#because i said i dont want to interact with posts where the op uses intentional guilt tactics to get traffic then. idk. idk

[lovestrucklaundry]

i really like this blog and like wanna add points to some of your posts but im a fictive and like, dont wanna attract attention so if i started a conversation on one of your posts about symbiotes with my heavily biased "headcanons" as a response to yours you wouldnt like start drama or make fun of me right? or like pull some shit like "haha you kinnie,,, cringe" -local nervous venom symbiote fictive

i'm glad you like it! and i ended up blabbering way too much with this reply (that i'm going to leave under the cut instead of just shortening it up because i'm often afraid i'll be misunderstood if i don't over-explain myself oops) but tl;dr: i don't mind anyone, fictive or not, adding to my posts. i may reply to the additions, but i'm never looking to start drama even if i disagree with someone.

i don't mind anyone adding their own thoughts to my posts. it's actually really helpful many times tbh, with how people can word things i wanted to say better than i could, or how they can add insights i wouldn't have thought of (whether i agree with them or not, seeing other people's perspectives can help me better develop my own). 

i'm also by no means an authority figure and many times i myself have no idea what i'm talking about (i think i can seem a little too self assured at times but know that i'm pretty much always confused and nothing i think atm is a universal truth or even set in stone to just myself. and though i CAN be quite stubborn at times i try to be as openminded as possible)

when people add to my posts it's very likely i see it. if i don't reply to someone it's usually because i think there's not a discussion to be had regarding their addition (i.e. i have nothing interesting to add to what they said), or it's because more than one person has said essentially the same thing (and so i only reply to one of them). there are also times where i really just didn't see what someone said or, more embarrassingly, i didn't understand what they said. and in either of those cases when i do come to see/understand their reply it usually feels too late to say anything...

and when i do reply to an addition it's usually like:

someone added something i forgot to mention or worded poorly in the op (which is usually just me going "yes!!! exactly!!!!")

they added something i never thought of but i agree with (or at least can derive something that makes sense to me from it)

they added something i disagree with but was interesting to note (and with replies like these i don't really look to change anyone's minds, though it might come across as that. it's usually just to further expand on what i think, building off of how it diverges from the person's addition, while also acknowledging theirs is another possible interpretation with different outcomes than mine, without discrediting either)

they corrected me (which usually comes with an embarrassed explanation of where i was coming from. and it mostly goes like "i realize now that i was wrong but i posted that because..." or "i understand that and i wasn't disagreeing with/talking about that. i just worded my op poorly because..."). and i love when people correct me because i do need a reality check many times. but also i'm aware that i'm the worst when i'm being corrected just because i tend to be quite stubborn and i have a hard time admitting i was wrong. which doesn't mean i won't ever admit i was wrong! just means i'm probably gonna be unnecessarily defensive when i do it (in a way i know will make me cringe when i look back at it later but i can't help myself in that moment)

(there may be more but i'm pretty sure these are at least the most common of "my replies to additions to my op")

and with all of this i essentially just mean to say that i don't really care what people interpret or imagine from canon in the sense that i think most things are possible as long as you're coherent about it (so there's not much of an absolute "wrong" or "right" imo, even if you're going against some specific canonically stated thing. also because even canon contradicts itself at times so who cares really? lol) and that when i reply to people i don't ever mean to discredit them even if i disagree (unless they are coming up with baseless "facts" and claiming them as canon. but even then it's more so a case of "you are free to believe what you want, but you can't claim that's in the text because it's not" than it is about "you are absolutely wrong and what you're saying would be impossible in any scenario")

and i think i could never be involved in fandom drama just because i find it a little silly tbh (at least with the things i post and interact with). like i get it when it happens if someone is particularly problematique but if it's just about like personal interpretations of a movie/comic/whatever it seems pointless so i wouldn't really engage in or start any drama like that. like i think i might have posts that sound like starting drama (maybe with things like "if you think X then you are stupid"?) but that's just how i make jokes sometimes unfortunately lol (that is to say, posts like that aren't directed at any specific person and aren't meant to be taken seriously at all. most of the times when i'm being mean it's just because i think being mean is funny but i don't actually intend on insulting anyone)

