drew one out, and that's how I decided which team I'm going to write about today. It just so happened that today's team is the Chicago Bulls.

If we could empathize with each human being in the world, we would understand humanity better. Since humanity and basketball are sibling concepts, we will apply this principle, of empathizing with each team a little here and there, beyond just when they're en vogue for the few hours before Donald Trump's next asinine tweet.

Chicago Bulls

Mood: Thinking about how steep descent into valley hurts its quads to distract itself from mountain it has to climb on other side of said valley.

Best thing going: Freedom of release that comes with giving up.

Best player: Dwyane Wade

Worst player: Dwyane Wade

1-year core: Dwyane Wade, Zach Lavine, Robin Lopez

5-year core: Zach Lavine, Kris Dunn, Lauri Markkanen, Paul Zipser, Bobby Portis, a bad pick from losing a lot this season.

Being a Bulls fan has been a mega bummer for the past four seasons. From the fall of Tom Thibodeau, to that of Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah, to the rise of the three alphas, to the liberation of Jimmy Butler, Bulls fans have seen a lot of years of progress blown away like sand in the wind: easily, as if simply part of the course of things, with little tangible resistance. At the helm of the deconstruction is the almighty GarPax, the couple name given to Gar Forman and John Paxson and a Krang-like being whose ambitious plans are often hare-brained, off-base, and sophisticated enough to be foiled by a gang of stoner turtles. If you're wondering, the Krang is Gar Forman's brain walking around in John Paxson's body, a disarming presence for Bulls fans, who will forever remember the shot that won Chicago the finals in 1993. Imagine how much louder the clamor would be for their collective head if, say, Danny Ferry was the one running the operation. Fuck a Danny Ferry. Pax, though, has cred. So Bulls fans have endured this bumbling deconstruction over the past few years, missing the window of last season to sharpen their blades against the monsters in the front office, falling utterly for the illusion of a playoff chase involving a bunch of players Bulls fans loved to hate four years ago. This slow descent gave GarPax time to trigger a real rebuild, which doesn't seem promising at this point anyhow. Nonetheless, Bulls fans (or, more importantly, ownership) will be strung along, and only when the rebuild is pronounced dead and a new one initiated will the ownership consider a change.

Until then, though, Bulls fans, ever loyal, will hope against hope that this just works out for some reason. Perhaps a lottery win will net the team a franchise changing player, perhaps Markkanen becomes a legitimate player, and Dunn makes a step forward, and the Bulls actually find some solid ground to build on. Head coach Fred Hoiberg, whom fans really wanted to jump at the Ohio State job, is guaranteed another two years to try and steer this team through what is sure to be a trying time. With two of the three alphas out the door, Hoiberg can either try and work with Wade to establish, for the first time since taking over, a unified leadership front in the locker room. That, or ignore Wade and let him pout his way into obscurity while collecting massive checks for some reason. Either way, Butler stood in the way of the Bulls being Fred's team, and him being out of the picture gives Hoiberg the chance, finally, to let his vision be the only one his team sees. It definitely says something about a coach when he needs to be without great players in order to work comfortably. Say what you want about Phil Jackson, he never coached a star player he didn't like, and he coached a lot of unlikable star players. (Note: I had to edit that from “met” to “coached” because of his recent dipshittery in New York with Carmelo Anthony and Kristaps Porzingis, so, yeah, say what you want about Phil Jackson.) Bulls fans are loyal enough to give Hoiberg a shot at a new start this year, if only because they know he isn't going anywhere barring an unseen change of heart from the almighty GarPax. Here are a few decisions GarPax has made in recent years:

• Traded Jusuf Nurkic and Gary Harris for Doug McDermott

• Paired Jimmy Butler and Derrick Rose

• Paired Joakim Noah and Pau Gasol

• Traded Luol Deng for cap space and eventual cash considerations

• Fired Tom Thibodeau

• Hired Fred Hoiberg

• Traded Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah for Jerian Grant, Jose Calderon, and Robin Lopez

• Teamed Rajon Rondo and Dwyane Wade with Jimmy Butler

• Traded Doug McDermott and Taj Gibson for Cameron Payne, Anthony Morrow, and Joffrey Lauvergne

• Traded Jimmy Butler and Justin Patton for Zach Lavine, Kris Dunn, and Lauri Markkanen

The common themes here are good things going out, nothing good coming in, and toxic combinations on the floor. The jury is out on the coming in portion of the Butler trade, but recent trends have not given much cause for optimism. There is little left to do in the Bulls' offseason, other than put finishing touches on the roster or maybe move some pieces around. Ostensibly, the 12 are in place, and the outlook for the Bulls this season is really quite bad. The starting five figures to be something along the lines of: Jerian Grant, Zach Lavine, Dwyane Wade, Bobby Portis, and Robin Lopez, with Kris Dunn, Justin Holiday, Paul Zipser, Lauri Markkanen, and Cristiano Felicio coming off the bench. Wade is sorely out of place in the locker room, with 5 more years of experience than the team's other veteran, Robin Lopez. Both players are bad fits for the veteran player-coach role, as Wade still has winning to do in his basketball career and no mentee on which to impart wisdom, and Lopez is a player built on scrap and hustle, the exact kind of thing you can't really teach. This roster, as is, is built to win never. The hope of this team is that Lavine, Dunn, Zipser, Portis, Markkanen, and Felicio all take breathtaking leaps forward over the next two years, all while the Bulls win the lottery and land a franchise-changing player. Of those six names, the Bulls need two of them to develop into winning pieces plus a franchise-changer coming either via the lottery or free agency (it's a matter of time before the “Bulls revving up for a run at Anthony Davis” headlines start to emerge from the shadows).

Honestly, it's a bit of a ridiculous proposition. In all likelihood, Lavine has his best statistical season without showing any real growth, Wade misses half the year, Grant fizzles, Dunn develops marginally, Markkanen has flashes but doesn't show ability to initiate anything himself, Portis plateaus, Felicio lumbers his way into being a slower, milder, bigger, less-skilled Taj Gibson, and Zipser averages 11 points and 5 rebounds a game or something amicably mediocre like that. The team wins around 30 games and gets the ninth pick or so in next year's lottery, takes either an upperclassmen from a blue blood university or a one-and-done from a fringe school, and wins even fewer games next year before landing high enough in the lottery to take someone good enough to keep GarPax around just when we were ready to fire them. Hoiberg is scapegoated and the Bulls bring in Mark Jackson to coach, where they spend three seasons winning 45-50 games and losing in the first round, then the second, then the first again. See Red.

For the Bulls, the future is as bleak as the past is useless. An era that was defined by getting beat in 5 games by LeBron James's teams is over. A new one begins with ostensible potential, though it's hard to be optimistic until new management takes over. If there's one thing the city of Chicago has a tough time with, it's getting rid of old, tired regimes. When the Bulls bring in Sam Presti in 2023, however, the tide will turn for the better and the Bulls will be competing for championships by the year 2028 or so.

[just-a-cruel-white-man]

@lobselvith8 :

I get the feeling you don't get what feminism is (it's about equality)

Correction : We disagree about the principles that drive feminism. Feminism, in its beginnings, has been for equality, that is true. The thing is, modern feminism is more about misandry than about equality.

Here's something that I hope we can all agree on : The definition of a movement holds no power before the actions of its members.

Now there are three cases :

You think feminism is for "liberation from male oppression" and shouldn't be concerned about men's problems : Then we have nothing to discuss. Feminism is not about equality and we both agree on that.

You think feminism is for equality, but you don't care about men's problems : Why the fuck you're lying then ?