and re: kinnies like... i'm not one and i won't say i even understand what any of it is about but like afaik it's about identifying with characters, right? which i guess could mean to some people that fictives are "inherently more biased" because their interpretations come from a more personal place of deeply identifying with a character and not from "an objective reader's perspective" or whatever. but tbh i think everyone has some bias from personal rl experiences and even from identifying with characters/situations (even if not on a kin-level necessarily). so like i wouldn't discredit someone or think they are stupid or "too biased" just for being kin with a character because i think everyone is biased in some way or another, it's just that kinnies are more outright about their own bias lol

also: if i ever come across as rude or dismissive or anything like that, please let me know! it's most likely not my intention at all and it's probably just a case of me using words poorly or me making a dumb joke, but in any case you can let me to know so i can clear up misunderstandings and learn from my mistakes. 

[paulatoo]

To impeach or not to impeach has taken center stage... for a minute anyway.

Now that the Mueller report is out the question of to impeach or not to impeach has taken center stage.  Sadly even before the time that President Trump took office there was a ruling that lying politicians are allowed to because campaign rhetoric, for some reason, doesn't carry the same weight as a lie in any other situation.  To some extent there's a benefit to that for any otherwise honest candidates who get into office and find themselves unable to fulfill campaign promises.

However, in a situation where you have individual chronically, habitually and intentionally disseminating false information, especially when they are using the Office of the President of the United States as their platform, we need to have an option for removal.  For those reasons I think the Republican Party should have moved to remove him at most three months into his presidency.

The Mueller report is detailing a lot of the ways Russia has attempt to interfere with our elections, actual areas of interference, covering some of the interactions between Donald J Trump and Russia that predate his candidacy,  and his obstruction of/attempts to obstruct the investigation in to those things, impeachment is a buzzword.

I'd like to look at these options even though I'm more strongly in favor of removing him from office via the 25th Amendment and think that that is long overdue as well.

First question: Is there enough evidence to impeach successfully?  Although we do not have option to view the unredacted information in the Mueller report, that may contain information that could verify a successful impeachment, is there enough evidence to bring a strong enough case to actually successfully impeach Trump?

To remind you Despite what Donald says, there is a lot of evidence in the Mueller report, he definitely repeatedly at least attempts to obstruct justice or ordered an obstructionary act.  Fortunately for him now, the people who President Trump told or ordered to obstruct the investigation, or fire someone, or otherwise stop, silence, etc. didn't listen to him.  His reaction to that has been to trash those individuals all over the place on Twitter and in the press, when he should be thanking them so that takes us back to the 25th Amendment.  Then there is Trump & Putin referring to all of this as a ‘mouse’. 

If they attempt to impeach Trump and fail( primarily due to the overly Republican Senate having and cashed in the security of the country in favor of maintaining a unified front, regardless of the fact that's a President could potentially be working on behalf of Russia, or even another foreign national to bring down the country. It's not like we're seeing the 1990s Lindsey Graham trying to hold Bill Clinton accountable, sadly he's gone the opposite direction this time, quoting misleading statements. Do they have him too? Btw I was not Bill Clinton’s biggest fan back then either) would that preclude him being charged once the protections of the office of a sitting President are removed?  Reportedly no, even post successful impeachment, he could still be charged, but post impeachment the court would most likely go easier on him since he already had penalties placed on him by virtue of the impeachment.

At this point it is my understanding that the Trump 2020 campaign could be run under the slogan: ‘Please vote for me, I don't want to go to jail’. Will he be charged when leaving office if he's not impeached or removed under the 25th amendment? We will have to wait and see. http://time.com/5123598/president-trump-impeach-criminal-constitution/

What will the tear in the societal fabric be when unfortunately, despite the evidence in both the congressional election interference investigations and Mueller report, many Republicans still don't understand what has been happening with Donald Trump and Russia. The stuff he keeps claiming is a hoax (when there's definitely, proven times over, been interference and interference attempts by Russia and other countries in our electoral process and in our society as a whole.) Information that the Senate Investigative Committee publish in 2018 (The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) July 3, 2018 https://www.burr.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SSCI%20ICA%20ASSESSMENT_FINALJULY3.pdf ) (Remember they also released information on many of the false Facebook pages & ads as well as other social media accounts involved.) The things Trump has still been dismissive about if not straight up denying.  More of Trump & Putin’s ‘mouse’.