You think feminism is for equality, and you genuinely care about men's problems. In this case, why aren't you doing anything ? The people who are talking to the public (Vox, ABC), your figureheads (Mattress girl, Clementine Ford) and the people who are actively pushing the legislation are openly misandrist. Why aren't you yeeting them ? Why are you letting them into your feminism, using them for your gains, while claiming to be for equality ? Where are the feminists responding to radfems with "Actually no, not all men are rapists and we shouldn't #KillAllMen" ? Your entire movement has been hijacked in front of you and you've done nothing to prevent it.

Trying to turn two people saying they have evidence against the other into some sort of political gotcha is a little ridiculous.

The use of the word "saying" implies that at least one of them doesn't have evidence against the other, just claims. Johnny Depp has an hour-long recording in which Amber Heard admits to abusing him. I'd say that's evidence alright. So, either you're wrong or it's Amber who only claims she has evidence.

Also, it is not nearly the "political gotcha" you think it is. Cancel culture is a form of boycott in which someone who has shared a questionable or unpopular opinion, or has had behavior in their past that is perceived to be either offensive or problematic called out on social media, is "canceled". I've seen far more leftists cancelling right-wing people than the other way around. Remember Nathan W. Pyle ? The man who draws funny alien comics, who's still getting boycotted to this day because he had the nerve to tweet about being pro-life ? Haven't seen anybody being cancelled because they're pro-choice.

#JusticeForJohnnyDepp Amber Heard is CANCELLED. 

[oldguardaudio]

PowerLine -> John Hinderaker – Is Trump the Worst President Ever? – Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, Please Try

Powerline image at HoaxAndChange

My Kind of Gun Control at HoaxAndChange.com

Crooked Hillary Clinton wants your guns at HoaxAndChange.com

Daily Digest

Vlad & him

Is Trump the Worst President Ever?

This day in erasing history

Alex Acosta refuses to disturb Obama/Perez pro-illegal immigrant policies

Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, Please Try

Vlad & him

Posted: 19 Feb 2018 02:31 PM PST

(Scott Johnson)Yesterday in “Facebook footnotes” I posted the Facebook ad promoting the protest produced by the friends of Vladimir Putin against President Trump outside Trump Tower in the immediate aftermath of the election. The creative efforts of the Russians toiling away in the troll factory did not go for naught. They attracted Michael Moore to the event. The Daily Caller takes a look back at the action via the tweet below and much more in the linked story.

At today’s Trump Tower protest. He wouldn’t come down. Here’s my Facebook Live coverage: https://t.co/FzxOyljoK5pic.twitter.com/PxjoALcyn8

— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) November 13, 2016

Michael Moore. Let us pause to reflect. The guy is a dupe and a dope — but then we already knew that, didn’t we? The Daily Caller’s Derek Hunter drily observes: “Moore’s Facebook page is littered with charges that Trump and Republicans are Russian tools and enemies of the American people.” This whole Russia collusion scandal seems to be a through the looking glass sort of affair.

   Is Trump the Worst President Ever?

Posted: 19 Feb 2018 02:24 PM PST

(John Hinderaker)That is the conclusion of this survey of political “scientists” which is getting a lot of play in today’s news. This ranking is done periodically by members of the American Political Science Association, and this year’s poll compares today’s ratings with those compiled in 2014. They show the traditionally great presidents at the top, led by Lincoln and Washington.

One surprise this year is that Barack Obama has jumped up to 8th place, from 18th four years ago. Absence has already made the heart grow fonder, apparently. Bringing up the rear, in dead last, is Donald Trump.

Is there any reason to take surveys like this one seriously? Of course not. It is ridiculous to rate Donald Trump after one year in office, and it is ridiculous to rate Barack Obama our 8th-best president. Political bias is obviously showing here. Whose views are being reflected in the survey?

Respondents were current and recent members of the Presidents & Executive Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, which is the foremost organization of social science experts in presidential politics. 320 respondents were invited to participate, and 170 usable responses were received, yielding a 53.1% response rate.

The authors of the survey try to tell us that their sample wasn’t too overwhelmingly biased in favor of liberal Democrats:

The results showed that 57.2% (95/166) of respondents were Democrats, while 12.7% were Republicans (21/166), 27.1% were Independents (45/166), and 3% (5/166) selected Other as their option. The second question asked whether the respondent ideologically considered themselves to be liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, or conservative. The results of this question showed that 32.5% (54/166) consider themselves ideologically liberal, while 25.9% (43/166) consider themselves somewhat liberal, and 24.1% consider themselves moderate (40/166). Only 5.4% (9/166) consider themselves ideologically conservative, while 12% (20/166) say they are somewhat conservative.

In the general population, self-identified conservatives consistently outnumber liberals by one and a half to two to one. Here, liberals outnumber conservatives by well over three to one, even assuming that the “moderates” are really moderate. (Most of the liberals I know will describe themselves, if asked, as moderates.) This reflects an extreme degree of bias.

The American Political Science Association’s leftward tilt is of long standing. Steve wrote several years ago about a poll of APSA members conducted in 1984. It found that over 90% intended to vote for Walter Mondale. Just 2% opted for Ronald Reagan, while most of the rest–a larger number than the Reagan supporters–intended to vote for someone on Mondale’s left. Reagan went on to carry 49 states in one of the biggest blowouts in American political history.

Over the years, Steve has had fun reporting on the APSA’s annual convention, most recently here. How scientific are the members of the American Political Science Association? Steve recounts the titles of some of the panels assembled for the first APSA convention after Trump’s election: “Disavowing Violence: Imperial Entitlements, From Burke to Trump (Fuck That Guy),” “White Genocide is Gonna Get Your Mama!” “Activist, Teacher, Scholar: Transformative Practice in the Era of Trump,” and “Race, Gender, Sexuality, & the Politics of Legitimacy: 8 Months in Trumplandia.”

Academia has pretty much abandoned America and vice versa. There simply is no credibility left in soft fields like “political science.”

   This day in erasing history

Posted: 19 Feb 2018 08:06 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)I grew up in a time when Washington’s birthday was not only observed on February 22 but was celebrated with the Fannie Farmer chocolate hatchet honoring the mythical story told about Washington by Parson Weems. In 1968 Washington’s Birthday was moved to the third Monday in February by virtue of the Uniform Holidays Bill. It has subsequently become the nondescript Presidents’ Day by which we know it today. Millard Fillmore and James Buchanan and Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama, we salute you one and all.

How can you move a guy’s birthday? It’s kind of a postmodern thing to do. Well, you can’t. It’s just the holiday observing it that has gone mobile. How fitting that the deed was done in the annus horribilis of 1968.

We used to revere Washington as the Father of our Country. We were grateful to him because we know it to be a good country, founded on the principle by which we stake the deed of our freedom. Now I wonder if we could even agree to honor Washington. I doubt it.

I will be back to celebrate Washington’s birthday on Washington’s birthday. I will offer a few facts about this truly great man about whom, as Churchill said in another context, facts are better than dreams.

   Alex Acosta refuses to disturb Obama/Perez pro-illegal immigrant policies

Posted: 19 Feb 2018 07:50 AM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)As described below, Department of Labor policy and practice supports illegal immigrants in at least three ways. This shouldn’t be surprising. Illegal immigrants had no better friend in the Obama administration, and few anywhere in American, than Tom Perez, Obama’s Secretary of Labor.

Here is how Perez used the DOL to promote the interests of illegal immigrants. First, an Obama administration-era memorandum of understanding between the DOL, the EEOC, the NLRB and DHS/ICE prohibits ICE from conducting enforcement activities against illegals when a DOL, EEOC, or NLRB investigation is pending.

This seems indefensible. Why should illegal immigrants and their employers be exempt from ICE enforcement activity merely because a DOL investigation is pending? It’s almost as if the Obama administration has carved out its own “sanctuary city.”