What will the cost of not acting be?  The lack of action on the part of the Republican majority and super-majority has already made it acceptable for another highly contradictory, pathological liar to behave in the ways that Donald Trump has behaved in office going forward. God knows Nixon must be on full spin rotation in his grave during this Presidency. I am not sure we can afford this Presidency let alone this precedent.

If no action is taken will the message going forward be that it's okay to at least strongly attempt to obstruct Justice? Will being charged, and possibly landing in prison, after leaving office be enough of a deterrent to prevent future presidents from obstructing justice?

As I said earlier I think the Republican party should have removed him from office very shortly after he took office for all the other things he does wrong.  The whole of the country should remove him from office, invoking the 25th Amendment because of the things he does and says, and the way he behaves so very inconsistently and untruthfully.  Not long ago he was claiming his own father, born in New York City, was actually born in Germany.  Prior to his campaign he was claiming President Obama was not a United States citizen.  

There are lines that can be drawn to separate the difference of a misstatement, or something that turns out not to be true(singular event, or very infrequent event done without the intent to fool or defraud) from a fraud, and intentionally, pathologically misstating information and flat out lying, as well as the crazy statements he makes to prevent abuse of this precedent in the future.

As badly as I want this incompetent, divisive, liar out of office, even I am weary of the continual hearings. If you don’t know me I am sure it is hard to read this & believe I am nonpartisan, but it’s not about Rep vs. Dem or Ind or any of the other 20+ political parties.  It is about behavior & protecting my country.  All I can do is assure you that I would react the same way to anyone from any party behaving this way.

Again, I was not Bill Clinton’s biggest fan back then either. The Republican Party has lost me at least the Democrats have done a better job of consistently presenting factual information this century to date. Hopefully when DJT is done breaking the Republicans they can choose truth over spin, and we will all have more honest trustworthy politicians until we  https://paulatoo.tumblr.com/post/176167819317/tired-of-congress-not-getting-things-done-not  anyway. 

I think it’s beyond time that Republican members of Congress start using facts to educate their party and American’s in general, but most of them are acting like a Democrat will replace an impeached Trump instead of Pence, that’s concerning on it’s own.

We didn’t start the fire, but we need to put it out!  What other choice do we have to preserve our legal & behavioral standards for the office of the president, or any office really? I am already very concerned about what we are going to do when another Donald Trump type candidate, without the 30 years of public red flags, comes along.  If people could be so fooled by this one how will we ever avoid another less obvious one?

Some resources for the honest politicians & honest ads movement

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/great-leaders-may-lie-but-great-liars-dont-lead-2016-07-06

I think between partyist political spin machines & multination interference via social media inroads manipulating opinions https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/when-lying-demagogue-authentic-candidate Lying ads https://www.natcom.org/communication-currents/political-speech-protection-and-supreme-court-united-states Sword cuts both ways http://www.klrn.org/blogs/texas-week/this-isnt-first-time-a-judges-ruling-considered-political-rhetoric/ “Where false claims are made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable considerations, say offers of employment, it is well established that the Government may restrict speech without affronting the First Amendment. See, e.g., Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U. S., at 771 (noting that fraudulent speech generally falls outside the protections of the First Amendment)” &” But to recite the Government’s compelling interests is not to end the matter. The First Amendment requires that the Government’s chosen restriction on the speech at issue be “actually necessary” to achieve its interest. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at12). There must be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented. See ibid.” Justice Kennedy, UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf  I think the last few years prove we are closer to establishing a link to demolish lies told from being protected as political rhetoric, hopefully anyway.  In an environment where so much spin & misinformation is allowed to grow & spread too many people seem unable to discern truth from lies at the expense of all of us. 

Please note that I rabbit holed my way into that First Amendment information by, instead of just emotionally reacting to the headlines(in this case a synopsis I found inflaming):” The Court held that the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to lie about having received military honors or decorations, violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.” https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/supreme-court-cases/ I read on to discover it wasn’t pro imitator as much as anti-poorly written law.  Researching past click bait headlines is part of our best defense against manipulation and poor decision making.  One thing we can thank the Trump campaign above others for is pointing out how misinformed how many people are, even in the information age.  I pray we learn from that soon, but sadly still see people sharing opinions, articles & videos with headlines they support, but content they may not agree with.