Second, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the DOL invests a significant amount of its budget conducting investigations and collecting back wages for illegal immigrants. This wouldn’t bother me if the budget for investigating and litigating wage and hour violations were unlimited, but it is not. By devoting resources to seeking back wages for illegal immigrants, the DOL is short-changing victims of pay act violations who are in this country legally, including American citizens.

A 2015 Report from DOL’s Office of Inspector General on WHD’s back wage distributions found that from 2010 to 2015, WHD transferred $72 million in back wages to the Treasury Department for employees it could not locate. It’s likely that a large portion of these funds was collected for illegal immigrants no longer in the country or not willing to contact DOL to claim the money. Thus, even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, the DOL’s resources would be better spent pursuing back pay on behalf of citizens and lawful residents.

Third, the DOL has entered a number of partnerships with Central American, South American, and Asian Pacific Government to facilitate complaints against employers by their citizens, regardless of immigration status. I don’t think our government should be devoting resources to encouraging complaints by illegal immigrants that apparently may immunize them from visits by ICE to their workplaces.

One year into the Trump administration, these pro-illegal immigrant policies remain intact. It’s my understanding that Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta has shown no interest in undoing any of them. The issues have been raised with Acosta, but he seems bent on ignoring them. From all that appears, he’s fine with the status quo, including the government’s own “sanctuary city” program.

As was the case during the Obama administration, illegal immigrants have no better friend in high office than the Secretary of Labor.

Unfortunately, this comes as no surprise. At both the Justice Department and the DOL, Acosta has been unwilling to take action that would alienate leftists. He has raised inaction to an art form.

At DOL, far from making a regulatory roll back a priority, he has taken what can euphemistically be called “a cautious approach” to controversial policy matters. For example, although he withdrew the Obama Administration’s interpretation of “independent contractors” under the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to home health registries, he has done nothing to prevent DOL employees from continuing to use it, which they do aggressively. Senator Rubio complained about this in a letter to Acosta.

Acosta is so unwilling to offend the left that he has not removed any of the Obama/Perez holdovers on the DOL’s Administrative Review Board (ARB), the influential body that issues final agency decisions for the Secretary of Labor in cases arising under a wide range of worker protection laws — more than three dozen of them. The members of this Board serve entirely at the pleasure of the Secretary. Acosta had the right to dismiss them the day he took office. Yet, four of the five remain in place (the other left a month or two ago on his own accord).

Given his track record, including his unwillingness even to cut the low-hanging fruit at the ARB, it was predictable that Acosta wouldn’t alter DOL policy favoring illegal immigrants. But what were the odds that President Trump would not disturb the aggressive pro-illegal immigrant, anti-enforcement policies put in place by Barack Obama and Tom Perez? Until he appointed Acosta, they were slim indeed.

   Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, Please Try

Posted: 18 Feb 2018 05:32 PM PST

(John Hinderaker)Liberals increasingly are coming out of the closet, admitting that what they have wanted all along is to ban, or limit to an extreme degree, private ownership of firearms. This would require, as a starting point, repeal of the Second Amendment, which more and more liberals now admit they favor. Earlier today, InstaPundit linked to a marvelous 2015 column by Charles Cooke. Not much has changed since then.

Cooke notes that talk is cheap, and encourages liberals to take on the onerous task of accomplishing what they say they want. Here are some excerpts:

[H]ere’s the million-dollar question: What the hell are they waiting for? Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it. *** Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution.

This will involve hard work, of course. You can’t just sit online and preen to those who already agree with you. No siree. Instead, you’ll have to go around the states — traveling and preaching until the soles of your shoes are thin as paper. You’ll have to lobby Congress, over and over and over again. You’ll have to make ads and shake hands and twist arms and cut deals and suffer all the slings and arrows that will be thrown in your direction. You’ll have to tell anybody who will listen to you that they need to support you; that if they disagree, they’re childish and beholden to the “gun lobby”; that they don’t care enough about children; that their reverence for the Founders is mistaken; that they have blood on their goddamn hands; that they want to own firearms only because their penises are small and they’re not “real men.” And remember, you can’t half-ass it this time. You’re not going out there to tell these people that you want “reform” or that “enough is enough.” You’re going there to solicit their support for removing one of the articles within the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake: It’ll be unpleasant strolling into Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Pueblo and telling blue-collar Democrat after blue-collar Democrat that he only has his guns because he’s not as well endowed as he’d like to be. It’ll be tough explaining to suburban families that their established conception of American liberty is wrong. You might even suffer at the polls because of it. But that’s what it’s going to take. So do it. Start now. Off you go.

And don’t stop there. No, no. There’ll still be a lot of work to be done. As anybody with a passing understanding of America’s constitutional system knows, repealing the Second Amendment won’t in and of itself lead to the end of gun ownership in America. Rather, it will merely free up the federal government to regulate the area, should it wish to do so. Next, you’ll need to craft the laws that bring about change — think of them as modern Volstead Acts — and you’ll need to get them past the opposition. And, if the federal government doesn’t immediately go the whole hog, you’ll need to replicate your efforts in the states, too, 45 of which have their own constitutional protections. Maybe New Jersey and California will go quietly. Maybe. But Idaho won’t. Louisiana won’t. Kentucky won’t. Maine won’t. You’ll need to persuade those sovereignties not to sue and drag their heels, but to do what’s right as defined by you. Unfortunately, that won’t involve vague talk of holding “national conversations” and “doing something” and “fighting back against the NRA.” It’ll mean going to all sorts of groups — unions, churches, PTAs, political meetings, bowling leagues — and telling them not that you want “common-sense reforms,” but that you want their guns, as in Australia or Britain or Japan.

And, of course, the last line of defense is millions of American firearms owners.

And when you’ve done all that and your vision is inked onto parchment, you’ll need to enforce it. No, not in the namby-pamby, eh-we-don’t-really-want-to-fund-it way that Prohibition was enforced. I mean enforce it — with force. When Australia took its decision to Do Something, the Australian citizenry owned between 2 and 3 million guns. Despite the compliance of the people and the lack of an entrenched gun culture, the government got maybe three-quarters of a million of them — somewhere between a fifth and a third of the total. That wouldn’t be good enough here, of course. There are around 350 million privately owned guns in America, which means that if you picked up one in three, you’d only be returning the stock to where it was in 1994. Does that sound difficult? Sure! After all, this is a country of 330 million people spread out across 3.8 million square miles, and if we know one thing about the American people, it’s that they do not go quietly into the night. …

You’re going to need a plan. A state-by-state, county-by-county, street-by-street, door-to-door plan. A detailed roadmap to abolition that involves the military and the police and a whole host of informants — and, probably, a hell of a lot of blood, too. Sure, the ACLU won’t like it, especially when you start going around poorer neighborhoods.

This is one thing that has changed since 2015. I think we can now be pretty sure that the ACLU would be on board with this particular anti-civil rights measure.

Sure, there are probably between 20 and 30 million Americans who would rather fight a civil war than let you into their houses. Sure, there is no historical precedent in America for the mass confiscation of a commonly owned item — let alone one that was until recently constitutionally protected. Sure, it’s slightly odd that you think that we can’t deport 11 million people but we can search 123 million homes. But that’s just the price we have to pay. Times have changed. It has to be done: For the children; for America; for the future. Hey hey, ho ho, the Second Amendment has to go.

Actually, the liberals have an easier plan to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. All they need is one more Supreme Court justice, and if Hillary Clinton had been elected, that need would, in all likelihood, have been filled. But that doesn’t deal with state constitutional protections, it doesn’t get confiscation legislation passed at the federal level, and it doesn’t begin to address the impossible task–as Cooke ably describes it–of actually carrying out the confiscation.

Do liberals have the stomach for any of this? It doesn’t seem so. They could have passed whatever “common sense” gun legislation they wanted during the time when they controlled the House, had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Barack Obama as president. But they didn’t touch gun issues with a stick. Which pretty much proves that their only interest in the subject is political.

   PowerLine -> John Hinderaker – Is Trump the Worst President Ever? – Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, Please Try PowerLine -> John Hinderaker - Is Trump the Worst President Ever? - Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, Please Try…

[lorettalivingston6911]

Donald Trump Sends Servant Mike Pence On Stupid (And Expensive) National Anthem Publicity Stunt

how I looked younger without plastic surgery

Poor Mike Pence, he's so close to being President of the United States, and yet, he's so unbelievably craven and morally bankrupt in every way, forced to eternity to lick the boots of one Donald Trump over, and over, and over again.

Actually, on second thought, not poor Mike Pence. No, fuck that guy. Especially if he continues to do ridiculous stuff like this!!!

Related: And Yet Mike Pence Will Never Actually Be President

If you didn't hear about it earlier this morning, here's what went down today in Indianapolis: Pence, the former Governor of Indiana, flew in to watch the Indianapolis Colts play the San Francisco 49ers in an NFL game.

Only, after some of the 49ers players opted to exercise THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS and take a knee during the National Anthem, Pence left before the game started.

Here's how he described it going down (below):

I left today's Colts game because @POTUS and I will not dignify any event that disrespects our soldiers, our Flag, or our National Anthem. — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

At a time when so many Americans are inspiring our nation with their courage, resolve, and resilience... — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

...now, more than ever, we should rally around our Flag and everything that unites us... — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I don't think it's too much to ask NFL players to respect the Flag and our National Anthem — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

I stand with @POTUS Trump, I stand with our soldiers, and I will always stand for our Flag and our National Anthem. http://pic.twitter.com/B0zP5M41MQ — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

We were proud to stand - with all our @Colts - for our soldiers, our flag, and our National Anthem 🇺🇸 http://pic.twitter.com/mkZiKMkPDD — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

Oh, gee, that looks so patriotic, and so principled, and so NOT AT ALL PLANNED! Right?

.....Right??

Related: Our Boy Mike Fuckin' LOVES Trump

No, that shit was planned.

I asked @VP Pence to leave stadium if any players kneeled, disrespecting our country. I am proud of him and @SecondLady Karen. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 8, 2017

Yeah, let's keep going... THIS SHIT WAS PLANNED.

According to media reports out of San Jose, he's been planning a California fundraising visit for some time.

Even locals in Indiana are making fun of Pence for being Trump's flunky!!

And Twitter picked up very quickly on how shallow and silly a publicity stunt this whole Pence thing really became (below):

This guy can't even fake things well http://pic.twitter.com/fuMI54yJj7 — Sung Min Kim (@sung_minkim) October 8, 2017

Just so we’re clear: Mike Pence tweeted a 3yr old photo & showed up to an NFL game knowing he’d leave to make his base angry at blck players https://t.co/hwtqiSpaw3 — Clint Smith (@ClintSmithIII) October 8, 2017

This stunt by Mike Pence is already backfiring

Press pool was told VP would be leaving game early — Jonathan Jewel (@jonathanjewel) October 8, 2017

Mike Pence cost the American taxpayers at least $250,000 today with his pre-planned juvenile stunt. — Matt Murphy (@MattMurph24) October 8, 2017

#49ers Eric Reid on VP Mike Pence exit: "This was like a PR stunt. This is what systemic oppression looks like" — Cam Inman (@CamInman) October 8, 2017

Mike Pence flew from Las Vegas to Indianapolis (and will now fly to Los Angeles) just to insult players fighting for racial justice. — America Resurgent (@ProgressOutlook) October 8, 2017

Mike Pence literally hijacked the game where Peyton Manning was to be honored at halftime. Did this for his own political agenda. This is the guy you voted for Indiana. Congrats. — Brad Wells (@BradWellsNFL) October 8, 2017

Unreal.

Good job, Republicans. GREAT job, Trump.

You're officially the most needlessly political, most divisive set of leaders in the recent history of this country.

Trash!!!

[Image via Twitter.]

you'll never know what you'll find in all of these celebrity items

from LL Celeb Fueads http://ift.tt/2kwo8Oq via IFTTT

[latoyarubalcava3546]

Donald Trump Sends Servant Mike Pence On Stupid (And Expensive) National Anthem Publicity Stunt

Poor Mike Pence, he's so close to being President of the United States, and yet, he's so unbelievably craven and morally bankrupt in every way, forced to eternity to lick the boots of one Donald Trump over, and over, and over again.

Actually, on second thought, not poor Mike Pence. No, fuck that guy. Especially if he continues to do ridiculous stuff like this!!!

Related: And Yet Mike Pence Will Never Actually Be President

If you didn't hear about it earlier this morning, here's what went down today in Indianapolis: Pence, the former Governor of Indiana, flew in to watch the Indianapolis Colts play the San Francisco 49ers in an NFL game.

Only, after some of the 49ers players opted to exercise THEIR CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS and take a knee during the National Anthem, Pence left before the game started.

Here's how he described it going down (below):

I left today's Colts game because @POTUS and I will not dignify any event that disrespects our soldiers, our Flag, or our National Anthem. — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

At a time when so many Americans are inspiring our nation with their courage, resolve, and resilience... — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

...now, more than ever, we should rally around our Flag and everything that unites us... — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, I don't think it's too much to ask NFL players to respect the Flag and our National Anthem — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

I stand with @POTUS Trump, I stand with our soldiers, and I will always stand for our Flag and our National Anthem. http://pic.twitter.com/B0zP5M41MQ — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

We were proud to stand - with all our @Colts - for our soldiers, our flag, and our National Anthem 🇺🇸 http://pic.twitter.com/mkZiKMkPDD — Vice President Pence (@VP) October 8, 2017

Oh, gee, that looks so patriotic, and so principled, and so NOT AT ALL PLANNED! Right?

.....Right??

Related: Our Boy Mike Fuckin' LOVES Trump

No, that shit was planned.

I asked @VP Pence to leave stadium if any players kneeled, disrespecting our country. I am proud of him and @SecondLady Karen. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 8, 2017

Yeah, let's keep going... THIS SHIT WAS PLANNED.

According to media reports out of San Jose, he's been planning a California fundraising visit for some time.

Even locals in Indiana are making fun of Pence for being Trump's flunky!!

And Twitter picked up very quickly on how shallow and silly a publicity stunt this whole Pence thing really became (below):

This guy can't even fake things well http://pic.twitter.com/fuMI54yJj7 — Sung Min Kim (@sung_minkim) October 8, 2017

Just so we’re clear: Mike Pence tweeted a 3yr old photo & showed up to an NFL game knowing he’d leave to make his base angry at blck players https://t.co/hwtqiSpaw3 — Clint Smith (@ClintSmithIII) October 8, 2017

This stunt by Mike Pence is already backfiring

Press pool was told VP would be leaving game early — Jonathan Jewel (@jonathanjewel) October 8, 2017

Mike Pence cost the American taxpayers at least $250,000 today with his pre-planned juvenile stunt. — Matt Murphy (@MattMurph24) October 8, 2017

#49ers Eric Reid on VP Mike Pence exit: "This was like a PR stunt. This is what systemic oppression looks like" — Cam Inman (@CamInman) October 8, 2017

Mike Pence flew from Las Vegas to Indianapolis (and will now fly to Los Angeles) just to insult players fighting for racial justice. — America Resurgent (@ProgressOutlook) October 8, 2017

Mike Pence literally hijacked the game where Peyton Manning was to be honored at halftime. Did this for his own political agenda. This is the guy you voted for Indiana. Congrats. — Brad Wells (@BradWellsNFL) October 8, 2017

Unreal.

Good job, Republicans. GREAT job, Trump.

You're officially the most needlessly political, most divisive set of leaders in the recent history of this country.

Trash!!!

[Image via Twitter.]